McCain Strong On Super-Duper Tuesday
By Greg L | 6 February 2008 | National Politics | 90 Comments
With John McCain doing so well yesterday in the “Super-Duper Tuesday” presidential primaries, I have a question: Other than on national security issues, just how does John McCain differ in any way from Hillary Clinton?
I can’t figure it out. They both abhor the Second Amendment, want to grant amnesty to illegal aliens, want to impose socialized medicine, and support campaign finance “reforms” that muffle the voices of voters in favor of special interests. If McCain weren’t doing so well at this point, I’d figure he’d be a shoo-in as Hillary’s running mate.
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.
90 Comments
Views: 1144
Loading ...
You’re nailing it, there isn’t a nickels difference between Hillary and McCain, its the MSM dream ticket to crushing Conservatives in America. They have got to be wetting their pants on how they have gotten the ‘inevitability’ of McCain Candidacy message out to America.
Look at all the polls on Real Clear Politics this past week, they showed McCain leading in every state bar maybe one or two. Then the results come in and its Huckabee and Romney winning 11 states combined and McCain 9?
We are being lied too folks…. We have got to stop this farce being forced upon the Conservatives and the Republican Party.
If we are going to adopt liberal policies, let them come by the hand of Democrats, not a Republican President… The MSM is going to trumpet, loud and clear that Conservatives are finished, You can only run from, and govern from the Center…
Is that what we want?
I’m thinking Obama, for maximum gridlock.
Greg L:
Other than on national security issues,…
What do you mean “other than”? That’s no small difference there, my friend.
Make no mistake about it - the Iraq war may not be in the news these days, but it’s not over. We’ve got some pretty heavy fighting coming up:
Iraq set for new offensive in Mosul
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) — Iraqi political and military leaders and U.S. military commanders have traveled to the northern Iraqi city of Mosul ahead of a planned offensive on al Qaeda in Iraq loyalists, according to a senior U.S. military source.
Saturday’s meeting portends a major confrontation between U.S. and Iraqi troops and al Qaeda in Iraq militants, who have a strong presence in the diverse, sprawling city of Mosul, the capital of Nineveh province — a region long beset by conflict.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/02/02/iraq.main/index.html
As for guns and immigration, here’s Romney on those issues:
–On guns, he may have gotten himself in trouble, in an attempt to diffuse the flip-flop label, by standing by his support for the Brady Bill and the 1994 assault weapons ban. He even said he would have signed an extension of the assault weapons ban when it expired in 2004. He also employed the odd phrase “weapons of unusual lethality” to describe the type of guns he would ban.
–On immigration, Romney was utterly Clintonian. He said that when in November 2005 he described the Bush/McCain approach to immigration as “reasonable” and “quite different” from amnesty, he wasn’t endorsing the proposal, but just describing it. He hadn’t formulated his own position on immigration at the time. That’s right up there with Hillary Clinton saying in the debate that she didn’t say she supported driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants, but she just said that a proposal to do so “makes sense.” Even if we were to get into the Christmas spirit and be extraordinarily generous by granting Romney that an elected official saying pending legislation is “reasonable” doesn’t constitute support for the legislation, it still doesn’t get him off the hook. His description of the proposal was that it was “quite different” from amnesty, and yet during this year he has ceaselessly leveled attacks on McCain by accusing him of supporting “amnesty.” So even being generous to Romney, this constitutes a major change in position, not just from some long ago Senate race in 1994, but from late 2005.
http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp?bwd=51&byear=2007#9893
Clinton and McCain are light-years apart on social issues and the war in Iraq. To imply political likeness between the 2 candidates is one of the more interesting twists on politics. I guess if you are a single issue voter, perhaps ….but only perhaps.
I won’t vote for McCain which is ultimately what the Clintons had in mind anyway imo. Tell the MSM to hype McCain so that all the lemming sheeple repubs vote for him which will in turn fracture the party into conservative conservatives and conservative moderates (i.e. liberals). This will have the effect of keeping the repub base at home on election day and then the Clinton’s or Obama will sail off to an easy victory. Looks like the repubs fell for it hook line and sinker. I for one will not vote for McCain so it looks like I will fall prey to their scheme as well. McCain had his time and unfortunately the repubs backstabbed him and ushered in the idiot son instead. Now he is too old, too liberal and too deep in the pocket of special interests to be an effective leader. Americans cry and cry and cry about wanting change and then they go out and pave the way for the two candidates that are absolutely LEAST likely to deliver them what they say they so desperately need. Never underestimate the stupidity of crowds. Looks like I’ll be sitting out election year ‘08. I refuse to cast my vote for the final nail in the coffin of this country.
Even though McCain pisses me off a lot of the time, I have to agree with Dolph. There is a good bit of difference between the two. McCain is pro-life. McCain is a hawk. Compared to Hillary and Obama, McCain is stronger on the 2nd ammendment.
I see election day like closing-time at the local bar, with only two ladies remaining. Who to take home? the really ugly one (Hillary) or the less-ugly one (McCain). Going home alone is not an option for me.
I agree with Batson. McCain is also more of a budget hawk, so I hope he pays attention to excessive spending. He also has more adult supervision on taxes and health care, though I am worried that his articulation of the issues will be about a good as Bob Dole’s. McCain can do himself a lot of good by picking a running mate who is young and conservative Governor, and neither Romney nor Huckabee would quite fit the bill. Well, I guess I will have to focus my attention on Wolf and the winner of the Gilmore/Marshall contest.
