Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditToday's the 44th anniversary of Medicare, the single payer health insurance program that provides care for millions of senior citizens. It is the nightmare come true! Forty-three million of our citizens groaning under the yoke of socialism! I kid of course. The program, while not without its flaws, has displayed significantly less cost inflation than private insurance, has lower administrative costs and very high satisfaction among its participants. It's so politically popular that when red-state elected representatives go to town halls they hear things like: "keep your government hands off my Medicare" (!) from angry constituents. Yes.
This has got me thinking: Republicans opposed Medicare when it was created. They hate socialized medicine, government-run health care and the public option now. So why don't they put their money with their mouths are and propose scrapping Medicare? Any bills like this been introduced? If not, why not? I seriously think every single conservative and Republican caught railing against government run healthcare needs to be asked if they support disbanding Medicare.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
For once I completely agree with Christopher Hayes.
there is one question I have though.
Can we all get a refund on the decades that we paid into the fund?
Posted by antisocialist at 07/30/2009 @ 1:43pm
they try to kill medicare with a thousand cuts.
Medicare is starved of funds, something they do not do with their own and all other gov't employees health insurance.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/30/2009 @ 1:51pm
what you do for the least of you, you have done for me.
I paraphrase the Nazarene.
universal coverage. do it for Christ's sake.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/30/2009 @ 1:54pm
what you do for the least of you, you have done for me.
I paraphrase the Nazarene.
universal coverage. do it for Christ's sake.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/30/2009 @ 1:54pm
What else would you like? How about those who hate working, do we just take care of them? How about those who cannot afford a car, buy them one? How about a house, buy one for every family and individual? And what kind, how large?
The wants list is endless.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/30/2009 @ 2:07pm
Posted by antisocialist at 07/30/2009 @ 1:43pm
For once....well more than once...I agree with Larry!
About the part where these so-called "principled conservatives" in the Republican Party who hate the idea of "socialized Gov't-run totalitarian health care"...
putting a "We'll end Medicare" plank in the GOP platform for 2010 and 2012.
100% with you on that, LR.
Posted by Mask at 07/30/2009 @ 2:09pm
"The wants list is endless."
--dear god, make me a bird, so i can fly far, far far away from here. dear god...
Posted by urmygyro at 07/30/2009 @ 2:15pm
I wouldn't suggest nor would I support doing away with any programs that care for senior citizens. They built this country and are more entitled than anyone else to reap the fruits of their labor.
Medicare and medicaid should be shored up in the following ways:
1. Scrap The Obama health care plan in favor of the more compact reformation that I have suggested in other posts.
2.We have the best health care system in the world but it can be improved by instituting tort reform which will save a hundred billion or more a year from unnessary testing. Put this savings into Medicare and medicaid.
3. Create a national insurance policy that would be voluntary and obtainable at a modest premium per month. Anyone over the age of seventy should be provided this insurance free under the medicare and medicaid programs. A percentage of the take from premium payments should go directly into the M/M pot, the rest insuring the rest of the population. This is for catastrophic illness only, not accidents which auto insurance and lawsuits should take care of. Any member of the armed forces who injuries from combat or while serving should never have to pay a penny out of their own pocket, period.
4. Scrap the rest of the stimulus payout to the tune of hundreds of billions and transfer those funds into the refomed health care system, most going to shore up M/M. If we've only spent five percent of the stimulus money and the country is rebounding, as Obama claims, then the rest of the money isn't needed.
Then start working on improving Social Security
Posted by gunslinger1 at 07/30/2009 @ 2:19pm
"I wouldn't suggest nor would I support doing away with any programs that care for senior citizens."--------Posted by gunslinger1 at 07/30/2009 @ 2:19pm
HA!...see there, Larry. Another liberal marxist wanting to give away freebies in a totally un-Constitutional manner to a bunch of freeloaders who aren't paying any taxes like you and me! And wants to use a "top-down, socialist, Government-run, bureaucratic, totalitarian state 'health care' system"!
What are we going to do with these lefties???
Posted by Mask at 07/30/2009 @ 2:22pm
"HA!..."
--Interjection. Used as an exclamation of surprise, interrogation, suspicion, triumph, etc.
as in: GOTCHA!
Posted by urmygyro at 07/30/2009 @ 2:28pm
Posted by urmygyro at 07/30/2009 @ 2:28pm
"urmy"....see: "kibitzer"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kibitzer
Posted by Mask at 07/30/2009 @ 2:57pm
Medicare is a good example of an entitlement mentality -- though it's more a quasi socialism rather than the real thing. Medicare reimburses doctors for eligible beneficiaries, senior citizens of course. But those doctors aren't on the government payroll.
Medicare should have been a means-tested program when created, why millionaires should have the government pay for their health care is odd -- but generally only Republicans have proposed that. And when they do, they're accused of slashing it.
The best way to preserve and expand entitlements is spread them around to as many people as possible. What Obama is doing is to try and impose a government health insurance program for the rest of the population, which will have the effect of pushing out private insurance companies. And if that happens, doctors will effectively only have the government paying them -- they might as well be on the Federal payroll.
