GOP flip flops, conservatives keep shut

Originally posted by Gateway
SG,

Once again you are talking in absolutes:

SG argument: We pay for police, fire, army, s.s., medicare, medicaid, "WHY NOT JUST PAY FOR OBAMACARE"?

And if you complain OR don't like it then YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE.

Again, you fail to understand that THIS IS A GOVERNMENT program...and since it is WE...THE PEOPLE have a right to decide whether we want another bureaucracy.

And again, you may see inconsistency in the public, wanting this...and not wanting that BUT THAT'S THE RIGHT OF THE PUBLIC....for it TO BE AS ARBITRARY AS IT WANTS. You make the silly argument that because we have X, therefore we should have Y, and if we don't, we are being hypocritical.

In other words, if we are partly a mixed economy bordering on socialism, HELL why NOT full BLOWN socialism or at least MORE OF IT, and if we only have partial socialism then we must be hypocritical.

Finally, I'd just like to ask you SG, just who are we being hypocritical towards? Marx's communist manifesto?







[edit on 25-8-2009 by Gateway]

The point is it is not arbitrary, it is calculated, lots of masquerading, some who are very well informed but act coy to the ultimate goal of the strategy. If this were a pure movement many more would be crying for the end of all socialisms on principle.
But I guess this is how the pendulum swings... Politics is about timing and dispersions
tis the reason we are perpetually screwed.

$50 Aspirin for all!!!

Originally posted by jsobecky
I don't understand what you're trying to say. That Republicans are in favor of SS, but against the gov't option, and so that makes them hypocritcal?

So Jso, your telling me they are in favour of socialized healthcare, but not when it has a government hand in it? How does that work? Can you define socialized healthcare?

Thankyou.

SG.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by jsobecky
I don't understand what you're trying to say. That Republicans are in favor of SS, but against the gov't option, and so that makes them hypocritcal?

So Jso, your telling me they are in favour of socialized healthcare, but not when it has a government hand in it? How does that work? Can you define socialized healthcare?

Thankyou.

SG.

Once again, the semantics battle continues. Open your eyes, take off the blinders and remove the rose colored glasses long enough to understand the fundamental differences between the 44 year old medicare system that covers senior citizens and those folks in need of dialysis and an all encompassing plan like Obamacare. Medicare is virtually bankrupt already without the addition of a massive new expense black hole like Obamacare.

The GOP is not opposed to healthcare reform. Most of the nation supports it in some form or another. The GOP has submitted at least 3 proposals including the Patient's Choice Act. The liberals have stalled every proposal to date.

The GOP and the majority of the population would like to see a more methodical and transparent approach to attaining a solution.

This is multifaceted process that needs to go slowly rather than ramming something down the throat of the nation to see what will happen.

Identify the problems first and then subsequently address each problem. We will then be able to fix our current systems without the burden of a massive new expense.

Now that Kennedy has passed, God rest his troubled soul, perhaps we can make some progress.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


What I meant was that they had no role in starting SS or medicare. If SS or medicare came up for a vote today, maybe it wouldn't pass.

Let's face it - a country our size cannot be 'pure' any type of political or economic system. There are things that gov't can do, and should do. But health care isn't one of them, imo. We have the resources and infrastructure to keep it private. Having a public option would drive the private insurers out of business.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by jsobecky
I don't understand what you're trying to say. That Republicans are in favor of SS, but against the gov't option, and so that makes them hypocritcal?

So Jso, your telling me they are in favour of socialized healthcare, but not when it has a government hand in it? How does that work? Can you define socialized healthcare?

Thankyou. SG.

*Sniff, sniff*

This man can:
www.youtube.com...

you fellas are further discrediting socialized healthcare, while claiming to support it, how the heck does that work? Socialized healthcare is not socialized healthcare without governments hand in it, period, so your either against it or for it. Medicare has federal hands deeply in it, and yet the GOP reaffirmed their support for it, and yet ya'll continue to keep shut. Just beyond me.

reply to post by midnightbrigade


VA and medicaid are a little different.

I know the VA has troubles, but that tends to be completely federal...I think.

Medicaid is federally funded, but is actually state run. I have a feeling the new program will be the same. The infrastructure is already there.

