AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Foxfyre wrote:

So is it completely out of the question that those very social programs have created a dependency? A dependency on benefits that people are reluctant or afraid to give up for fear their life will be even worse if they do?

Any governmental program creates its own constituency. For instance, some of the people who want the government to spend more on defense have a financial stake in the programs funded by the government. There are others, however, who just think that increased defense spending is a good idea. In the same way, there are people who support government welfare programs and who are financially dependent upon those programs, while others support those programs but who are not receiving a dime from them.

You (and Mark Steyn) can't claim, therefore, that government programs create a "dependent class," as if everyone who supports those programs is financially dependent upon them. That's why you can't dismiss Cycloptichorn when he says that, in some instances, people just like particular government programs. Not everyone who supports government welfare programs is firmly attached to the government teat. And, I would hasten to add, not everyone who is firmly attached to the government teat supports government welfare programs. Conservatives have proven that point.

My position is that the whole system isn't broken.

Most people are quite satisfied with both the quality and accessibility of their healthcare.

There are problems including some serious problems within that, yes, but why not address those problems instead of tearing down and rebuilding the entire system in a socialist model?

Social Security and Medicare are both entirely controlled, regulated, and monitored by the Federal Government and neither are sustainable as they are.

Given their track record so far, why in the world would we want to entrust the Federal government with control of the entire health system?

Quote:

My position is that the whole system isn't broken.

We can agree to disagree on how broken the system has become.

Quote:

Most people are quite satisfied with both the quality and accessibility of their healthcare.

That's because they aren't paying for it.

Quote:

There are problems including some serious problems within that, yes, but why not address those problems instead of tearing down and rebuilding the entire system in a socialist model?

We can't afford it and it's already a socialist model so why not bite the bullet and say, "all for one and one for all" or pull the plug and tell gramma to move in with her kids like she did before Medicare and SS?

Quote:

Social Security and Medicare are both entirely controlled, regulated, and monitored by the Federal Government and neither are sustainable as they are.

I agree. I still haven't seen a sustainable model that covers the needs of an aging population with an increasing life expectancy from a reduced work force. Not that I haven't asked...

Quote:

Given their track record so far, why in the world would we want to entrust the Federal government with control of the entire health system?

Because the Federal government will soon be comprised of folks who are much younger than we are (you know --- those kids who have been raised to think they're entitled to everything) and if we don't set it up right now, they'll set it up their way later.

• Health Coverage Increases: The percentage of the nonelderly population (under age 65) with health insurance coverage increased to 82.8 percent in 2007. Increases in health insurance coverage have been recorded in only four years since 1994, when 36.5 million nonelderly individuals were uninsured; in 2007, the uninsured population was 45 million.

• Employment-Based Coverage Remains Dominant Source of Health Coverage: Employment-based health benefits remain by far the most common form of health coverage in the United States, consistently covering 60"70 percent of nonelderly individuals. In 2007, 62.2 percent of the nonelderly population had employment-based health benefits, unchanged from 2006. Between 1994 and 2000, the percentage of the nonelderly population with employment-based coverage expanded. Since 2000, the percentage has declined.

• Public Program Coverage Is Stable: Public-sector health coverage expanded as a percentage of the population in 2007, accounting for 18.2 percent of the nonelderly population. Enrollment in Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program increased, reaching at 36.3 million in 2007, and covering 13.9 percent of the nonelderly population, which is significantly above the 10.5 percent level of 1999.

• Individual Coverage Stable: Individually purchased health coverage was unchanged in 2007 and has basically hovered in the high-6 and low-7 percent range since 1994.

• What to Expect in 2008: 2007 is the most recent year for data on sources of health insurance coverage. While the percentage of the nonelderly population with employment-based health benefits was unchanged between 2006 and 2007, and the percentage with public coverage increased, resulting in a decrease in the uninsured, this should not be viewed as an indicator of things to come in 2008. As compared with 2007, unemployment was higher in 2008, meaning fewer individuals will have access to health insurance through a job, and gas and food prices were higher, meaning more individuals will have to choose between health insurance coverage and basic necessities.

Mark Steyn was not addressing whether people like or dislike a government program and that is irrelevent to the point he is making.

So again, is it not reasonable to assume that people who are dependent on whatever government bureaucracy, program, or projects for their security or livelihood will vote for those who will most likely defend, protect, and continue such bureaucracies, programs, and projects?

And is it not reasonable to assume that the bigger the bureacracies, and the more necessary the programs and projects become, the more people there will be those who vote for those who continue, protect, and continue them?

Now we can assume Mark Steyn is just making all this up.

Or we can look at those countries in which that scenario has already happened.

These investment vehicles (many of them American) got their income from mutual funds and bonds that received that income from, well let's say, less socialistic sources. Who will pay when there are no more capitalistic sources to leach wealth from?

WASHINGTON " US Democrats and Republicans alike are denouncing Rep. Joe Wilson for shouting "You lie" at President Barack Obama during his speech to Congress, an extraordinary breach of decorum for which the South Carolina Republican swiftly apologized.

"There'll be time enough to consider whether or not we ought to make it clear that that action is unacceptable in the House of Representatives," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said late Wednesday on WTOP radio when asked about possible punishment for Wilson. "I've talked to Republican members who share that view."

