A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

But this is a thread about the future leadership, not the present one.

And you point in that is what, Walter?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Insurance companies are middlemen (baggage), but still infinitely more efficient than government bureaucracy. The shitty part about Federal Health Care is we'll probably end up paying both.

Foxfyre wrote:

But this is a thread about the future leadership, not the present one. Now admittedly, if we can trust CNN to run an honest poll, if a majority of Americans do want government to take over more of the health care, which I personally doubt...

Stop doubting; it isn't just CNN.
http://pollingreport.com/health3.htm

And maybe the polls are right. I mean some bloke calls you up and asks if you would be willing to pay a bit more for poor kids to have health care, what are you going to say?

But then later when you see what the price tag will be and that you'll have to give up stuff to accomplish the stated goal, etc. etc. etc., then how will you vote? When you find out that those 'rich' folks they were talking about are the $30k or $40k income families, would that change your opinion? And when the opposition starts putting out the illustrations in how inefficient government is in administering some of this stuff, would they then rethink it?

Snood once pointed out that few Americans are going to say they wouldn't vote for a black man for President. But in the secrecy of the voting booth, would that still hold true? We won't know until we have the chance to find out.

I think that's true on the issue of universal health care and all other subjective issues that are more based on feelings than anything else too.

So if the options are to lower the financial requirements to qualify for Medicade etc. and the cost and any resulting tax burden seems reasonable, there will be no problem. But if they try to sell it as "all Americans should be entitled to government provided universal health care" its going to be a problem.

Foxfyre wrote:

So if the options are to lower the financial requirements to qualify for Medicade etc. and the cost and any resulting tax burden seems reasonable, there will be no problem. But if they try to sell it as "all Americans should be entitled to government provided universal health care" its going to be a problem.

Is anyone even pushing for that? I thought they were just looking for guaranteed health insurance for those who can't afford it.

The poll found Americans across party lines willing to make some sacrifice to ensure that every American has access to health insurance. Sixty percent, including 62 percent of independents and 46 percent of Republicans, said they would be willing to pay more in taxes. Half said they would be willing to pay as much as $500 a year more.

Nope, prove your broke at the local welfare office and get signed up for the government to subsidize your health insurance premium up to 100% if necessary, and have a stand-in State-Insurance company for the virtually uninsurable (much like getting a home owner's policy in the Hurricane belt... or car insurance for the habitual offender). I'm sure they'll find a way to waste gobs of cash; but they don't need to socialize anything and it surely doesn't need to encompass all Americans… just provide the option for those who can't afford it on their own. I'd like to think $500 a year would cover it, and I'd gladly pay my share.

Nope, prove your broke at the local welfare office and get signed up for the government to subsidize your health insurance premium up to 100% if necessary, and have a stand-in State-Insurance company for the virtually uninsurable (much like getting a home owner's policy in the Hurricane belt... or car insurance for the habitual offender). I'm sure they'll find a way to waste gobs of cash; but they don't need to socialize anything and it surely doesn't need to encompass all Americans… just provide the option for those who can't afford it on their own. I'd like to think $500 a year would cover it, and I'd gladly pay my share.

McCain and Obama in Deal on Public Financing

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Nope, prove your broke at the local welfare office and get signed up for the government to subsidize your health insurance premium up to 100% if necessary, and have a stand-in State-Insurance company for the virtually uninsurable (much like getting a home owner's policy in the Hurricane belt... or car insurance for the habitual offender). I'm sure they'll find a way to waste gobs of cash; but they don't need to socialize anything and it surely doesn't need to encompass all Americans… just provide the option for those who can't afford it on their own. I'd like to think $500 a year would cover it, and I'd gladly pay my share.

Well, okay. It was recently alluded that I am "nice", however, and I'll probably further tarnish my 'nice' image by saying I am not willing to willingly pay $500 more a year for another entitlement if it will be counterproductive or if there is a better way to do it. Doing something just because it sounds all warm, fuzzy, compassionate or (insert your noble sounding adjective here) is something most Conservatives do try to resist at least some of the time.

And when is the last time you saw a Democrat advocate privatizing anything or not advocating at least some socialization or at least government regulation of whatever it is they wanted to accomplish?

Just breaking in for a sec to post this here, put it on the Obama thread but goes here too:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/us/politics/02fec.html

Quote:

McCain and Obama in Deal on Public Financing

I think that's fabulous. I'm not generally pro-McCain but I'm all for this move.