Some procedures still might be able to be paid out of pocket, but that is the other side --- Democrats in office regularly push to have more procedures added to the list of required coverage. That is bound to happen, maybe to include both viagra and birth control pills, who knows, maybe elective cosmetic surgery too.
At least the single power left-wing crowd are honest about what they want -- what seems to be percolating in Congress seems like a surreptitious effort to do the same thing over the long run.
Posted by J. Saxon at 07/30/2009 @ 2:58pm
i mean...how can one really argue with the true believers?
introduce facts and figures, present evidence and rational argument, and for what?
an entire industry of anarcho-libertarian ideology validation exists, pounding circles of reality into squares of pre-constructed mental scaffolding, for the explicit purpose of providing dupes with facty lies to support terrible policy choices which benefit none but those who plunk buzilliuons of $ into protecting their parasitical self interest...
one must begin to wonder if it might be easier, or even more cost effective, to pay a few taxes and do the right thing - in the long run, at least.
but the long run is a rough concept for these myopic souls...
Posted by dexter666 at 07/30/2009 @ 3:02pm
I agree with antisocialist here. As the Libertarian party states on its website: "As recently as the 1960s, low-cost health insurance was available to virtually everyone in America - including people with existing medical problems. Doctors made house calls. A hospital stay cost only a few days' pay. Charity hospitals were available to take care of families who could not afford to pay for healthcare. Today, more than 50 percent of all healthcare dollars are spent by the government. Health insurance costs are skyrocketing. Government health programs are heading for bankruptcy. Politicians continue to pile on the regulations."
They have good ideas: "1. Establish Medical Saving Accounts. Under this program, you could deposit tax-free money into a Medical Savings Account (MSA). Whenever you need the money to pay medical bills, you will be able to withdraw it. For individuals without an MSA, the Libertarian Party will work to make all healthcare expenditures 100 percent tax deductible.
2. Deregulate the healthcare industry. We should repeal all government policies that increase health costs and decrease the availability of medical services. For example, every state has laws that mandate coverage of specific disabilities and diseases. These laws reduce consumer choice and increase the cost of health insurance. By making insurance more expensive, mandated benefits increase the number of uninsured American workers.
3. Remove barriers to safe, affordable medicines. We should replace harmful government agencies like the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) with more agile, free-market alternatives. The mission of the FDA is to protect us from unsafe medicines..."
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 3:04pm
"...In fact, the FDA has driven up healthcare costs and deprived millions of Americans of much-needed treatments. For example, during a 10-year delay in approving Propanolol (a heart medication for treating angina and hypertension), approximately 100,000 people died who could have been treated with this lifesaving drug. Bureaucratic roadblocks kill sick Americans."
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 3:05pm
it's not as though single payer has never been tried before.
or that single payer is not a rousing success in the countries that have it.
or that no country that has single payer has changed it to the system we have here.
or that the system we have now is an expensive failure where the entire population is concerned.
facts are so inconvenient.
incidentally, I agree that medicare should be means tested. the rich do not need public health care, the rest of us do.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/30/2009 @ 3:19pm
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 3:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person
slavery is the result of too much "liberty" - its called anarchism.
when so much "liberty" exists that the strong are unrestrained and the weak left without structural recourse to oppose, "liberty" becomes an enabler of "slavery".
anarchy - the highest model of social-political order the adolescent brain can appreciate.
libertarianism - a modern american anarchic delusion
Posted by dexter666 at 07/30/2009 @ 3:20pm
Conservatives would LOVE to eradicate Medicare, but they know they'd have their heads handed to them.
So they just lie about it:
"If conservatives have real arguments against health care reform, then why do they have to lie about it so much?
Bill Kristol on the Daily Show:
"One reason the price of health care is going up so fast is because of government programs. The price of Medicare and Medicaid have gone up faster than private insurance. That's well-documented."
Ezra Klein corrects him (with supporting evidence):
It is true that the growth rates of Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance are well-documented. But the documentation shows the opposite of what Bill Kristol says it shows. The price of Medicare and Medicaid have gone up much more slowly than private insurance.
Marty Feldstein in WaPo yesterday:
Obama has said that he would favor a British-style "single payer" system in which the government owns the hospitals and the doctors are salaried but that he recognizes that such a shift would be too disruptive to the health-care industry.
Jon Chait corrects him:
Obama has never said that he favors a British-style health care system. Britain does not have a single-payer system. It has a socialized system, where the government directly employs all health care providers. Indeed, if you follow the link in Feldstein's own column, it says, "A single-payer system would eliminate private insurance companies and put a Medicare-like system into place where the government pays all health-care bills with tax dollars." Does Medicare own hospitals and pay doctors government salaries? No. Professor Feldstein, please stop writing about topics you know nothing about.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=24689
Posted by judybrowni at 07/30/2009 @ 3:27pm
Can we all get a refund on the decades that we paid into the fund?