Batson,
It really is beginning to sound like a coyote date to me;)
I think it will be interested to watch how the media turns on McCain after each side has elected his candiate. The media has pumped him up so far; I don’t recall seeing any negatives about him. This will all change very soon.
I have to disagree with BDB - going home is an option. Maybe we need to raise our standards and start refusing the poor choices. This country has not had a true conservative LEGITIMATE candidate since Reagan. Where are the young Obamas on the right who are being developed?
Rush Limbaugh has taken a lot of heat lately, but he is correct in saying that the rich, moderate, blue blood wing of the Republican party despises the conservative movement, and has successfully taken the power back from the Reagan conservatives. Reagan was able to get enough democratic votes to allow him to effectively ignore this branch of the party and push them back into the shadows. Unfortunately, when Reagan office we elected the prototypical moderate, George Bush I.
Breaking Up Is Hard to Do
By PEGGY NOONAN
January 25, 2008; Page W14
On the pundit civil wars, Rush Limbaugh declared on the radio this week, “I’m here to tell you, if either of these two guys [Mr. McCain or Mike Huckabee] get the nomination, it’s going to destroy the Republican Party. It’s going to change it forever, be the end of it!”
This is absurd. George W. Bush destroyed the Republican Party, by which I mean he sundered it, broke its constituent pieces apart and set them against each other. He did this on spending, the size of government, war, the ability to prosecute war, immigration and other issues.
Were there other causes? Yes, of course. But there was an immediate and essential cause.
And this needs saying, because if you don’t know what broke the elephant you can’t put it together again. The party cannot re-find itself if it can’t trace back the moment at which it became lost. It cannot heal an illness whose origin is kept obscure.
I believe that some of the ferocity of the pundit wars is due to a
certain amount of self-censorship. It’s not in human nature to enjoy self-censorship. The truth will out, like steam from a kettle. It hurts to say something you supported didn’t work. I would know. But I would say of these men (why, in the continuing age of Bill Clinton, does the emoting come from the men?) who are fighting one another as they resist naming the cause for the fight: Sack up, get serious, define. That’s the way to help.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120120952618514493.html
Rush Limbaugh told us to vote for GW Bush, twice, and we did so. If there’s anyone to blame for the so-called destruction of the republican party, it would be GW Bush.
For those of us who have been around for a while, it seems that Ronald Reagan’s conservatism has done a lot of shifting around. Ronald Reagan the candidate was not the same as Ronald Reagan the icon.
Back in the day, Ronald Reagan was more common sense than arch -conservative. At least for a while, he had broad base appeal. How do you think he captured all those Reagan Democrats?
Ronald Reagan was no Rockefeller Rupublican.
Rockefeller Republican. Not sure what a Rupublican is.
I am so disappointed that Juan McAmnesty is doing so well. Maybe the Hispanic radio stations are rallying them to vote in mass for McCain, since both Dems will give Amnesty (so no need to worry there). It wouldn’t surprise me. I am getting some email on the CFR (Council of Foreign Relations) and am reading that all the Candidates accept for Ron Paul will pick their Cabinet members out of a list of CFR members whose agenda is the New World Order. This is given as an explanation as to why it doesn’t matter who gets elected, nothing will be done to secure borders or stop illegal immigration or the NAU and SPP. This really disturbs me.
Reagan had a broad reach because he brought a new message that found a home after what we went through as a country during the 70’s. He was optimistic, and made people proud to be Americans again. His support came from his belief that America was the greatest land on the face of the Earth, and the last hope for freedom.
Dolph, there are a lot of good books on Reagan out now. There is one really good one that contains excerpts from his speeches. I don’t know the author off the top of my head, but you can get the book at Borders. If you read the book you will see that he did have consistent beliefs and principles throughout his tenure as governor and POTUS. There wasn’t any wavering, flip-flopping, or pandering. I don’t think any of our current candidates on either side can say that.
McCain is wrong on alot of issues. But Hillary & co. are wrong on almost every issue. As for Obama, who has any idea what he stands for except “change”? You think the media likes McCain? They loooove Obama! I’m waiting for the story that a sick child was healed by touching the hem of his sportcoat.
National security is not “an important issue”; it is the most important issue. So I will give money, time and my vote to McCain.
Mr. Anon,
I think he made people feel good about being American. I agree with you. Perhaps the term conservative has changed somewhat over the 28 years since he was first elected.
When you think of that title and author let me know. It would make a nice gift for several people I know.
Kinda hard to be out crying I’m the national security candidate when you were fighting tooth and nail to keep the borders wide open. I believe nothing of what McCain says on national security because if he were REALLY interested in securing the country then he would have fought like a banshee to close those borders down from potential terrorists and not to give amnesty to 20+ million people whose motives are clearly not just “wanting to do the jobs that others won’t”. National security candidate… HA! That’s rich!
McCain isn’t very good on national security, contrary to the conventional wisdom. He calls waterboarding “torture” and wants to close Gitmo. How does being a POW a quarter of a century ago make him a national security expert? His instincts are all wrong and… liberal.
Park’d and Monticup -
I agree with you both. Two words - “we’re screwed”….
Conservatives may have some sore noses this fall -
having had to hold them so tight, but they will vote
for McCain over Billary. There is no other choice.
(He will throw a few bones to the Rush crowd, but, having
locked up the nomination, Mac Is Back will position
center right before Nov.)
But predict a huge struggle for the GOP VP spot - this
will be a chance for traditional conservatives
to make a stand.