People would be surprised how many state run programs are federal at the base.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
you fellas are further discrediting socialized healthcare, while claiming to support it, how the heck does that work? Socialized healthcare is not socialized healthcare without governments hand in it, period, so your either against it or for it. Medicare has federal hands deeply in it, and yet the GOP reaffirmed their support for it, and yet ya'll continue to keep shut. Just beyond me.

I mean may be folks like you and I should support this notion...

We can go to our town halls with signs

"YES, Medicare is SOCIALISM and UNCONSTITUTIONAL"

We need to be creative our selves, this is the basis of the OPPOSITION, lets go all the way based on the merits presented.

"Medicare IS a DEATH PANEL"

Originally posted by midnightbrigade

ask anyone who's been through the V.A., they are a joke. My father has been with the V.A. for many years now, as was my grandfather. They both despised it and from what I have seen of it I understand why.

I was raised in a republican household, and had a father who worked as a psychologist at a VA hospital, until he retired. He was also a WWII veteran. A few weeks before he passed away, he told me he could not support the Republicans any longer. The reason, he said, was because the Administration at the time he died, (George Bush was President) was not supporting the veterans by providing money to ensure the quality services they deserved and were entitled to.

My point is, if this is in fact the case, then should we not rally together to change this, and make sure our soldiers coming home from these wars we have sent them to have the very finest care and equipment our society has to offer upon their return? Complaining about how poor services are will not change anything. We may have to put our money where our mouth is, if we indeed believe our soldiers are worth taking care of.

I realize this is just a tad off topic. But the VA is important to me. If there are issues within it, I want to do everything I can to offer my support for positive change. Nobody talks about VA much on ATS, so I seized this opportunity to voice my concerns.

[edit on 8/26/0909 by ladyinwaiting]

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting

Originally posted by midnightbrigade

ask anyone who's been through the V.A., they are a joke. My father has been with the V.A. for many years now, as was my grandfather. They both despised it and from what I have seen of it I understand why.

I was raised in a republican household, and had a father who worked as a psychologist at a VA hospital, until he retired. He was also a WWII veteran. A few weeks before he passed away, he told me he could not support the Republicans any longer. The reason, he said, was because the Administration at the time he died, (George Bush was President) was not supporting the veterans by providing money to ensure the quality services they deserved and were entitled to.

My point is, if this is in fact the case, then should we not rally together to change this, and make sure our soldiers coming home from these wars we have sent them to have the very finest care and equipment our society has to offer upon their return? Complaining about how poor services are will not change anything. We may have to put our money where our mouth is, if we indeed believe our soldiers are worth taking care of.

I realize this is just a tad off topic. But the VA is important to me. If there are issues within it, I want to do everything I can to offer my support for positive change. Nobody talks about VA much on ATS, so I seized this opportunity to voice my concerns.

[edit on 8/26/0909 by ladyinwaiting]

AMEN, I agree WE SHOULD BE TALKING about this very thing, but we are all mired "talking" about other things...

The veterans should have the BEST money can buy and I will gladly help "pay" for it socialisms or not.

Originally posted by milesp
The reason for the flip flop is pretty obvious. Medicare is a popular program.

Republicans know that if they allow Democrats to pass a similar program for the entire country, it would be even more popular and that means more votes. It wouldn't, however, be popular with big insurance and big pharma.

For the majority of the Republicans (excluding the activist Ron Paul types), it has nothing to do with ideology or the constitution. It has to do with scratching the backs of the corporate lobby who keep the revolving door spinning.

My thoughts are you have beautifully hit the nail on it's ugly head.

reply to post by mental modulator


Thank you. If we have people who are unwilling to support their very own legless, armless, faceless, traumatized soldiers upon their return from this god awful war, then what hope is there for gaining support for the common elderly and poor?


This is off topic. I apologize and I'm done.



[edit on 8/26/0909 by ladyinwaiting]

reply to post by ladyinwaiting


I absolutely agree. We do need better care in the V.A. Veterans should have the best health care that money can buy.

I would submit though that the V.A. isn't the same type of "socialism" that this new plan would be. No one gets V.A. unless they were a member of the Armed Forces. That's more like a club than socialism