Posted by antisocialist at 07/30/2009 @ 1:43pm | ignore this person | warn this person
It would be nice, would it not, if all of us could pick the things we GOTTA pay for, that the government does, and which we disagree with?
I can sure think of a few things......
Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/30/2009 @ 3:27pm
WELFARE NOW!!!!!!!
..........for Halliburton, &c.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/30/2009 @ 3:28pm
Jon Stewart Gets Kristol To Concede Government Can Provide ‘First-Class Health Care'
On The Daily Show, host Jon Stewart peppered right-wing pundit Bill Kristol with questions about why he is opposed to health care reform that includes a public health insurance option. Why is government-run health care "good enough for the military," but "not good enough for the people of America?" Stewart asked.
Kristol -- who has urged conservative activists and Republicans to "resist the temptation" to work with Democrats in crafting health reform and instead "go for the kill" -- responded that the military "deserves it," but the American people do not:
STEWART: Are you saying the American public shouldn't have access to the same quality health care that we give to our better citizens?
KRISTOL: To our soldiers? Absolutely. [Crowd boos]
Kristol explained that soldiers get paid less, but "one way we make it up to" them is by giving them "first-class health care." "I feel like you've trapped me somehow," Kristol observed. Indeed, Stewart explained the flaw in Kristol's logic:
STEWART: I just want to get this on record -- Bill Kristol just said that the government can run a first-class health care system.
KRISTOL: Sure it can. [Crowd applauds]
STEWART: And a government-run system is better than a private health care system.
Kristol tried to backtrack, saying he wasn't sure the military system is "better," and later argued that other government-run systems aren't providing the best health care.
Stewart wrapped up Kristol's argument by stating, "So what you are suggesting is that the government could run the best health care system for Americans, but it's a little too costly, so we should have the shitty insurance company health care." Watch it: http://tinyurl
Posted by judybrowni at 07/30/2009 @ 3:31pm
I had to PAY for "Dick" Cheney to get f*****g rich.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/30/2009 @ 3:31pm
"Does Medicare own hospitals and pay doctors government salaries? No."
This is true -- but if, as under single-payer, the government is the only payer in town, doctors and hospitals will have 98 percent of their funds coming from the government. Doctors may not be in the Federal bureaucracy, but payment schedules imposed by the Federal government would be imposed unilaterally.
How this is much different than actually being on the government salary GS levels is hard to tell. Except they wouldn't get Federal retirement benefits.
Posted by J. Saxon at 07/30/2009 @ 3:35pm
Sick of so-called Conservatives trying to screw up your healthcare?
Call Congress: Take the Pledge for the Public Option
Enough talk -- take ACTION!
http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/publicoption
Posted by judybrowni at 07/30/2009 @ 3:35pm
Profits Before People
Birther Roy Blunt has been on a rampage against Medicare, saying the other day the patent lie that "Medicare has never done anything to make people more healthy," despite the millions of healthy seniors on Medicare.
The anti-Medicare argument has been taking hold in other corners, with Rep. Tom Price, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, authoring an op-ed that mostly attacks Medicare as a reason the new Republican tax health care plan is a good idea:
Going down the path of more government will only compound the problem. While the stated goal remains noble, as a physician, I can attest that nothing has had a greater negative effect on the delivery of health care than the federal government's intrusion into medicine through Medicare. Because of Washington's one-size-fits-all approach, its flawed coverage rules and broken financing mechanisms, seniors are increasingly having care rationed while federal health spending spirals out of control.
This is, as we say in Washington, bull. Medicare covers virtually the entirety of our senior population, and does it at lower cost and higher quality.
And, that bull is just about the entirety of the Republican argument against health reform it seems: No health reform, because Medicare is awful.
Of course, the plan Price is pushing isn't so much of a plan and more of a John McCain retread, with lots of talk about taxes and no new ideas for how to lower our health care costs or provide more coverage at an affordable price.
But it's good to know Price hates Medicare. That puts him at odds with 86% of seniors, people who are actually on Medicare.
http://tinyurl.com/lflmbr
Posted by judybrowni at 07/30/2009 @ 3:35pm
WANT REAL HEALTHCARE? -- ACTION!
The August Plan to secure the Public Option
We will turn the Congressional vacation to our advantage. As the hated Murder by Spreadsheet insurance industry pummels the American people via the public airways with nonstop lies,we will systematically be contacting every member of the Progressive Caucus to demand that they pledge to vote against any bill that does not contain a strong public option.
We're rolling out a new tool to track the vacation schedules and movements of progressive members of Congress.
We're asking you to let us know where they'll be, we'll then post this information and ask people (especially constituents), to meet progressives wherever they are during the recess, and explain to them why they must take the Whip Count Pledge to hold the line in the House come September.
http://tinyurl.com/lhj6nv
Posted by judybrowni at 07/30/2009 @ 3:38pm
WHERE WILL YOUR CONGRESSPEOPLE BE DURING VACATION?