As stated before on previous threads, in my opinion, Clinton is the choice
to be our next POTUS. Some may be shocked that I would not support
a brotha (Obama), but let me tell you something here…Obama is a great
orator, because he has great speech writers. Think about it. Lip service,
that’s it. He has NO experience whatsoever in dealing with anything adverse
and God only knows how he would handle a terrorist attack on the U.S., as
an example.
Clinton, on the other hand, has racked up many years of having her life, both
personal and professional spread before us, sometimes on a daily basis…so
we know her well. We don’t know all there is to know about Obama, do we?
I maintain that when Bill Clinton was in the WH, the economy was fantastic.
I like the idea of the “two for one” concept. Just think of how quickly the
Bush administration drained the surplus left by Clinton!
IMO, Obama will do nothing to fix our illegal immigration problems, and
neither will John McCain. Hillary Clinton? Well, I will just take my chances.
The obvious Republican ticket: McCain-Huckabee. IF you do the delegate math (for support in North & South), they might have a (long)shot at winning.
In an effort to keep Billary off the ballot, I’ll be voting for Obama in the primary next week and then I’ll vote for McCain in the general election.
After the Backroom Deal in WV, I’m Changing my vote from Huckabee to Romney
I think that’s the right decision, PWC. Much as I despise his patrician upbringing and careful coif, I think he’s the best hope. The Huckabuster’s just too damn dumn.
Old Soldier - What he lacks in experience he makes up for by just being a change and that is very attractive to many people. I have been surprised among my friends at his popularity. I am usually the outlyer….. There are plenty of Democrats that will NOT let him fail. Plenty. Unlike Bush who can’t admit making a mistake, I think Obama will. At this point in our history, I am more about character than I am about experience. We sure need it.
I also think that as I said there are too many people that will want him to suceed that he will attract the best of the best. Say what you will about Kennedy, but he can design my health care plan any day and I know I would be happy. Romney was.
I started with Tancredo/Huckabee, went to Romney now……
I wouldn’t trust Hillary with a nickel or my health care.
Advocator Get over the hair!!!! What happened to the swirly you mentioned!!!!
“One Voice said on 6 Feb 2008 at 1:19 pm:
Say what you will about Kennedy, but he can design my health care plan any day and I know I would be happy. Romney was.”
Words fail me. You…can’t….be…serious, can you?
I would rather have Kennedy teach the DARE class in my kid’s school than design a health care plan.
For that matter, he can even teach my kid’s lifesaving class at the local pool before he can touch healthcare.
Juan McCain will more than destroy the GOP, he’ll destroy America. He’s more sure to implement Amnesty than Clinton or Obama I think. He’s GWB except even more pro-Amnesty.
Would that a third-party candidate would run on the immigration issue, like Lou Dobbs.
“I would rather have Kennedy teach the DARE class in my kid’s school”
Hey, kids, it’s better to be an alcoholic than a druggie!
Abslolutely. THe only reason you have a prescription card in your wallet is due to him. The only reason. I want the Republicans to handle my 401 and what’s left in my retirement plan, and our defense efforst but I damn well know where to go to get good health coverage. He’s already touched your healthcare, he’s the reason you’ve got some or that you can afford it anyway. I don’t care if he drinks (as Hemingway when he wrote) while he writes my plan or if he uses dope (as Shelley did when he wrote) as he writes my plan. He can bring his proposal to the floor butt naked…..
You can always opt out if you don’t think you would have the best health care plan with him. Romney liked his help. It went over well in Mass.
I don’t have to approve of the guys mess of a personal life to know that I would pay a boatload less in presecriptions, co-pays and when I retire my premium would not eat up my healthy Republican managed retirement fund!!!!
Hey, take your chances with someone else…..
Wasn’t Hillary’s plan swell?
This is called being pragmatic.
When it comes to voting next week, considering the opposition, an Obama nomination versus any GOP’er, is far better than Hillary Clinton versus any GOP’er, correct?
Why not ask for the democratic ballot next week, and vote for Obama in the Virginia Primary?
Any thoughts? …
What happened in WV is nothing more than dirty politics on McCains part. I can not STAND this man! I will be voting for Romney in the Primary and if he doesn’t make the ticket, it will be HC or a write in (probably Tancredo), but NEVER EVER EVER Juan McAmnesty!
I have a prescription card in my wallet?
No, I’m one of those cash cows for the managed healthcare industry, that pays about 3K a year for healthcare I never need.
for healthcare insurance I never use, to be more precise.
TDB said on 6 Feb 2008 at 11:54 am:
In an effort to keep Billary off the ballot, I’ll be voting for Obama in the primary next week and then I’ll vote for McCain in the general election.
—————————————————————-
That’s what I am planning to do.
starryflights said on 6 Feb 2008 at 2:01 pm:
What happened in WV is nothing more than dirty politics on McCains part. I can not STAND this man! I will be voting for Romney in the Primary and if he doesn’t make the ticket, it will be HC or a write in (probably Tancredo), but NEVER EVER EVER Juan McAmnesty!
—————————————————-
A write-in vote or no vote will be half a vote for the Dems!
Who cares, McStain is a Democrat anyway.
This is a tough election. This is probably the sorriest group of candidates I think I’ve ever seen. What might have been had Allen not said ‘macaca!!’
TDB said on 6 Feb 2008 at 2:23 pm:
starryflights said on 6 Feb 2008 at 2:01 pm:
What happened in WV is nothing more than dirty politics on McCains part.
