David Frum, another has been neo-conservative has been getting an awful lot of press the last couple of days. So much so that I don’t even think any citation is needed. Defeatism, apparently, is like beauty, in the eye of the beholder. Oh, alright, HERE is one example.
Taking on the socialist’s / communist’s at every opportunity is what we, the people, wanted our elected representatives to do. Not work with them, no not at all. We, the people, call us The Tea Party or whatever, don’t want, or need your type of RINO faux conservatism.
You, and your phony blue bloods do not represent what we want, nor what we need. Nor are we quitters that would rather “compromise” away our beliefs.
If indeed we do take it on the chin come this November we will at least know that we took the fight to them, and never surrendered.
No compromise Mister Frum, none, none at all. Not when it comes to our rights as stated under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Not when it comes to our Natural Rights or our shared Common Law Rights.
Your choice Republican’s. You can do what is moral and correct. Or you can continue to prostitute yourselves by “working with” the Democrat machine. You need us. We do not have any need, or desire for you to get on board if you and yours are still not willing to take a stand, and boldly hold to the shared values of the American people.
Tags: David Frum, democrat/communist/socialist, neo-conservatives, News, Politics, RINO, tea party
Conservative Libertarian Outpost 
March 25, 2010 at 09:59
NO RINOs… What part of that do they NOT get??
LikeLike
March 25, 2010 at 14:40
Must be beyond their comprehension level Fred.
LikeLike
March 25, 2010 at 17:55
[…] Frum is a […]
LikeLike
March 26, 2010 at 06:40
Conservatives and Republicans are certainly not synonymous – I have fellow conservatives that consider themselves lifelong Democrats who are just as upset with the current Administration as I am and did not vote for the current crop of Leftwingers calling the shots.
I suppose that I actually feel more comfortable with Libertarians and populists than “blue-blood conservatives”, but I have little use for the so-called “moderates” (“RINO’s, if you will) who are unwilling to condemn the denial of the will of the people and the acceptance of the sleaze and downright unethical practices that seem to characterize the actions of so many of our Congressional representatives.
It is time for the people to reject the would-be rulers of Washington and take back our government. The question is, are there enough free people left who have not accepted governmental dominance in the form of entitlements (bribes) to demand that our politicians do what their job titles require?
LikeLike
March 26, 2010 at 06:48
Well Maine, as a friend of mine likes to say, perzactly!
LikeLike
March 26, 2010 at 14:47
Don’t you think Frum may have had a point? What good did all of the grandstanding obstruction do for the Republicans anyway? If the GOP would have accepted the inevitability of health reform last year, we could have had a better, more fiscally responsible and conservative law today.
Regardless of whether or not you like David Frum or think he belongs at the American Enterprise Institute, doesn’t it now seem clear that the lockstep conservative opposition to health reform may have sacrificed real long-term conservative policy goals?
Set aside for a moment the fact that the bill just signed into law by President Obama is, in fact, fairly moderate to begin with and think of what else could have been added to or subtracted from it if the GOP would have offered even 15 measly votes between both chambers.
For a few Republican ayes, maybe we could have avoided the increase in Medicare payroll taxes and replaced it with the Republican idea of capping the tax break for employer-sponsored insurance.
Democrats would have been happy to sacrifice support from part of their base to include strong tort-reform, if only a couple of Republican Senators were willing to provide the bipartisan-seal-of-approval. Same is true with health-savings accounts and many other conservative ideas.
Instead, whatever interest there was in actually improving this bill from a conservative standpoint was completely overshadowed by the rabid, thoughtless, and selfish desire of Republican lawmakers to score political points.
Obstructionism failed.
Even though polls on the health reform bill are already turning around, and President Obama’s approval is inching up, Republicans still may capture the few seats they spent all year using their No-To-Everything strategy to win.
But in the end–with all the end-of-the-world-rhetoric about this bill in it’s current form–are any electoral victories going to be worth the lost opportunity to craft a more conservative version of reform? We know how important it was for Obama to make this look like a bipartisan bill, he would have given a lot for some Republican votes.
I don’t personally like Frum, and I’m not trying to stick up for him, it just seems he may have had a point here.