We're asking you to let us know where they'll be, we'll then post this information and ask people (especially constituents), to meet progressives wherever they are during the recess, and explain to them why they must take the Whip Count Pledge to hold the line in the House come September.
http://tinyurl.com/lhj6nv
Posted by judybrowni at 07/30/2009 @ 3:39pm
REAL CANADIANS SUPPORT "SOCIALIST" HEALTHCARE
"Amid all the hyperbole in the ongoing debate about the future of American health care, some of the most extreme public disagreements are over the experiences of our neighbors to the North, in Canada.
Many progressives say the Canadian system of universal care is an excellent role model for our own country. The the upfront costs of establishing such a system, they argue, would eventually be offset by the competitive advantages to American business.
By contrast, American conservatives see the Canadian approach as signifying the end of the freedom to choose your own doctor, the rationing of crucial treatments, and an enormous tax burden.
The argument has played out in congressional hearings, in full-page ads in national newspapers, online and in television commercials.
To see how well a universal health care system like Canada's actually works, the Huffington Post went straight to the source: actual Canadians.
In a decidedly unscientific survey, we emailed about a dozen Canadians with three basic questions, requesting they respond and pass the survey on. We asked which system they would prefer -- their system of universal care, or the U.S. system dominated by private insurers. In addition, we asked them to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the Canadian system. And some respondents volunteered personal stories about how they have been treated.
All of the two dozen people who wrote in said they preferred Canadian health care system.
"Anyone who cries 'Socialism!' or 'Communism!' to prevent Americans from achieving universal health care is a liar and a thief -- and more to the point, has plenty of money of his own. He's got his!" wrote Lori Covington. "
http://tinyurl.com/l725c6
Posted by judybrowni at 07/30/2009 @ 3:40pm
URGENT ACTION ALERT for SINGLE-PAYER
Our House of Representatives may vote as early as this week on its bill to reform the healthcare system. On July 17, 2009, the Education and Labor Committee approved an amendment offered by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-OH, to that bill that would allow states to pass and implement single-payer plans with the necessary federal ERISA rule waivers which might otherwise prevent states from doing so.
This was a huge victory for single-payer but if we are to build on this victory, we must act now. The Kucinich amendment must be retained.
http://tinyurl.com/l259b5
Posted by judybrowni at 07/30/2009 @ 3:47pm
J. Saxon....libertyforthe.....a question-
How many letters or e-mails have you sent into the RNC asking them to include a "Eliminate Medicare" plank to the platform?
If none....why?
Posted by Mask at 07/30/2009 @ 3:48pm
BTW, to answer Mr Hayes' question-
"So why don't they put their money with their mouths are and propose scrapping Medicare? Any bills like this been introduced? If not, why not?"
Same reason when they controlled the US House for 12 years, even the years with a GOP Senate and Dubya in the White House...
they never even had a COMMITTEE vote (much less a full floor vote in the House) on the "Human Life Amendment" ...which the RNC's own website states the Republican Party supposedly supports.
Posted by Mask at 07/30/2009 @ 3:50pm
Medicare is starved of funds, something they do not do with their own and all other gov't employees health insurance.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/30/2009 @ 1:51pm
the biggest lobby in canada is the insurance industry.
guess what's been happening here.
(even when the country was running a surplus for many years. until the CONservative harper pushed us into a deficit)
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/30/2009 @ 3:55pm
The wants list is endless.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/30/2009 @ 2:07pm
next they'll be asking for public firefighters!
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/30/2009 @ 3:57pm
"urmy"....see: "kibitzer"
Posted by Mask at 07/30/2009 @ 2:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person
mask, you can't self-apply nicknames. let your nickname happen organically
Posted by urmygyro at 07/30/2009 @ 3:57pm
free-market alternatives. FDA
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 3:04pm
wow.
you want drug companies to regulate themselves.
you must work at goldman.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/30/2009 @ 4:01pm
I'm with you, Chris! Better yet, fight the "creeping socialism" of government intereference by dumping ALL those nasty, commie, pinko programs: Medicare/ Medicaid, the new kids health program and, best of all, the VA. Perhaps the entire military? How about the FBI? the CIA, NSA, various alphabet soup ad nauseum. On the state level, you can go for roads, bridges, schools, parks, highway patrols (Californians will love this). And in local municipalities and counties, who needs firemen, police, water & sewer, garbage pickup. I mean really, who needs these things? Why can't we all just take care of our own little individual selves?? I've just got one more idea: All those politicians and government workers who presently feed at the public trough for their incredibly lavish medical insurance benefits should get the opportunity to experience American health care like so many of their constituents do. How about the nay-sayers get their medical insurance cancelled, since they don't think anybody needs it.
Posted by jmattei at 07/30/2009 @ 4:07pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/30/2009 @ 4:01pm
I'd certainly like to see what "free-market alternative plans" the libertarian party has in mind. The FDA was a good idea when it was created. But when hundreds of thousands of Americans have died from FDA incompetence, something has to be done. The FDA delayed testing one drug in the example I cited earlier for TEN YEARS after their tesing was supposed to be done. 100,000 people died as a result.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 4:19pm
"slavery is the result of too much "liberty" - its called anarchism."
I agree.