McCain = dirty politics. Nothing new for him. Remember the Keating five?
Mr. Anon said on 6 Feb 2008 at 1:25 pm:
For that matter, he can even teach my kid’s lifesaving class at the local pool before he can touch healthcare.
Kennedy didn’t have much success the last time he tried lifesaving.
McCain could always pick Fred as his VP to add some youth and vigor to the ticket.
(rimshot)
But in reality it ‘d probably be worth it to try to mollify the Right.
MP Resident - We too, balance the pool. I am thinking ahead to my retirement and what I will have to pay out of pocket. That and taxes are verrraa expensive for most of the elderly.
There is a difference between quality health care and low cost health care.
McCain Sends ‘Chill Down Spine,’ Reid Cites Cochran
By Josiah Ryan
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
February 06, 2008
On the Spot (CNSNews.com) - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said the possibility of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) becoming president “sends a cold chill down my spine.”
Reid made his remarks Tuesday outside the Senate chambers when a reporter asked him about McCain, who is running for the Republican Party nomination for president.
Pulling out his wallet and removing a white piece of paper, Reid told the reporter: “All I have to say about that is this. I have it right here, and you can put it in your little recording devices.”
Then, reading aloud, and quoting Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) from an interview last Friday, Reid said: “The thought of him [McCain] being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper, and he worries me.” Listen to Audio
Reid then placed the piece of paper back in his wallet and continued taking reporter’s questions.
Left turn McCain
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02062008/news/columnists/once_john_wins__hell_make_a_left_852521.htm
Top Ten Reasons to Vote For McCain
1. Amnistía Si! Vota Para McCain!
2. Shut Up and Vote McCain / Feingold!
3. $4.00 Gasoline, here we come!
4. Clinton / McCain: The NY Times’ Ticket!
5. RINOs 4 McCain!
6. More Payroll & Death Taxes!
7. Gitmo Detainees Agree: Vote McCain!
8. Kill Conservatism: Vote Liberal, Vote McCain!
9. He Can’t Possibly Stab You in the Back Next!
10. He’ll find out who really stole the strawberries! – Vote Captain Queeg McCain!
In November it will be the maniac and the Huckster vs The “B….” and Richardson.
999: Ted the bloated Kennedy never TRIED lifesaving. That’s the point–he swam away leaving the girl under water. And then tried to conjure up an excuse.
One Voice said on 6 Feb 2008 at 1:45 pm:
Abslolutely. THe only reason you have a prescription card in your wallet is due to him. The only reason. I want the Republicans to handle my 401 and what’s left in my retirement plan, and our defense efforst but I damn well know where to go to get good health coverage. He’s already touched your healthcare, he’s the reason you’ve got some or that you can afford it anyway. I don’t care if he drinks (as Hemingway when he wrote) while he writes my plan or if he uses dope (as Shelley did when he wrote) as he writes my plan. He can bring his proposal to the floor butt naked…..
One Voice said on 6 Feb 2008 at 4:44 pm:
MP Resident - We too, balance the pool. I am thinking ahead to my retirement and what I will have to pay out of pocket. That and taxes are verrraa expensive for most of the elderly.
There is a difference between quality health care and low cost health care.
One Voice - which is it? You are contradicting yourself. Did Kennedy fix healthcare for us now, or for when we retire?
He did a great job deregulating the airlines, didn’t he?
Amnesty is on the way…you guys are finished….
Greg, I agree with you, McCain is a lousy far left Republican conservative on all issues except the war. I think he will lead this nation to an even larger disaster of Ethnic, racial, religious and gender division, aqnd will adopt a policy of “let’s make no decision that will offend anyone, except the people who care about the things the rest of us don’t.
Like prosperity and financial wealth for a fair days labor and a fair labor of deserving skill.
Like fairness in the law and application to all with regard to race, religion, gender or ethnic group.
Like taking care of our world and making it a safer and more enjoyable place to live
Like taking care of our children, each to his own ability and talent to achieve the maximum each can achieve with the skills they have
Like taking care of our communities, having them look nicer, more secure, more livable and more wealthy a LIVING STANDARD FOR ALL, BY OUR EFFORTS, NOT BY OUR SKIN COLOR, OUR GENDER, OUR RELIGION OR OUR ETHNIC AFFILIATION
I fear he will fail to respect the majority welfare and plunge us deeper into poverty, crime, global conflict and global environmental self destruction.
I fear he will fail to tell us all we need to have many, man, less babies (some measures say we need to reduce to a maximun sustainable figure of 800 million people globally) if we are to maintain the prosperity we currently have and the peace we have as individuals as the rest of the 5 Billion people of the world demand the same wealth and standard of living and material prosperity, food and resource usage as the 360 million of so of us currently using these resources to maintain this wealth, luxury and prosperity are already maxing out.
Whenever health care is socialized, it stops being competitive, it has no incentive to achieve excellance or a competitive price. When it stops being competitive, it suffers in quality, cost, value, efficiency, and technical competancy.
Do those of you who advocate “social engineering” not understand this one simple fact about goods and services?
Some of us advocate affordable health care, Michael. I don’t like the word ’socialized’ used when describing health care because it is meaningless to everyone who doesn’t know the secret code.
I see what competitive health care has brought. $500 a month per person plans that still have co pays that would choke a moose.
American health care is close to being criminal.
GMr. Anon:
What has de-regulating the airlines have to do with health care? How does that fit in the conversation? Or was that just an opportunity to make snide remarks and re-direct the conversation. This is not a Teddy is good discussion, the topic is healthcare.