And even more disappointing, if he did have a point, what does his excommunication from the conservative movement tell you about the future of the Republican Party and the Right in this country?
LikeLike
March 27, 2010 at 07:09
Yes Chris, I do think he had a point. That of compromise and defeat. As far as the Conservatives not participating? That’s not what the letters that I received from my Congresswoman said. They were slapped aside at every turn.
I will not even go into all the bad things in the bill. Those have all been very well publicized. Or the things that are pretty blatantly un-Constitutional. As those have been covered pretty well all over the net.
The time came to draw a line in the sand. I for one, am proud of the legislators that didn’t cave in, and actually honored the oath that they took when they became Congressmen and Senators.
Thanks for stopping by and commenting.
LikeLike
March 27, 2010 at 07:24
And Chris, you might want to look at this:
http://www.examiner.com/x-37620-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m3d26-Pelosi-celebrates-approval-of-final-HC-bill-that-slaps-taxes-on-disabled-and-children
LikeLike
March 27, 2010 at 08:18
Obstructionism? That’s what all of the suggestions offered by the Republicans amounted to? The Health Care Reform Bill is “moderate”?
That Kool Aid must be mighty tasty, Chris. Must be helpful for your already tenuous grip on reality.
Conservative goals tend to be based on principle and do not require bribery on a massive scale to support passage of legislation.
LikeLike
March 27, 2010 at 17:33
Well stated Maine.
LikeLike
March 27, 2010 at 20:49
I realize that the news cycle has been spinning for a while about how radical this bill is but that’s just not the case. The part that most are calling “unconstitutional” is the mandate, right?
That same mandate was presented to the United States Senate back in 1993 by a group of Republicans in the ‘‘Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993,’’ Some Signatories were: Sens. Chafee, Dole, Bond, Hatch, Grassley, and Lugar.
From Subtitle F of Said Republican Bill:
“Universal Coverage – Requires each citizen or lawful permanent resident to be covered under a qualified health plan or equivalent health care program by January 1, 2005.”
(PDF of entire bill: http://tinyurl.com/93billpdf
The individual mandate was also proposed and advocated for strongly by none other than the Heritage Foundation. Back then though, rather than being unconstitutional, it was a great way to encourage that age-old Conservative principle of “individual responsibility.”
Same is true of Mitt Romney’s plan, which actually happens to be nearly identical to the one just passed and signed into law.
I understand and respect that there is a philosophy some adhere to that calls for almost no government, and I realize that this sort of health care legislation is antithetical to that particular set of beliefs.
To people adhering to the fervent anti-government movement, this bill seems radical and liberal and a lot like Socialism. I am not arguing against the right of people to be passionate about their beliefs. I am not even arguing against those members of the TeaParty movement who are so worked up that facts don’t seem to matter anymore.
I am not saying that anyone is necessarily “wrong” to believe that any government action done by Democrats is radical socialism. We’re all entitled to our own opinions.
Instead, what I am talking about is the serious health reform policy debate that has been taking place in this country between the Left and Right for decades.
Because this post was about David Frum, I figured discussing the policies proposed by the think-tanks and advocacy groups he was/is associated with would be more germane to the discussion. I know it’s easy to talk about Kool Aid and bribery and FEMA Concentration camps, but that’s not what I was after here mainenowandthen.
Back on topic then: It is an empirical fact that, compared with what the actual “Liberals” in this country want, the bill Congress passed is a moderate endeavor. It is also a fact that this bill isn’t that much different from what Republicans were pushing for back in the early 90’s to combat HillaryCare. We also know that it is very close to Romney’s plan.
Another fact: Real liberals and actual Socialists like Senator Bernie Sanders advocate for a Medicare-for-all, single payer health care policy. You can make the argument that the health reform bill is the first step on the road to ruin, or that it creates a slippery slope, etc. But one thing is certain, what was passed in this country is not even close to Socialism.
And depending on who you’re talking to (and just who happens to be in the White House), this bill is not unconstitutional. It’s funny that whenever Republicans are in control, the Federal Government and the Executive Branch have unlimited power. . .fuck the 10th amendment.
Did you know that one of the more prominent signatories on the multi-state lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the HCR bill was writing editorials in favor of health insurance mandates as recently as June 2009?