"when so much "liberty" exists that the strong are unrestrained and the weak left without structural recourse to oppose"
Who are the weak in your example? The poor? What should we do about them? Take most of the money made by those who manage their businesses well and produce profit in order to give it to failures indefinitely for decades even if they contribute nothing to society at all? Even though those whose success creates profit could expand their business and create more jobs if they were allowed to keep the money they earned? Why shouldn't people keep as much of what they earn as possible?
The poor aren't defenseless. They COULD earn more money if they worked harder. Eliminating their incentive to work by promising to indefinietly force others to pay for their living expenses for decades will not make them more motivated. Those who need a little extra help can get it from charity. Americans give more than $125 billion to charity every year. It is a proven fact that private charities give more efficient help to the needy than the government. Why should we tax people so damn heavily they cannot give to charity if we do so in order to give the government the funds needed for it to establish a welfare state KNOWING that it's efforts at charity will be less efficient than private charities at helping the downtrodden? Libertarians will cut taxes. They believe that the federal government should offer a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for contributions to private charities that provide social-welfare services. That is to say, if an individual gives a dollar to charity, he should be able to reduce his tax liability by a dollar.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 4:35pm
By the way, I think monopolies SHOULD be outlawed by the government. Allowing them misses the point of a free market. I oppose governmental and corporate monopolies and of course do not want corporate regulations of the economy.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 4:37pm
The FDA delayed testing one drug in the example I cited earlier for TEN YEARS after their tesing was supposed to be done. 100,000 people died as a result.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 4:19pm
Nice. So if we underfund, understaff and overwork a federal agency the answer is to do away with it? Why not just fix it? I for one don't know how many lives the FDA has saved from keeping harmful products off the market, my guess is more than 100 thousand. Yes it is possible that POTENTIALLY life saving drugs are not in use until they are vetted. That is of course the trade off between allowing POTENTIALLY deadly drugs from being circulated.
What sort of free market approach could regulate pharmacueticals? If enough people die from the use of a bad drug people won't buy it?
Posted by Extraneous at 07/30/2009 @ 4:40pm
BREAKING: 53 House Progressives Won't Vote for Blue Dog Compromise
And according to Charles Rangel, when the 3 committee bills get reconciled in the Rules Committee there will be a public plan.
Whether there will be one when the bill gets through the conference meat grinder with the Senate bill is another thing, which is why it's critically important you call them to take the Pledge:
http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/publicoption
"Dear Madame Speaker, Chairman Waxman, Chairman Rangel, and Chairman Miller:
We write to voice our opposition to the negotiated health care reform agreement under consideration in the Energy and Commerce Committee.
We regard the agreement reached by Chairman Waxman and several Blue Dog members of the Committee as fundamentally unacceptable. This agreement is not a step forward toward a good health care bill, but a large step backwards. Any bill that does not provide, at a minimum, for a public option with reimbursement rates based on Medicare rates - not negotiated rates - is unacceptable. It would ensure higher costs for the public plan, and would do nothing to achieve the goal of "keeping insurance companies honest," and their rates down.
To offset the increased costs incurred by adopting the provisions the agreement would reduce subsidies to low- and middle-income families, requiring them to pay a larger portion of their income for insurance premiums, and would impose an unfunded mandate on the states to pay for what were to have been Federal costs.
In short, this agreement will result in the public, both as insurance purchasers and as taxpayers, paying ever higher rates to insurance companies.
We simply cannot vote for such a proposal."
http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/publicoption
Posted by judybrowni at 07/30/2009 @ 4:42pm
completely agree. if conservatives really wanna stand on principle, they should campaign on a platform of eliminating the entire social safety net.
oh, boy would i love to see that free fall!
Posted by darladoon at 07/30/2009 @ 4:47pm
"I for one don't know how many lives the FDA has saved from keeping harmful products off the market, my guess is more than 100 thousand."
I agree. I explicitly stated that the FDA was a good idea originally. Something has to be done to reform it. The libertarian party has yet to spell out their plan on the matter, so I don't agree yet or disagree yet with whatever ideas they have in mind.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 4:52pm
"completely agree. if conservatives really wanna stand on principle, they should campaign on a platform of eliminating the entire social safety net. "
I agree. No to welfare, no to redistribution, no to Medicare, no to Medicade, no to the War on Drugs, no to government healthcare.
Both the right and left can agree here, that the right should stand on principle.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 4:55pm
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 4:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person
although largely i disagree with your pholosophical point of origin, i appreciate your coherent and polite espousal of it. let me pick apart some elements of your argument.
"Who are the weak in your example? The poor?"
wealth being pretty analogous to power, the powerless more susceptible to exploitation (of which "slavery" is an extreme example), yeah, relatively speaking.