"Let's see what he does," Hoyer said before Wilson issued an apology. "Then there's time enough to consider further action."

House Republicans did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but there was widespread condemnation of the outburst from members of both parties.

Wilson's outburst came after Obama said extending health care to all Americans who seek it would not mean insuring illegal immigrants.

"You lie!" Wilson shouted from his seat on the Republican side of the chamber.

Wilson's behavior caused a political hangover for him and possibly for the Republican critics Obama had cast as shrill and more interested in killing any health care overhaul than finding a way to provide it.

Later, Wilson was contrite.

"This evening I let my emotions get the best of me," he said in a statement. "While I disagree with the president's statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the president for this lack of civility."

He then tried to call Obama to apologize personally, but ended up talking with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel instead, Wilson's office said.

By that time, the congressman's Web site had crashed, he had taken a beating on his Twitter page and Democrat Rob Miller had raised thousands of unexpected dollars online for a possible rematch with Wilson in next year's midterm elections, according to Lachlan McIntosh, Miller's campaign manager.

"Everybody was stunned," Rep. Maxine Waters, a California Democrat, said of Wilson's eruption. "It was just something that nobody had ever witnessed before. We all felt embarrassed."

Republicans froze; several glanced in Wilson's direction.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi directed a fierce frown at him; first lady Michelle Obama pursed her lips and shook her head from side to side. Vice President Joe Biden looked down and shook his head too.

Obama, meanwhile, looked toward the outburst and replied, "That's not true" before going on with his speech.

Wilson appeared to consult his Blackberry for much of the rest of Obama's speech. He shook his head defiantly after several of the president's statements. When Obama finished, Wilson bolted from the chamber.

Wilson's behavior was "totally disrespectful," Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican, who was Obama's rival in the 2008 presidential election, said on CNN. "There is no place for it in that setting, or any other, and he should apologize for it immediately."

We're still not sure what exactly the fallout will be from Joe Wilson (R-SC) yelling "You lie!" at Barack Obama during his speech outlining his plans for health care reform. It's possible Wilson will become something of a hero within right-wing circles, or it's possible his outburst will see him drummed out of the GOP.

One thing is sure though: it really, really helped his opponent Rob Miller. The South Carolina Democrat had already attempted to unseat Wilson in 2008, but came a few votes short. Now, following Wilson's moment, Miller has already raised $75,000 and counting from progressives who want to unseat Wilson.

WASHINGTON (CNN) " The Democrat hoping to unseat South Carolina congressman Joe Wilson in next year's midterm elections quickly seized on the Republican's shout of "You lie!" during President Obama's health care speech on Wednesday.

"Representative Wilson's behavior tonight exemplifies everything that is wrong in Washington," Democrat Rob Miller said in a statement provided to CNN. "Instead of engaging in childish name-calling and disrespecting our Commander-in-Chief, Joe Wilson should be working towards a bipartisan solution that makes quality, affordable health care available to each and every South Carolinian.

Miller added: "He owes both the President and the people of this district an apology for his embarrassing behavior during tonight's speech."

Wilson apologized to the president after the speech, calling his comments "inappropriate and regrettable."

Miller, a 13-year veteran of the Marine Corps, gave Wilson the toughest re-election challenge of his career last year in one of the country's most conservative congressional districts. Miller lost by eight points, and decided to challenge Wilson again next year.


National Democrats are also looking for a win: Wilson is on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's 2010 hit list.

Wednesday's commotion is likely to give both candidates a financial boost. Miller's supporters quickly took to Twitter and urged Democrats to support the campaign, while Republicans on the Web urged their readers to donate to Wilson.

Erick Erickson, the conservative voice behind RedState.com, called Wilson a "great American hero." South Carolina Democratic party chairwoman Carol Fowler, meanwhile, said Wilson gave the state yet another black eye.

"Once again a South Carolina Republican has embarrassed our state," Fowler said in a statement, making a nod to scandal-plagued governor Mark Sanford. "Never has any member of Congress shown such disrespect for the president during a speech."

Two out of three Americans who watched President Barack Obama's health care reform speech Wednesday night favor his health care plans " a 14-point gain among speech-watchers, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation national poll of people who tuned into Obama's address Wednesday night to a joint session of Congress.

Does she support a public option?

What are the specifics of the healthcare reform that your mother allegedly supports?

So, whom here amongst the left would willingly have the previous Bush administration in charge of their health care?

McGentrix wrote:

So, whom here amongst the left would willingly have the previous Bush administration in charge of their health care?

I would. The Bush administration was in charge of my parents' health care for eight years, and I didn't have too many complaints about that.

joefromchicago wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

So, whom here amongst the left would willingly have the previous Bush administration in charge of their health care?

I would. The Bush administration was in charge of my parents' health care for eight years, and I didn't have too many complaints about that.

That's with the current plan. I am speaking of the future plan where their health care is rationed and they receive less in medicare benefits. You know, Obamacare (r).

That's with the current plan. I am speaking of the future plan where their health care is rationed and they receive less in medicare benefits. You know, Obamacare (r).