That’s right, Attorney General Greg Abbot from the great conservative state of Texas wrote editorials in favor of mandated health care in his state last year when he was pushing for it. Now that the Democrats have a mandate in their law he has predictably reversed his position completely and would just rather not talk about June 2009 thank you very much.
Again, I am not saying that people don’t have the right to their own opinion about what government should or shouldn’t do. I am all for strong opposing parties. It makes us a stronger nation. But when you have the same group of people who were advocating for a similar policy calling the Democrat’s plan Socialism and Armageddon, it just isn’t a serious debate anymore. That’s just them trying to get you all worked up about something they know full well is not “The end of America as we Know it.”
I think that is where David Frum was coming from. Because he has been in the conservative movement since Reagan and helped to defeat HillaryCare in the 90’s, he thought the GOP plan of telling Democrats they would never get a single Republican vote from the beginning of the debate sacrificed what could have been a significant win for conservatives.
All the Republicans in government claim to agree that something needs to be done to reform our health care system, why didn’t they put as much effort into getting their principled, “Common-Sense-Conservative Solutions” in the bill as they did demonizing it?
By promising not to vote on the bill no matter what, Republicans gave the Democrats no reason to listen to their input. And the Democrats still included hundreds of Republican amendments and ideas in the bill and wasted months capitulating to GOP Senators.
Do you not remember the “Gang of Six” in the Senate Finance Committee creating the original Senate Bill? All Summer Democrat Max Baucus negotiated with 2 Democrats and 3 Republicans to make it fair, even though the actual Finance Committee was stacked with Democrats and Baucus could have rammed through almost whatever he wanted within a week.
Don’t you remember that? Everyone waiting for Chuck Grassley and Baucus to work out their differences. Everyone wondering if Olympia Snowe would vote for the bill if Baucus gave her this or that.
The Democrats finally stopped listening to Republicans and letting them hold everything up, but not until they realized that no matter how hard they tried, not one Republican would vote for the bill. There was plenty of Republican input in this bill and the final product is not a radical Left-Wing vision of a Socialist Utopia.
I mean, back when Obama and the rest of the Democrats were campaigning, health care reform was a huge part of the discussion. People were talking about a public option, some mentioned single payer, and everyone talked about the mandate. Hillary was for a mandate and Obama claimed to be against it back then. I even have a tape of Mitt Romney at a GOP primary debate sparring with Fred Thompson about why Romney was for a mandate.
The American people elected Obama and gave him an overwhelming majority in the House and Senate, and they did so *because* of the things he said he would do about health insurance and global warming and all the other things everyone on the Right is calling Marxism.
The fact is, so far the things Obama has done haven’t been radical Socialism by any stretch of the imagination. Richard Fucking Nixon proposed a health reform plan more liberal than the one Obama signed.
He’s fighting the war in Afghanistan harder than Bush ever did. And no matter how much you hear about it on talk radio and Fox News, you’re taxes haven’t gone up since he has been in office. In fact, the stimulus bill everyone calls a government takeover of menstrual cycles or whatever, was OVER 40% TAX CUTS!! Now, whether taxes will have to be raised on those making less than $250,000 in the future is a real debate. But I digress.
I commented on this blog because I thought there would be a respectful exchange of ideas, not “Kool Aid” remarks and ad hominem attacks. It’s easy enough to find that elsewhere Mr. mainenowandthen.
I appreciate you letting me comment on your blog Patrick Sperry, and hope to have more discussions in the future.
Sources:
–The GOP health care bill from 1993: –> http://tinyurl.com/93bill
–The pro-mandate Editorial penned by Texas AG in 09:
–> http://tinyurl.com/texasagoped
–The Conservative National Review praising Romney and his experience with health care reform:
–> http://tinyurl.com/natrevromney
I don’t know if any of you read the Frum piece that “broke the camel’s back” so to speak over at the A.E.I. If you’re interested, it’s here:
–> http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo
Real Liberal’s bashing the health care bill, pointing out the similarities to Heritage Foundation’s 1994 bill, Romney’s bill, etc.:
–> http://tinyurl.com/pissedliberals
If there’s anything else you want to look at, let me know. Thanks for the conversation Patrick.