On some issues I know exactly what I want and why. On this I am definite based on years in the industry and some contacts that are experts. Also, if you’ve ever used Family Medical Leave for the birth of a child, to care for a sick family member -he co-sponsored that bill. If you’ve never had the opportunity you are likely jealous that you don’t have acess to that benefit.
You don’t have to agree with me, Kaiser is always happy to accept your money for their “services”. And you can choose to stay on the job while births and deaths happen around you in your family.
“Kennedy, a Democrat, has long advocated for a federal requirement that employers provide health insurance for their workers.”
Yeah, it would be a real bad thing if employers were required to provide health care. Real bad. Don’t you wish yours did?
“In addition to Kennedy’s historical bona fides on the issue, the senior senator has a direct role in the Bay State’s effort to expand coverage because along with Governor Mitt Romney, he has been negotiating with federal officials about an annual Medicaid payment to the state of about $585 million. To continue to receive the money, Kennedy and Romney promised federal officials the state would pass a major expansion of healthcare coverage.
House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi and Romney have healthcare plans that they say would cover nearly all of the state’s roughly 500,000 uninsured. The plan passed by the Senate aims to cover about half of them.”
Guess Romney knew where to get the expertise he needed on health care, so do I.
Michael,
What does this mean? “lousy far left Republican conservative ”
How can you have a far left conservative? I get it that you don’t like McCain. I do not get how a person can be a far left conservative. Please explain.
Dolph said on 7 Feb 2008 at 1:19 am:
I agree, it has become criminal. There are too many people paying insurance and then have to jump through hoops to get the care they need. If the insurance companies would pay a fair market value for services rendered, then we would not have to have moose choking co-pays.
As long as we provide health care, Medicaid, we will never see reasonable rates or coverages. Since Medicaid doesn’t pay a fair share, the hospitals are required to get their money from someone else. We need to work something out where the hospitals and Dr. offices are paid a fair price for their services. They wouldn’t have to charge the huge fees if they were paid properly. When Medicaid sends the Dr. $10.00 for an appointment, how can they keep the doors open? The Dr paid someone almost $10.00 to file the claim.
I took my daughter to the PWC hospital with appendicitis. They wanted to run 5 tests on her to include a vaginal exam. When someone presents with rebound pain in the lower right quadrant, 90% of the time it is appendicitis. The ER doctor wasn’t able to get a proper vaginal exam and had to call in the on call OB GYN doctor. Of course my 17 y/o daughter had already been violated once, in what I felt was a useless procedure. Once the Dr entered the exam room, he informed me he was going to do a vaginal exam. I told him that he was not going to do one without doing a test for appendicitis. The Dr did the appendicitis exam and ran out of the room. She was on the operating room table 2 hours later. Mind you we had already been at the hospital for 6 hours waiting for them to run their tests. IMHO, because I had good insurance, I feel the bill was being run up. I had to pay over 900.00 out of pocket for tests and procedures that were not covered.
My question is this, if I had not had such good coverage and presented with the ability to pay, would all of those tests be ran?
Dolph said on 7 Feb 2008 at 1:19 am:
Some of us advocate affordable health care, Michael. I don’t like the word ’socialized’ used when describing health care because it is meaningless to everyone who doesn’t know the secret code.
American health care is close to being criminal.
——————————————————-
Since you think American health care is close to being criminal, perhaps you should think of moving to Canada or Mexico to enroll in their “world class” health care systems. Bon Voyage!
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/21/3/47
monticup said on 6 Feb 2008 at 7:52 pm:
999: Ted the bloated Kennedy never TRIED lifesaving. That’s the point–he swam away leaving the girl under water. And then tried to conjure up an excuse.
My statement was tongue-in-cheek.
Romney addressed the medicaid issue in Mass. To increase the amount they received from Medicare/Medicaid, they had to increase the number of people able to obtain insurance in Mass.
No, those test would not have been run, in my opinion, actually I know they wouldn’t have. The difference between quality health care and managed health care is that the former includes preventative care, diagnostic care and well care. The latter reacts to the situation with costs in mind.
There are greedy folks in all professions, nothing but change in moral character will address that.
We haven’t even gotten to prescriptions and drug companies…
One Voice,
It seems like you and I are on the same page with the Medicaid issue then.
I don’t even want to go into prescription drugs and drug companies…..it is a black hole we may never return from. If that was to happen, people would start talking about us running away together and such.
999,
Bon voyage yourself. Let me guess, your employer pays for your health care, you don’t change jobs often, and no one in your family has had a catastrophic illness.
No one other than you brought up Mexico and Canada. The 2 countries have nothing in common.
As a nation, we need to take a serious look at improving our system of health care. I suppose there are some who run around screaming ‘Oh let me pay an out of pocket $1300 bucks a month for health care insurance for me, my wife and kids.’
I think most people would pass on that deal. If you are middle class, married with a few kids that is right about what you are going to be paying if you don’t get your insurance through your employer or if you are starting a new job. If you are older and cannot buy into a group plan, you will be paying even more.
Sure Dolph,
You had two questions, I’ll answer them seperately. I’ve always respected your ability to accept and analyze issues with more than just emotion.
“socialized” health care. I agree we need “affordable health care”. The issue is how to make it affordable. There are 2 camps, one of which is wrong.