"Take most of the money made by those who manage their businesses well and produce profit in order to give it to failures indefinitely for decades even if they contribute nothing to society at all?"
i would never consider such a thing. how could i possibly say yes to anything so obviously unfair and tyrannical? you, of course, are setting up an hyperbolized false alternative based upon misleading, vague, and arguable assumptions.
you assume those who begin business endeavors deserve everything they pay themselves and are the only important contributor to the success of that entity. (perhaps) you minimize the contributions to the success of such an entity by those who receive salary and wages, by those who consume the product of such entities as well as the social services and public policy needed to maintain an secure and healthy quality of life in which commerce can function smoothly.
i would assume that with what i know of human nature few who pay themselves more than a buzillion really "deserve" what they "make", and more than a few who do just such would agree...
Posted by dexter666 at 07/30/2009 @ 5:18pm
The poor aren't defenseless. They COULD earn more money if they worked harder.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 4:35pm
I only wish it was that black and white. Some of the hardest working people I know are also some of the poorest. Some of the laziest people I know are also quite well off.
Yes, I also know (or know of) people who are lazy and poor and rich and hard working. Its just not as simple as hard working productive people versus lazy leeches. Yes, that is sometimes the case. But not allways, because it is not always clear cut we need societal programs to help people.
There are a number of factors, that contribute and each case, each individual circumstance is different. I know of people who worked nice jobs until they were laid off, now they work 2 jobs and still make half of what they once did. I know of people who were injured an can no longer perform their trades, they barely get by. But it is not because they are lazy. I have a friend who quit her job to take care of her ailing mother, she collects food stamps now and other public assistance. Is she lazy?
I could go on, and there are numerous other scenarios, people who inherit all their wealth, people who don't have the means for education, etc. All factors in a persons economic standing. If only it was just about working hard, life would be so much simpler...
Posted by Extraneous at 07/30/2009 @ 5:49pm
Christopher, it's too bad you Lib writers are having a BIG problem coming up w/worthy threads.
As a matter of fact, if the media/entertainment industries weren't sleeping with Magic or going to work for him, can you imagine the amount of fuuuuuuuny material we would see on the late night shows and Saturday Night Live? Just Asshole-Gates is a wellspring of politically incorrect but surely hilarious All in the Family type of meatball humor! Damn, I miss those good ol days when comedies were funny and didn't have to rely on crude sexual BS for laughs!
On subject now....
Why should we Cons agitate for eliminating MediCare when we actually pay for it, like Social Security? Of all the taxing schemes for entitlements, at the least, this is a relatively fair tax, everybody pays, from the first dollar of income!!!!
Posted by Happy at 07/30/2009 @ 6:03pm
The wants list is endless.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/30/2009 @ 2:07pm
next they'll be asking for public firefighters!
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/30/2009 @ 3:57pm
That's provided for by local govt and the Federal govt has nothing to do with it.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/30/2009 @ 6:06pm
Posted by Extraneous at 07/30/2009 @ 5:49pm
I agree with everything you wrote. Most of what you said is about productive members of society hit by hard times who need a little extra help. As I wrote earlier: "Those who need a little extra help can get it from charity. Americans give more than $125 billion to charity every year...Libertarians will cut taxes. They believe that the federal government should offer a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for contributions to private charities that provide social-welfare services. That is to say, if an individual gives a dollar to charity, he should be able to reduce his tax liability by a dollar." Free markets always produce more wealth than markets plagued by both corporate and governmental monopolies. Libertarianism allows more people to keep more of what they earn. You can responsibly save up that money on your own rather than have the government take it from you in order to fund a failed and bankrupt system designed to help others in exchange for the promise that others will help you. You can invest it, save it, or spend it. Save it wisely, and you'll be protected from market downturns. Free markets are less likely, I think, to be hit by hard times in the first place.
What I really can't stand is the way delusional far-leftists embrace such obvious fallacies, such as the belief that individual corporations in America making more money than the GNP of respectable nations is proof that capitalism is a BAD thing. Some restraints on capitalism (no monopolies) are obviously neccessary, but America today is far too regulated in that regard. I will admit many libertarians can be too absolutist, but some of their radical ideas, like the one about charity I just mentioned, seem to me quite brilliant.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 6:08pm
Birther Roy Blunt has been on a rampage against Medicare,
Posted by judybrowni at 07/30/2009 @ 3:35pm
Do you have some evidence that Cong Blunt is one of the individuals questioning Obama's citizenship? If you don't, you just slandered a member of Congress.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/30/2009 @ 6:10pm
If only it was just about working hard, life would be so much simpler...
Posted by Extraneous at 07/30/2009 @ 5:49pm
You Libs are a strange breed!
You take all the traditional values and take great pride in pointing out it just ain't so 100% of the time.
I can imagine you folks teaching your little Johnnies and Katrinas:
You don't have to work hard when you grow up since it's not a guarantee you'll get proportionate benefit out of hard work, look at uncle HAPPY, he doesn't appear to do much, don't have to fight rush hours, don't have to dress-for-success......
You don't have to remain a virgin since you could be raped by someone you don't even love......
Don't always respect authority...just look at this Harvard professor who became famous by acting like an Asshole and get to go the Black House to have a beer (bet he didn't pay for it) with the President.
You don't need to always follow your teacher's advice to study since almost all of them play some form favoritism and maybe you could be on his preferred list....take him a mango every Friday.