LikeLike
March 27, 2010 at 20:52
Just realized that clicking on the link to the PDF of the 93 HCR bill doesn’t work, but it’s only because the “)” symbol got linked up with the URL. Just cut and paste it if you want, and be sure to leave the ) there. Or click on the link and then just delete the ) in your task bar. Sorry for the inconvenience.
LikeLike
March 27, 2010 at 23:19
Not a problem Chris, I fixed it and it works now. 🙂
On to bigger and better things. Back in the day,as it is said, when those so-called Conservatives supported their version of mandatory health care? I was a card carrying Libertarian, and was just as opposed to it then, as I am now.
Further, no where in the Constitution is the Federal Government endowed with the power to force anyone to purchase any good or service. Think about it? Even mandatory vehicle insurance is based upon State laws, then only if you have a vehicle. As you noted, this should, if at all be something regulated via the Tenth Amendment.
As far as your comments regards the prosecution of the two wars? Bush blew it on the first one, Afghanistan, and never should have taken us into Iraq in the first place. Even if they did have WMD’s or not. Saddam and company were very bad people, very bad indeed. A bullet or two in just the right places, and that would have been taken care of with a lot less trouble.
But, well? Someone, now who would that be..? Gutted our intelligence services. Not to mention passed on the opportunity to have bin Laden’s head on a platter when it was offered to him by the Sudanese. Bottom line? It’s all water under the bridge now, and we are in the middle of asymmetrical warfare that very well might not come to an end anytime in the near future.
Thanks for stopping by Chris.
LikeLike
March 27, 2010 at 23:53
Hey, looks like we agree on more things that I realized. I am unsure about the constitutionality of the mandate though. Even the examples I wrote about are all STATE government mandates now that I think about it. But what about Article VI:
“THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE
Article. VI.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
It’s hard to know who’s right on state’s rights issues, we all remember the Civil War. Can’t really argue that when a group of states decide they’ll keep treating one portion of the population as subhuman slaves that the government shouldn’t step in on behalf of those individuals.
But then I think about how ridiculous it is when the Federal Government refuses to listen to the voters in the states and sends DEA agents to kick down doors looking for medical marijuana.
I say if a certain state puts the issue of health care reform on the ballot and a majority of its citizens vote to reject the bill, then so be it.
But the lawsuit being brought by that group of AGs is not serious. It doesn’t list any past Supreme court precedents and really doesn’t even mention a law throughout the whole complaint. It’s basically just a list of Boehner’s talking points put into lawsuit form.
Here’s the full thing if you’re interested (PDF) –> http://tinyurl.com/aglawsuit
Needless to say, the next couple of years are going to be interesting. No, Scratch that. They’re going to be Momentous.
LikeLike
March 27, 2010 at 23:54
“. . .more things *than* I realized” Hate when I do that.
LikeLike
March 28, 2010 at 07:17
*chuckles* Not to worry Chris, typonese is our second language here.
First; just because something has yet to be tested in the courts means nothing. Especially when something of this magnitude has never been done before. There are Tenth Amendment issues, as well as commerce clause issues, and so on. Note: virtually all the the Conservative “fixes” that my Congresswoman proposed? Would have brought Healthcare squarely under the commerce clause. Things like interstate pooling and such.
As far as the Civil War, as many insist on calling “The War of Northern Aggression?” The slave issue had very little to do with it despite what is printed in the history books. That is borne out by various things that occurred during those times. The Emancipation Proclamation only applying to those slaves that were in the area controlled by the Confederacy being the icing on the cake there.
Do we want to go there again? Of course not, and if anyone intimates that I support such a thing they need to get their medication levels checked. Then again, there will be no more Waco’s going unanswered. You noted DEA thuggery but what about ATF entrapment and doctoring of evidence? That is business as usual there…
Anytime a group of State Attorneys General band together there has to be more to the issue than simple talking points. Most often they are like a group of ally cats seeking self recognition, turf, and little more. Herding them is well? Like herding cats!
I am also thinking that the world is about to be turned on it’s head in the next few years, and no, my feelings are not based upon Mayan prophecy! LOL!