“Socialized” means the same economic context the now “impoverished Soviets used in determining ownership and privilige. It is an economic concept, one that declares the state as the owner of everything, and as the owner the one responsible for paying the bill. As an owner, thye State is obligated to equally parse out its “services” to all individuals belonging to the state on a per share basis where everyone owns one share, no more, no less.
In terms of health care, the state socialization concept guarantees everyone gets the same health care service, the same procedure, the same quality of doctor, the same medication. No one has to pay for anything, it is conceptually “free”.
That is the health care system “social engineers” want us to have, a health care system where the government pays for everything and everyone gets the same identical health care for free.
There is a huge problem with that, and that is the issue of “quality and medical sophistication”.
When there is no incentive to make money off medical treatment, the quality and technical sophistication declines into something resembling the health care of the Soviet health care system.
There are long lines, not enough doctors, underpai doctors, desperate patients, and poor technical procedures that do not keep up with modern science, which by the way, research costs money, a LOT of money.
The solution to having “affordable” high quality health care is to treat health care like any other competitive market.
Competitive markets have one remarkable quality. They produce the highest quality possible, at the lowest price possible for the technology used at the greatest level of innovation, in order to remain in business in a competitive market.
Here’s the other problem, the insurance industry, governing health care is not a competitive market. That is why it is failing, because we all think our “insurance” is free, and we have no incentive to seek cheaper, higher quality health care in a competitive market.
This is the prime problem why our current health care system is broken, it is because we have health insurance, that does not follow the traditional insurance model. Insurance should pay for catastropic events only, at a pooled competitive price. It cannot and should not pay for periodic halth care, because it cannot do so competitively, and we do not make competitive decisions by seeking doctors of our own choice, using competitive bid decisions to get the highest quality health care for out money.
The system we need is the system we use to buy groceries.
Groceries are so affordable, and are not socialized. Do you not see what happened to the Soviet grocery store, when food was “socialized”. There were empty shelves, high prices and no incentive to work to produce betterquality vegatables on the farm. Socialized anything is always a failure.
For those who cannot afford medical bills, we need a support mechanism, each to his ability and skill, but just like we can’t guarantee everyone will be given an equally smart brain, we cannot guarantee everyone can be given the exact same medical treatment, except in catastrophic cases, where an insurance system must kick in. This is what happens when a person cannot afford food in a grocery store. At least with coupons, they have access to the same high quality vegatables the rest of us have access to.
Only a competitive medical health care system, where we all pay the doctor directly for what we assess as the best value and price, will achive the most optimum, affordable health care system for the general welfare of everyone.
Those people who have the skill and brains to create innovative products and services for the rest of us to have even better lives than the year before, will also always have more money to afford the top quality health care and physicians, just like they can always dine on gourmet food. It is the price of a better life and material wealth for the rest of us. What we have to do is make sure wages remain high for everyone to afford these competitive products, by keeping every single citizen productive to his or her maximum ability possible.
Michael said on 7 Feb 2008 at 11:43 am:
A very well presented case. One issue is there will always be those claiming that,
“Those people who have the skill and brains to create innovative products and services for the rest of us to have even better lives than the year before, will also always have more money to afford the top quality health care and physicians, just like they can always dine on gourmet food.”
do not deserve this and the wealth should be spread equally amongst all. I have a problem with that. Those who have shown the initiative to get off their ass and work hard to make something of themselves should not have to be penalized because they did.
This quote
“Only a competitive medical health care system, where we all pay the doctor directly for what we assess as the best value and price, will achive the most optimum, affordable health care system for the general welfare of everyone.”
doesn’t fit with the Gov’t nanny state that the liberals want to see happen, therefore it will never happen. I agree with you, this should be the way it is. As I posted earlier, a Dr. gets $10.00 from Medicaid for services rendered. It cost him almost that much to send in the claim, where is the incentive for them to stay in business? Like your grocery analogy, if the selves can not be stocked, what good does it do to have the store open?
Dolph,
What does this mean? “lousy far left Republican conservative ”
answer:
I like you also don’t always see the world in black and white, in reality it is shades of gray, gaussian distributions, approximations and relative concepts.
No individual is all bad, no individual is all good, some are more bad than others, some are more good than others.
Politicallty, there are very bad people, and politically there are very good people. Religiously there are very bad people who are religious, and there are very good people who are Religious. You have to discern the bad Religious people from the good Religious people. Avoid the bad ones and embrace the good ones. You have to discern the good politicians from the bad politicians. Avoid the bad politicians and embrace the good ones.
I see McCain as a bad polititican, therefore the assessed label of “lousy” for all the reasons and problems I forsee if he is elected as I stated previously.
By his own admission he is a Republican. This is not a label I would put on him, but each individual is entitiled to join whatever party they see themselves agreeing with. Personaly I think we need to do away with party concepts and just vote for the best candidate, without the bias filter that weeds out candidates based on pre-conceived party “doctrine”. I have always felt “doctrine” is bad, because it eliminates necessary change, critical thinking, and is used to control people and prevent them from making individual decisions appropriate to the times.
Now about “far left conservative”. In each party there are far left and far right conservatives, as well as far left and far right liberals. It really depends on how strongly you feel about issues as to whether are a “radical” lawbreaking far left person, or a radical law-creating far right person.
A conservative thinker is a person who does not make rash, wildly extreme, over the top judgement calls on issues, but a person who takes measured, less extreme, what and see, tentative and slow methodical thinking processes to make a decision, a corrects in incremental ways to achieve a desired goal. Most religious people are conservative and needs law and structure imposed on others to feel safe and secure. The hateful, angry, oppressive and malicious religious people are historically the most often involved in politics. Most war generals and warriors are conservative.