Foxfyre wrote:

But this is a thread about the future leadership, not the present one. Now admittedly, if we can trust CNN to run an honest poll, if a majority of Americans do want government to take over more of the health care, which I personally doubt, and they do trust the Democrats to do that better than Republicans would, which I don't doubt in the least, then of course they'll vote Democrat if that is their #1 interest in the next election.

It will depend on how it's done though. Hillary's universal health program was a huge factor and maybe even the most important factor in giving control of Congress to the GOP in 1994. It scared the peewaddin' out of a whole lot of the American public.

I think it was her personal, acidic touch which scared America then.

I also think that the health care situation wasn't as bad in the early nineties as it is now, for a lot of American families.

Cycloptichorn

December 2, 1993 - Leading conservative operative William Kristol privately circulates a strategy document to Republicans in Congress. Kristol writes that congressional Republicans should work to "kill" -- not amend -- the Clinton plan because it presents a real danger to the Republican future: Its passage will give the Democrats a lock on the crucial middle-class vote and revive the reputation of the party. Nearly a full year before Republicans will unite behind the "Contract With America," Kristol has provided the rationale and the steel for them to achieve their aims of winning control of Congress and becoming America's majority party. Killing health care will serve both ends. The timing of the memo dovetails with a growing private consensus among Republicans that all-out opposition to the Clinton plan is in their best political interest. Until the memo surfaces, most opponents prefer behind-the-scenes warfare largely shielded from public view. The boldness of Kristol's strategy signals a new turn in the battle. Not only is it politically acceptable to criticize the Clinton plan on policy grounds, it is also politically advantageous. By the end of 1993, blocking reform poses little risk as the public becomes increasingly fearful of what it has heard about the Clinton plan.

Just breaking in for a sec to post this here, put it on the Obama thread but goes here too:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/us/politics/02fec.html

Quote:

McCain and Obama in Deal on Public Financing

I think that's fabulous. I'm not generally pro-McCain but I'm all for this move.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

But this is a thread about the future leadership, not the present one. Now admittedly, if we can trust CNN to run an honest poll, if a majority of Americans do want government to take over more of the health care, which I personally doubt, and they do trust the Democrats to do that better than Republicans would, which I don't doubt in the least, then of course they'll vote Democrat if that is their #1 interest in the next election.

It will depend on how it's done though. Hillary's universal health program was a huge factor and maybe even the most important factor in giving control of Congress to the GOP in 1994. It scared the peewaddin' out of a whole lot of the American public.

I think it was her personal, acidic touch which scared America then.

I also think that the health care situation wasn't as bad in the early nineties as it is now, for a lot of American families.

Cycloptichorn

Quote:

December 2, 1993 - Leading conservative operative William Kristol privately circulates a strategy document to Republicans in Congress. Kristol writes that congressional Republicans should work to "kill" -- not amend -- the Clinton plan because it presents a real danger to the Republican future: Its passage will give the Democrats a lock on the crucial middle-class vote and revive the reputation of the party. Nearly a full year before Republicans will unite behind the "Contract With America," Kristol has provided the rationale and the steel for them to achieve their aims of winning control of Congress and becoming America's majority party. Killing health care will serve both ends. The timing of the memo dovetails with a growing private consensus among Republicans that all-out opposition to the Clinton plan is in their best political interest. Until the memo surfaces, most opponents prefer behind-the-scenes warfare largely shielded from public view. The boldness of Kristol's strategy signals a new turn in the battle. Not only is it politically acceptable to criticize the Clinton plan on policy grounds, it is also politically advantageous. By the end of 1993, blocking reform poses little risk as the public becomes increasingly fearful of what it has heard about the Clinton plan.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/may96/background/health_debate_page2.html

And here, about half way down page under "offensive plays"
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_n9_v26/ai_15856832/print

sozobe wrote:

Just breaking in for a sec to post this here, put it on the Obama thread but goes here too:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/us/politics/02fec.html

Quote:

McCain and Obama in Deal on Public Financing

I think that's fabulous. I'm not generally pro-McCain but I'm all for this move.

Wow

Cycloptichorn

There already is a cap on private funds and I believe all announced candidates are rejecting public funding so that they don't have to have the caps. I may have that wrong, but I think that's pretty much the gist of what I've been reading.

Foxfyre wrote:

There already is a cap on private funds and I believe all announced candidates are rejecting public funding so that they don't have to have the caps. I may have that wrong, but I think that's pretty much the gist of what I've been reading.

Correct; but that doesn't mean they couldn't mutually agree to lower it. We still need reform to stop 527's from jacking up the cost as well.