LikeLike
March 28, 2010 at 08:16
Efforts to impose a national health care system in the past have failed (no matter which party has proposed them) because of public opposition. The latest effort was signed into law mainly through bribery and avoidance of standard legislative procedures – and a complete disdain for public opinion. If this legislation had depended upon approval by each individual state, then it would never have been enacted.
Dominance by the Federal government is something that I am against and I don’t care which party is trying to implement it. Bringing up the old saw that “they (name your party or politician) did it, too” does not provide any legitimacy for the transgressions routinely advanced by the current administration.
Chris, I acknowledge that the “Kool Aid” comment was an unworthy comment and it is withdrawn. Your following arguments have been more carefully constructed, although I still am unable to accept that opponents to the Progressive agenda are simply being obstructionist out of spite. That is newly constructed dogma and ignores the refusal of Pelosi and the House to consider any input by the opposition. Harry Reid and the Senate majority have been somewhat more considerate, but still ignore most suggestions by the other side.
The constitutionality of Federal mandates is an issue that has been brewing for a long time and will ultimately be brought to a test in the Supreme Court.
I agree that constructive discussion is not aided by pejorative commentary or appellations. On the other hand, you have proved that you can hold up your own end and I look forward to seeing more comments from you.
LikeLike
March 28, 2010 at 08:21
By the way, “Richard F—–g Nixon”? If we are going to discuss issues in a reasonable fashion, can we do it without vulgarity?
LikeLike
March 28, 2010 at 08:29
*chuckles*
This is starting to look like Randori with word Katana’s!
LikeLike
March 28, 2010 at 08:55
Hey guys, I just found an interesting read that is related.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/wishful-thinking/
LikeLike
March 28, 2010 at 13:19
Great link, Patrick. Thanks for including it.
Here in Maine, we have seen what a massive mess State regulation and interference can do to medical care. With a mass of legislative demands, state bureaucrats have indeed chased away competition and saddled those looking for health care coverage with the only choices available being an extremely expensive provider (Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield) or, if one can only manage to qualify, a state-funded (meaning taxpayers foot the bill) alternative that is even more expensive and has not taken any more applicants for several years because appropriate funding cannot be found.
That is a great article, particularly when it points out that no one knows what is in that incomprehensible 2,700 page monstrosity nor can anyone accurately predict what costs will be since future regulatory decisions will have such a great impact on prices.
Yep, in this case “reform” is a true misnomer since making things better was never the intent to begin with.
LikeLike
March 28, 2010 at 17:52
Touché on the Richard Fu**ing Nixon comment mainenowandthen.
What regulations imposed on Maine are you referring to? I am not familiar with the state regulations there.
I am personally starting to wonder why, if health insurance is going to remain something we all need to have in order to get necessary health care (without spreading the costs to everyone else through expensive unpaid emergency room visits) we shouldn’t insist all the money we put into insurance should end up paying our health care costs. Or at least as much of it as possible.
I just can’t justify a reason in my mind for why private health insurance companies should exist.
Perhaps it’s because I have never experienced the much maligned bureaucratic nightmare of government controlled health insurance, but to me the idea that less of my money would be spent on overhead and profit sounds like a good one. Would it really be so bad to replace the insurance company bureaucrats with government ones?
I mean, If none of the money we all spend on health care (/insurance) in this country went to the salaries or bonuses or dividends of the private health insurance companies and their shareholders, wouldn’t we get a lot more bang for our buck?
It seems unfair to even compare Medicare to a company like Aetna or Blue Cross because so much of the money taken in by private companies never even goes toward any health care, it has to take care of the shareholders and executives and employees first.
What if ‘we the people’ and our government set up health insurance for everyone by re-purposing all the money spent on private health insurance into a simple, guaranteed health insurance program for every citizen of the United States? What if instead of 78 cents of every dollar going toward health care, 94 cents of every dollar went to health care? Couldn’t we, in theory, cover more people and even bring down the cost of health care all around?
Don’t misunderstand me, I am leery of government run health insurance, so I am not whole-heartedly backing a single payer system here, mainly because I am sure it wouldn’t be as smooth and efficient as I imagine. But all of the experience I have had with private health insurance companies hasn’t left me with a good opinion of them either. I don’t know if a single payer system would be any better, but I can’t see it being any worse.