A liberal thinker is a person who makes extreme, highly variant, often lawless decisions, in an over the top, wide open, anything goes, trail and error, excessive thought process with liberally applied methods to creat rapid and non-incremental change often in a militant or independant manner. Most creative genious and arts and sciences people are liberals in their though process. Most innovators are liberal in their though process.
MaCain is to the far left of the conservative thinking process.
I am to the far right of the liberal thinking process, an ex warrior, a non-hateful, loving religious person (known as a liberator), who fights hateful, non-loving, oppressive religious people (known as obligation keepers). Christ in my assessment was a liberator, a liberal thinker, and “in the middle on social issues”, according to the scriptures I have read.
I do not like conservative thinkers, or far right conservatives, but I also do not like far left liberals, who in my assessment are law-breaking militant “social engineers” who are leading us to the brink of social disaster.
McCain is a far left conservative, I am a far right liberal. This year I am also a Republican, because the liberals in charge of the parties Obama, Hillery, scare me far more than the conservatives in charge, McCain and Romney. I do not like the policies of our current executive branch or its leader’s current abilities and want to see those policies brought back to the middle, for the general welfare of us all.
I do not want any gender, ethnic group, religious group or racial group to be superior to another, or to have special privilege and value most the concept of “individual” choice determining personal happiness and prosperity as a fundamental far right liberal concept of “individual rights”. McCain believes in “Group” rights and is as arrogant and “full of hate” as the current administration, advocating all or nothing warfare where one group is superior to another. I do n ot see him or this current administration focused on individual rights, and respect for all humans. That is where he will lead us astray.
Yes, Medic we are on the same page regarding what should be done. Not sure if you are with me about the one with the expertise, but, that doesn’t matter really; when it comes down to it Mr. Kennedy is just always the go to person on this.
Agree with the quote, if insurance is made to be obtainable then more people will have it which will result in what you are saying.
If the Gov’t absorbed some drug rehabilitation (including the Rush Limbaughs and Betty Fords - not just the ugly druggies) and mental health it would go a long way toward obtainable insurance for the majority. Well care and preventative care routine screenings may reduce the number that end up with mental health and drug issues in the long run.
Science is driving catastrophic care and there is really no way to control that.
Agree with the black hole of prescription drugs and drug companies…… Now there is public competition - no so sure it’s a good thing. The nanny state HAD to get involved or most of us would be dead and broke.
Michael - Romney just put his campaign on hold.
Dolph said on 7 Feb 2008 at 11:35 am:
999,
Bon voyage yourself. Let me guess, your employer pays for your health care, you don’t change jobs often, and no one in your family has had a catastrophic
WRONG ON TWO ACCOUNTS! I’M RETIRED!
One Voice said on 7 Feb 2008 at 12:51 pm:
I feel the nanny state has also contributed to this. This is why I say that.
The Dr gets the $10.00 for services rendered
The Ambulance service receives 5.00 for services rendered
The ER gets 20.00 for the services rendered
The X-ray dept gets 5.00
The lab gets 5.00
I know these may not be as much as they get now, but these were figures from the time I worked in the hospital in the early 90’s. Make calculated adjustments for inflation accordingly.
Here we have $45.00 payout to the health care system. One lab test was more than that. The hospital has to eat the rest or go after the patient to get it, which adds even more expense carrying the debt and the collection agency to collect it.
If we didn’t have the nanny state and the services provided were paid a fair price, then we would be better off. I am not saying to cut it off completely, but make it available for those who can not work.
Dolph said on 7 Feb 2008 at 11:35 am:
American health care is close to being criminal.
Canada and Mexico were brought up due to your statement re American health care. Since both of these countries have virtually “free” health care, I thought you might compare all three countries (btw, I left England off - that should have been included for camparison also.) You get what you pay for!
MIchael,
I thank you for your attempts to explain far left conservative to me. I think I ended up getting dyslexia from too much left and right. But thanks for trying. I could follow you as long as I didn’t think too much about left and right. I ended up feeling like I was my own great grandfather.
~~splash~~
999,
My conservative Brit friends like NHS and one recently told me he is proud of their country for implementing it. I am not sure this country could afford the gas prices they shuck out in the UK to pay for it though.
I also am retired and I find the cost of health care to be …breath-taking. I also am buying in to my former employer’s plan so I am not getting hit as hard as many people. I also consider myself to be fortunate because I am able to do this.
Many people do not have access to a good health care plan. Many people cannot leave their jobs because of pre-existing condition clauses with potential employers. Some folks max out with their existing insurance companies ecause of catastrophic illness. Others are just uninsurable. These are the conditions I feel are criminal. Additionally, I realize that my policy costs continue to rise at steep rates because of those who walk on their bills. Someone has to cover it. Might as well be me. grrrrrrrrrrr
Affordable health care=socialized health care. You get what you pay for.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. I repeat, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Why can’t people understand that?
Why should health care be affordable? No one talks about affordable education. Let’s make BMWs affordable. Let’s make NYC real estate affordable.
Everyone wants Cadillac health care on a Yugo budget. Why is health care expensive (according to some)? Trail lawyers and illegal aliens. I am willing to pay for quality. But I have to admit I’m tired of paying for the freeloaders.