Is that the ideal world you see? Of course, with health care for all and then, you tell your kids:
Don't worry about taking chances with eating, drinking....you'll never have to worry about paying for medical expenses.
Posted by Happy at 07/30/2009 @ 6:11pm
"i would never consider such a thing. how could i possibly say yes to anything so obviously unfair and tyrannical? you, of course, are setting up an hyperbolized false alternative based upon misleading, vague, and arguable assumptions."
All right, you've got me here.
"you assume those who begin business endeavors deserve everything they pay themselves and are the only important contributor to the success of that entity. (perhaps) you minimize the contributions to the success of such an entity by those who receive salary and wages, by those who consume the product of such entities as well as the social services and public policy needed to maintain an secure and healthy quality of life in which commerce can function smoothly."
Presumably, in most instances of someone founding a successful business, the founder contributes a great deal to their business' success. Employees integral to the success of such a business would have to be well compensated for their services if they made clear that they considered only a certain minimum to be sufficient compensation... if that business was to remain successful. There would not be enough consumers for the product to make the producer rich if the product was not of a quality deemed sufficient by those who consumed it.
If someone can afford to pay themselves more than they deserve while still keeping their company a success, that is a good thing.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 6:20pm
"If only it was just about working hard, life would be so much simpler..."
Posted by Extraneous at 07/30/2009 @ 5:49pm
"I can imagine you folks teaching your little Johnnies and Katrinas...<some stuff>"
Posted by Happy at 07/30/2009 @ 6:11pm
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
Posted by FLaim at 07/30/2009 @ 6:21pm
Democrats in office regularly push to have more procedures added to the list of required coverage. That is bound to happen, maybe to include both viagra and birth control pills, who knows, maybe elective cosmetic surgery too.
Posted by J. Saxon at 07/30/2009 @ 2:58pm
Birth Control Pills? Your joking right? Most insurance companies DO and HAPPILY cover birth control. I am sure you understand the economic aspect to that decision.
Posted by Extraneous at 07/30/2009 @ 6:22pm
Jon Stewart has the remarkable gift of exposing the insensitivity and callousness of people like Bill Kristol and Tucker Carlson.
Posted by jarshadow at 07/30/2009 @ 6:27pm
"just look at this Harvard professor who became famous by acting like an Asshole and get to go the Black House to have a beer (bet he didn't pay for it) with the President."
Do you really have to inject racial puns like "the Black House" into the discussion?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 6:28pm
Posted by J. Saxon at 07/30/2009 @ 2:58pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Medicare is a societal promise to our older citizens (whose numbers are growing daily) and those who cannot work, that they won't have to live in squalor in their senior years, scrapping for health care.
If there's a sense of entitlement, it's the doctors in the US. In England, the government does pay the doctors, which allows them to do what they are trained to do, which is help people. While it doesn't eliminate the paperwork, it certainly cuts down on it. It also puts doctors on the level they should be on: providers of an essential public service. But ultimately, public servants, not high paid prostitutes selling their wares to the highest bidders.
Here's my suggestion: Single-Payer health care system. Free (or inexpensive) Medical School to those who can get in. It eliminates the need for doctors to pay off exorbitant loans, and allows them to actually practice medicine. As for those who go into medicine to get rich, well...you weed them out, too. Bonus!
Take the rich/profit motive out of medicine. Let the Hippocratic Oath rule, not the hypocritical.
Part of the oath (caps are mine): "To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and TO TEACH THEM THIS ART–if they desire to learn it–WITHOUT FEE AND COVENANT; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken the oath according to medical law, but to no one else."
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 07/30/2009 @ 6:33pm
As for those who go into medicine to get rich, well...you weed them out, too. Bonus!
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 07/30/2009 @ 6:33pm
Who else do you want to dictate what they can earn? How about you? Fair is fair. Let's let someone else determine whether you are paid fairly or not.
With every passing day you reveal yourself to be another supporter of marxist control of our nation. If you try and deny it, then you must repudiate your own post demanding control over what others earn.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/30/2009 @ 6:47pm
Do you really have to inject racial puns like "the Black House" into the discussion?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 6:28pm
I don't have a single sliver of political correctness in my body! Free speech....all or nothing!
Posted by Happy at 07/30/2009 @ 6:56pm
Classic exchange on this very topic just overheard by me on CSPAN: Joe Barton (R-TX) "My mother would not be alive without Medicare... This member would never oppose medicare just because it it a public mandate."
Anthony Weiner (D-NY) responds to Joe Barton: "The fact of the matter is that you like government run medicare because it is more efficient... it is socialized medicine... and it works... Medicare is socialized medicine. And I want to point out the hypocrisy... maybe the public plan in here is going to look kind of like Medicare... [and] it is going to be more efficient... The language used criticizing government run health care, socialized medicine, the public plan, is hypocritical and dishonest... You like it, you think it's GOOD in some cases."
Posted by sarah_dc at 07/30/2009 @ 6:57pm
"Free speech....all or nothing!"