Explain to me why a single payer system without any need for profit margins would be so terrible. Seriously, convince me that we are better off leaving health insurance in the hands of the private companies. I am eager to find a reason that makes sense to me. [(And I am not being sarcastic here, I seriously would like someone to explain it to me because, like I said, I just don’t understand why private health Ins. Companies need to exist.)]
I have been fighting with Aetna since last April to get a measly $560 dollars that is owed to me from December of 2008. They keep losing the forms I send in or entering the information wrong or sending me letters explaining why they can’t pay me for reasons that have nothing to do with my situation. They know they owe me the money–they’ve admitted as much in writing more than once–but for whatever reason, I haven’t been able to get it. It’s been almost a year since they first screwed it up.
And on the other side of the coin, I look at my grandfather, who has government insurance through the VA, and more recently Medicare. He never has to fight or worry about his rates being jacked up, or wonder if the care he needs is going to be covered. He just goes to the hospital, or to his doctor and it’s taken care of.
And then there’s my father works at the VA, a system where the government actually employs the doctors. I know he does just as good a job as his counterparts in the private hospital across town from him do, and a single payer system like I’m talking about wouldn’t even be set up so that doctors are employees of the state. Only the insurance would be handled by a government program.
I just can’t for the life of me think of a reason why we should preserve the middle-men health insurance companies in this country. Why not cut them out and do it ourselves so that nobody gets the chance to skim their cut off the top?
I Don’t think of it as some faceless bureaucrat running my life. Instead I think of it as ‘we the people’ and a government for us and by us doing something that would benefit everyone. Isn’t that what government is supposed to be for?
And as far as the Civil War goes Patrick, I know the disagreements between states in the South and the Federal Government/Northern States were greater than slavery. I understand the whole industrialized North-vs-cotton farming South paradigm and the taxation and trade regulation disputes, etc., etc.
But let’s just say, for the sake of argument, that a group of states decides to band together and do something that is not in the interest of the United States as a whole. What should be done in a situation like that? Should the Supremacy Clause allow the Federal Government to step in on behalf of the majority of citizens? Or should we let the entire country suffer as a result of the minority states’ decision based on some ambiguous State’s Rights claim?
I don’t mean to imply that this is the situation concerning health reform because it certainly isn’t. But just for the sake of conversation, what do you think should happen in a situation like that? I would personally advocate for majority rule and the intervention of the Federal Government of behalf of the majority of its citizens.
LikeLike
March 28, 2010 at 18:26
Thing of it is? This, or variations of it have been tried many times. The result, is always the same. Less availability, higher costs, lower quality, and a bureaucracy that is insufferable. I tend to believe the people that I have known, such as patients of citizens from places like Sweden and Canada. One and all, they disliked it, and state the obvious. American exceptionalism is best made obvious through the incredible strides in scientific medicine that are available here.
Insurance to cover those things though, does indeed need some fine tuning. I tend toward free market solutions rather than government ones myself. Co-Op business models have generally worked well in most applications, including some pretty big money one’s such as agriculture. Then there could be plans that are multi-state consortium’s. But, alas, the big bad federal government has so many restrictive regulations in place that start up would most probably be cost prohibitive. As for the rather serious problem of pre-existing illness or other high risk? Why not a national High Risk Insurance pool that anyone could join? It would only cover the really bad things, such as catastrophic illness or trauma..? Oops, there’s that big bad Federal Government getting in the way yet again!
Hmm, I just thought about that as I was sitting here typing. My Senators might just be getting an email about that idea! Ten bucks a month, per person, or twenty for a family. No payouts for two years after the program is instituted in order to establish a base… It would take a bit of number crunching, and I may well be a bit off some… But, the idea..?
Not to mention that it would be totally voluntary. It would not be forced upon anyone via “mob rule” also called democracy.