You get what you pay for, what you plan for and what you set as a goal and for what you are willing to accept. I would be willing (depending upon my nicely Republican managed retirement portfolio) to spend a decent amount when I retire for good care. My husband and I both come from a long line of people who lived to 100! Knowing that I am planning for that health care now and I am pretty far from retirement.
However, I do think that it is in our best interest to require employers to make some form of health care available to their employees either through them or through other associations or groups. Well care and preventative care does not have to be beyond the reach of most, and I also think is in the best interest of all of us that we approve the role of government to assure basic care is attainable at some level tied into minimum wage. Basic care will allay future and catastrophic costs. Individuals should be expected to pay for that needed expense for their families. Does that mean you get lousy care? Not always, that depends on the Dr. You could pay a fortune and not get good care.
Dolph said on 7 Feb 2008 at 3:09 pm:
999,
My conservative Brit friends like NHS and one recently told me he is proud of their country for implementing it. I am not sure this country could afford the gas prices they shuck out in the UK to pay for it though.
I totally agree that everyone should be covered by some sort of healthcare plan. However, I don’t agree that the ENTIRE healthcare system has to be re-vamped to provide for the uninsured. If I am correct, there is something in the order of 40 million people in this country with no health insurance. Lets get those people without insurance into the system and leave the ones who have a suitable plan alone. I cannot understand why Medicare becomes the primary health insurer and one’s current health plan becomes the secondary when reaching 65. I am paying over $360. a month for my wife and I for a health insurance plan and my wife and I are both paying almost $100. each per month for Medicare. IMHO, my private health insurance should be footing the bill first and then Medicare to fill the gap. To me, it’s BASSAKWARDS! Take the money Medicare is paying out for services for people with adequate plans of their own and use it to take care of the uninsured.
Big Dog said on 6 Feb 2008 at 11:07 am:
Conservatives may have some sore noses this fall -
having had to hold them so tight, but they will vote
for McCain over Billary. There is no other choice.
There is a choice and I think you will see it an extremely low voter turnout in November.
Corr — you will see it in an extremely low voter turnout in November.
monticup said on 7 Feb 2008 at 4:00 pm:
You are correct. I too am tired of paying for the freeloaders.
_____________________________
999 said on 7 Feb 2008 at 5:36 pm
The problem with that is the big insurance companies will raise their rates so people can no longer afford it and they do not have to pay out as much, yet reap the benefits from those who can.
Medic
That’s where regulation comes in.
999,
I am fixated on your health care….trying to figure out the math. My husband is on medicare and all the costs add up to about $250 per month. Mine is the big one….it ends up costing me almost $500 a month. I am not eligible for medicare for several years.
What of the folks who cannot afford medical insurance? They have too much money for medicaid and not enough to get regular health care. I find it scary to think about. On the other hand, why should my family be chunking out $750 a month and other people get theirs for free?
I certainly do not want to have national ized Kaiser Permanente. I just feel like I have a mega premium that pays for me and several others.
I wasn’t moaning and groaning nearly as much before I retired, but I will say that the thought of how expensive this venture was going to be kept me from retiring sooner.
Dolph said on 7 Feb 2008 at 8:50 pm:
999, I am fixated on your health care….trying to figure out the math.
I pay a total of approximately $560. per month for health care. I am retired from the Federal gov. and my portion of the premium is $360. per month. The gov. pays 72% of the total cost. My wife and I both have medicare and each of us pays approx. $100. per month. Hope this clarifies the math.
999,
A good reason for working for the feds. 72% is sweet. I am one of those people who is neither fish nor fowl at this point. Not working and not eligible for medicare yet. My pension kicks in some bucks towards my health care but it is a fixed amount.
The insurance premium can rise as much as it wants and it probably will. Hopefully by then I will be on medicare.
You have a great deal!
~~splash~~
One Voice said on 7 Feb 2008 at 7:26 pm:
I agree that is where regulation comes in, however, it seems to me that people are able to figure out the loop holes pretty quickly.
______________________________________
Dolph said on 7 Feb 2008 at 8:50 pm:
I feel the same way. I am paying a higher premium for family coverage. I haven’t had to use the insurance but 3 times in the three years I have been here. It is a gamble. They gamble you are not going to need it and you gamble that you will.
My mom is in the same boat as you. She should have been able to retire 2 years ago, but because of the insurance premium costs, she will get to retire after next school year. It is sad that seniors have to work so much extra just to be able to afford to live. Oh, I should have said the timeless with wisdom.
For the timeless reference from another thread:
/\/\3|)iç 64 (Winner of the BVBL 40k and 50k post award) said on 7 Feb 2008 at 5:29 pm:
Dolph,
You are not vintage, you are timeless with years of wisdom. (and a good swimmer too ~splash~)
__
Bingo on the loopholes. That is borderline unethical in my opinion. Just because it’s there doesn’t mean you should use it. Some one referenced earlier those that have premium care and still use Medicare. The discussion about that and the very wealthy collecting social security are thought provoking. I see many sides of these issues - know what I would do if I were lucky enough to be in that position, likely take the money and donated it to a cause I trust related to well being of families as that is the purpose.
Basically, I think everyone should be able to obtain, not be given, obtain some form of health coverage. Starting with well care and moving up through the levels of care. That would begin to clear out the emergency rooms and would be less expensive at all levels of government. Would be well worth shifting fund to underwrite the states for a portion to get it in place.
Gosh Medic - who’d a thunk a few weeks ago we’d be discussing let along mostly agreeing!!! Life takes funny turns, I’ve learned not to fall on too many swords……