Well, that is a good attitude.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 7:05pm
"Free speech....all or nothing!"
Well, that is a good attitude.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 7:05pm
Heh. Too bad the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
Posted by FLaim at 07/30/2009 @ 7:31pm
If someone can afford to pay themselves more than they deserve while still keeping their company a success, that is a good thing.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/30/2009 @ 6:20pm | ignore this person | warn this person
aye, there's the rub...
Posted by dexter666 at 07/30/2009 @ 10:31pm
Too bad the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
Posted by FLaim at 07/30/2009 @ 7:31pm
When you get YOUR SC, perhaps! As long as Rush & his fellow radio jocks are still on the air, we still have our SC!
Posted by Happy at 07/30/2009 @ 11:31pm
"When you get YOUR SC, perhaps! As long as Rush & his fellow radio jocks are still on the air, we still have our SC!"
Posted by Happy at 07/30/2009 @ 11:31pm
Are you that dense, Sappy? Or are you unaware of the series of cases involving the placement of limitations on the right of free speech? Or perhaps you're a left-wing plant here to demonstrate just how ignorant some conservatives can be?
Schenck v. United States Whitney v. California Dennis v. United States Brandenburg v. Ohio
Just to name a few.
Posted by FLaim at 07/31/2009 @ 12:02am
"Daniel James Murray, 36, was arrested about 7 p.m. Friday in a parking lot outside the Riverside Casino in Laughlin, Nev. He was taken into custody by local police and Secret Service agents... As the teller handed him the cash, the charging documents claim Murray said, "We are on a mission to kill the president of the United States." The next day, Murray cleaned out the bank account."
-http://tinyurl.com/qt6j66
Posted by FLaim at 07/31/2009 @ 12:13am
I earlier wrote "I will admit many libertarians can be too absolutist". To be clear: I only favor reforming the FDA, and would only call for it to be removed if it would be REPLACED... preferably by a more efficient institution. We may need an organization "like" the CIA, but as it is, with its unconstitutional freedom from Congressional oversight and long history of working to secretly install brutal torture-chamber regimes around the world, it may need to be gutted entirely and replaced after starting from scratch, to give another example.
Part of what prompted this is that I just saw libertarians arguing that children should not have to go to school, that the state should not mandate they do so, on a right-wing website. Obviously, that is insane.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/31/2009 @ 12:18am
"Part of what prompted this is that I just saw libertarians arguing that children should not have to go to school, that the state should not mandate they do so, on a right-wing website. Obviously, that is insane."
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/31/2009 @ 12:18am
It's in section 2.8 of the Libertarian party platform:
"Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government."
-http://www.lp.org/platform
Posted by FLaim at 07/31/2009 @ 12:35am
"Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government."
Hmmm... I think public education can be better (though it is not always better) than public education. Parents should be free to choose what school their kids go to according to their kid's needs without interference. The government must interfere, though, to make education mandatory, or we would have an ignorant society. Ignorance leads to despotism. Education is needed for freedom. It gives oppurtunities. If parents could save money by not sending their child to school and by having them work at a young age, their child would grow up with less of a chance to succeed in life than other children. I also think homeschooling is an awful and sheltered and controlling and unnaccountable and idiotic way of educating a child. I certainly hope most libertarians don't think that, or they may be as crazy as the Republicans and Democrats.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/31/2009 @ 12:55am
"Education is needed for freedom."
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/31/2009 @ 12:55am
Agreed.
" Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that, whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights"
-Thomas Jefferson
Posted by FLaim at 07/31/2009 @ 01:16am
....Murray said, "We are on a mission to kill the president of the United States." ...
Posted by FLaim at 07/31/2009 @ 12:13am
You've got to be kidding, or you're just way below my level to `debate'!
You think my calling the WH the Black House is anything comparable to a "We are on a mission to kill the president of the United States."?
You better do better than this...or you'll be gone....not worth my time!
Posted by Happy at 07/31/2009 @ 09:29am
" Whenever the rich, white people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that, whenever things get so far wrong as to the poor and the blacks getting any rights, they may be relied on to set them to straight."
what Jefferson really said.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/31/2009 @ 11:30am
FACT CHECK: About half of Republicans voted for the original Medicare Bill. http://www.ssa.gov/history/tally65.html
And wasn't it just last week that President Obama said Medicare was in trouble of going bust in the next decade. Maybe it is time to fix the current government healthcare system before trying to make a brand new one....
Posted by drmo at 07/31/2009 @ 12:05pm
Sappy,
You ended your excuse for a racist pun with...
"Free speech....all or nothing!"
I corrected you.
"You've got to be kidding, or you're just way below my level to `debate'!"
I'd have to have a full-frontal lobotomy to be below your level to debate.
Posted by FLaim at 07/31/2009 @ 2:43pm
"what Jefferson really said."
Posted by emile duBois at 07/31/2009 @ 11:30am
:-) Reminds me of the South Park episode, "I'm a Little Bit Country."
"The strength of this country is to say one thing and do another."
Posted by FLaim at 07/31/2009 @ 3:28pm