Now? Would there be a proper place for the federal, or hell? Even State Government in this little bombshell that just went off in my head? Of course there would be. Regulations pertaining to accounting practices, and contract fulfillment immediately come to mind. Without getting way to technical, the basic GAAP should be required to be followed. No funny methods of phony algebra where 2 plus 2 somehow extrapolates into 7 allowed. Contract fulfillment would be an obligation with the claims processor, his / her Supervisor, and the entire Board of Directors held criminally liable. If the patient dies, and lack of, or delay in treatment can be closely associated the the death? Then it’s Felony Manslaughter minimum for all those listed above. Yes, CEO’s would get a buy, but only for the first round, including misdemeanors. We cannot simply go and lock up the brains that keep the country going. After that? It would be hello Bubba, and how would you like your coffee this morning.
But? I digress.
LikeLike
March 28, 2010 at 19:01
Chris..? Whew! LMAO! I was posting at the same time that you were apparently. I answered many of the issues that you raise there, without even knowing what it was you were posting. In any case? Let’s go over them.
The V.A. a more dedicated group of people and Professionals would be hard to find. I am talking about staff and such. As a system though? It just plain sucks in most areas. Talk to the vets in Denver that travel to Wyoming to get care because Denver is overwhelmed. Talk to the Paramedics that take our Grandfathers and Grandmothers to the V.A. Hospital, in critical condition, only to be turned away because they do not accept “Emergencies.”
Chris? Talk to me about the many times that I took Medicare patients into a hospital and the needed care was denied by Medicare, and then? Back to the Nursing Home… to die when they didn’t have to…
Alright, I know that I was in a rant because of what I have seen actually happen over the years, and those were just a sample by the way… Once upon a time Chris, I was a Paramedic. Perhaps not the best, but I know darned well that I was good.
Then? We get to the efficiency of Government. Specifically, the workers therein. I happen to have known several of these workers, and I take insults to them rather seriously. The workers are not the problem Chris. It’s the dog gone bureaucrats and politicians that write the rules and regulations. My better half works for the DOI as a Geologist. She gets paid a pittance if she would be working in the Corporate world. But? She likes what she does, and believes in what she does. Unless either of us hits some windfall, the student loans will never be payed off…
Now, as regards the supremacy clause? That is boldly addressed in the Tenth Amendment. Enough said about that.
Democracy? You mean, I take it, that you endorse Mob Rule then? We are Chris, a Constitutional Republic. Not a democracy. For very good reasons, I might add. Democracy said that women didn’t have the brains that would make them capable of rational voting. For Blacks, Asians, etcetera as well.
Think Chris, the Bill of Rights… Perfect? Nope, and that is why it has been amended from time to time.
Use your brains Chris, I can tell that you are very intelligent. As always, thanks for stopping by.
LikeLike
March 28, 2010 at 19:09
Maine? Leave it to the generation of my father to spell things out so very well.
Sua Sponte, and Semper Fi Friend.
LikeLike
March 29, 2010 at 08:48
Patrick:
Retired Army here, but Semper Fi binds all of us together, my friend. I am certainly not surprised to learn more of your background. Common sense and commitment radiate from your posts. Thank you for your kind evaluation.
Chris:
Just a couple of points. The Maine Legislative branch, some years ago, allowed a non-profit branch of Blue Cross/Blue Shield to be purchased by Anthem and prices have skyrocketed ever since. Then, to further complicate matters, the Legislature decreed that coverage must embrace the most expensive and extensive programs available thereby causing most insurance carriers to leave the state. Government intrusion always results in cost increases, not decreases or even maintaining the status quo. Can you name one government program that has ever decreased costs to the taxpayer?
Private companies offer options to purchasers – an individual may decide that “catastrophic coverage” at a low cost is sufficient for a young, healthy person. That, to me, is the major advantage over a bloated, one-coverage-for-all program. Simply by dumping an additional 30-odd million people into the costs of any program will increase costs – not to mention the cost of creating a huge new bureaucracy to manage the new programs. Massachusetts is a fine example (and I don’t care which party initiated that program). The Finance Secretary of that state just recently went public and admitted that the program has run out of funds and is not sustainable.
Health care reform has nothing to do with “improvement”. It is all about increasing dependency and thereby control over citizens. One of these days, just about the only jobs available will be through the government.
Look how well that worked in places like Russia and, to a lesser extent, England, France, etc.
LikeLike
March 31, 2010 at 08:38
Related article here:
http://newsmax.com/Headline/Andrew-Napolitano-barack-obama/2010/03/26/id/354008
LikeLike