AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Indeed. Personally, if I'm paying for it anyway, I'd like to make sure it is always available to everyone.

Anyone, and I mean anyone, who thinks a single payer system is the solution, is a damn fool ... or, is seeking to use a single-payer system to destroy the American free market system and replace it with a statist dictatorship, because they are a hateful puddle of putrid puke.

Ah, so Obama claims that all that can be fixed with a single-payer system. But the single-payer system is merely a replacement of Medicare and Medicaid with what is equivalent to an expansion of Medicare and Medicaid over the entire population. Anyone, and I mean anyone, who thinks a single payer system is the solution, is a damn fool ... or, is seeking to use a single-payer system to destroy the American free market system and replace it with a statist dictatorship, because they are a hateful puddle of putrid puke.

Medicare and Medicaid are failures. They are paying decreasing shares of medical expenses

, massively increasing federal debt, and the number of participating physicians is decreasing.

Ah, so Obama claims that all that can be fixed with a single-payer system.

But the single-payer system is merely a replacement of Medicare and Medicaid with what is equivalent to an expansion of Medicare and Medicaid over the entire population. Anyone, and I mean anyone, who thinks a single payer system is the solution, is a damn fool ... or, is seeking to use a single-payer system to destroy the American free market system and replace it with a statist dictatorship, because they are a hateful puddle of putrid puke.

Foxfyre, sorry to interrupt the conversation here for this note, and you may have read it, but on the Dicatator thread, I posted what I believe it is to be American and to be conservative, and just wonder what your comments would be? It is in response to the question of whether truly conservative philosophy could ever become totalitarian, and I make the case that the two are virtually incompatible, by virtue of the inherent beliefs of each:

http://able2know.org/topic/66117-78#post-3756376

It is a doctrine stressing individual freedom, free markets, and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to place fiscal constraints on government as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, David Ricardo, Voltaire, Montesquieu and others.

As such, it is the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism of the late 18th and 19th centuries. The "normative core" of MAC/classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society, though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of some basic public goods with what constitutes public goods being seen as very limited. The qualification classical was applied retroactively to distinguish the term from more recent, 20th-century conceptions of liberalism and its related movements, such as social liberalism .

MACs promote strong national defense and necessary regulation to prevent the citiziens/states from doing violence to each other, but are otherwise suspicious of all but the most minimal federal government necessary to perform its Constitutional mandates and object to most of a federal welfare state.

And the naysayers and numbnuts on the thread won't even consider the modern definition and continue to ridicule it however accurate it might be. But many if not most liberals seem to be like that if their behavior on this thread is any guage of modern liberal thought. Smile

Quote:

And the naysayers and numbnuts on the thread won't even consider the modern definition and continue to ridicule it however accurate it might be. But many if not most liberals seem to be like that if their behavior on this thread is any guage of modern liberal thought. Smile

Actually we ridicule it because you just make up meanings of words and demand we accept that meaning. Then you call us "numbnuts" for wanting to have a common language based on accepted definitions. You and okie are a lot alike in that you both simply change the meanings of words to support what you believe and then attack anyone that points out that you aren't doing anything other than changing the meanings.

mm claims he drove 50-miles to get that $75 rate for a mammogram, but what happens when there's an emergency? The first hour is critical if it's a heart problem.

Quote:

mm claims he drove 50-miles to get that $75 rate for a mammogram, but what happens when there's an emergency? The first hour is critical if it's a heart problem.

There is a hospital 5 minutes away, so that isnt a problem.
I am a first responder/EMT so I can handle it, plus the hospital has its own helo to lifeflight people to whatever hospital is required.

We drove 50 miles to a Dr's office, not to a hospital.

There is a hospital 5 minutes away, so that isnt a problem. I am a first responder/EMT so I can handle it, plus the hospital has its own helo to lifeflight people to whatever hospital is required.

Fox, you don't have the right to claim your so-called MACs are representative of modern conservatism, or in fact representative of anyone but you and ican. To claim authoritarian conservatism is dead and outmoded flies in the face of the last eight years, and the people who were in fact the conservastives who matter, i.e. the ones in power. I commend to your attention the operating principle of W. Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, and Yoo, the so-called" unitary presidency", which held that a wartime president (and remember they held we are in a war without any determinable end) is responsible to no-one but himself--not the courts, not congress, not the people, the first long step on the road to totalitarianism, and conservatives were the people that took it.