Comments on: Health care

By: mcgill

mcgill — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 01:25:18 +0000

I’ll sign up for it and won’t feel a bit like a hypocrite. The government made me pay for it without giving me an option. Same with Social Security.

Reminder, I started this off asking everyone to contact your representative about health care. Regardless if you agree with my opinion, it’s too important to leave it to our Congress to decide on their own.

By: mousie

mousie — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 00:18:40 +0000

i do not think the government will take your deal. so you will have to pay taxes for social security and medicare. and then you will be eligible to get benefits. if you try your best to get libertarian policies adopted but then do not succeed i do not think there is any hypocrisy in accepting benefits. the hypocrisy would be if a libertarian tried to get out of paying the taxes and then tried to get the benefits. anyway.

By: libertarian

libertarian — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:00:30 +0000

To make this a clear test of hypocrisy, I have a deal for the government. When I become eligible for Medicare, refund all my “contributions” with interest and I won’t ask for another penny. Same deal for Social Security. Do you think the government will take my deal?

By: ole hippie

ole hippie — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:00:10 +0000

All those people who are so opposed to government run healthcare will be the biggest hypocrites if they sign up for Medicare when the time comes.

By: traveler

traveler — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:44:11 +0000

Here is something to think about. Some of us who favored Obama over Clinton for the Democratic nomination did so because we thought he would be a uniter, while Clinton would be a divider — more partisan, you know. Health care was a great example. Obama’s plan was smaller, less intrusive and less costly. Clinton’s plan was bigger with more mandates and more regulation. Well, guess what? The plan being pushed now is a lot more like Clinton’s than Obama’s. Have a look and see: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/theyve_got_you_covered.html .

Personally, I think single-payer would be better than the giveaway to health insurers that’s about to become the law of the land.

By: mcgill

mcgill — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 22:37:32 +0000

As a long time conservative Republican, I can honestly say that I have meet no others of my ilk that have the attitude “to hell with the poor”. A lot of us do think that the “poor” wear their situation as a mantle in order to play the system.
I believe, if we could get beyond the stereotyping, that most of us believe that self reliance is a greater virtue than generations of being dependent on the government. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach him to fish and……….
The health care bill, which according to Ms. Pelosi has to be passed before we will know whats in it, is way too intrusive. I fail to see why a massive take over of the health care is required to insure the 30 million people that didn’t have health insurance, get it.
I still maintain that the federal government should be limited as stated in the Constitution and that powers should be with the States. I believe that the American people would be represented much more fairly than we are now by the behemoth that we have in Washington.
Instead of just getting “something” passed that is so massive, why can’t we deal with it in stages. This takeover which is essentially socialized medicine will be monster we have to live and die with forever. Once a entitlement program is established they never go away. They become sacred cows, never to be messed with again.
I would like to say that it very nice to see this forum being used for an in depth discussion of a serious issue without rancor. Wish more folks would join in.

By: Old Timer

Old Timer — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 18:05:34 +0000

I can’t say as I disagree with you in theory, McGill. But that is a mighty big “If”. Both presidents FDR and Truman recognized that wittingly or unwittingly a lot of people fall between the cracks social-economically and need protection/help relative to their medical health and their arrival at retirement age without any financial resources. I often get the impression many conservatives take the “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche”(let them eat cake) approach attributed to Marie Antoinette. In other words, to hell with the poor. Let them and their kids starve to death or die of disease. That will cleanse the ranks. As much as I criticize the blunders of congress around the Health Care bill, at least they are trying to hammer out something that might improve things relative to health insurance. If just SOMETHING can get passed, maybe it can be improved upon in the future. Got my fingers crossed.

By: mcgill

mcgill — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 00:59:12 +0000

I would if I could but it’s entrenched now. Too many promises have been made. It is now a fact/way of life. I, myself, am drawing social security.
I think that if we were more self reliant we could provide for our retirement and medical care and if we had the option. Not having to pay the mountains of taxes I’ve paid over the years would have provided me with funds for investments.
The argument that not everyone would be responsible enough to manage their money could be dealt with by education. If the effort to educate people to be self reliant was as intense as the government’s propaganda justifying their questionable activities, most folks would learn take care of them selves.
There would always be a portion of the population that wouldn’t get it, and they would need help. But, I believe it would be a small majority, not the whole populace being dependent on or controlled by the government.

By: Old Timer

Old Timer — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 23:35:58 +0000

Thanks Libertarian. I agree with what you said.

McGill– would you do away with Social Security and Medicare?

By: mcgill

mcgill — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 23:07:28 +0000

While not a libertarian, I do have leanings in that direction. My stab at what ideal federal government is one with limited powers as directed by our forefathers and the Constitution. The bulk of governmental authority would be with state and local governments.
The Fed would provide for the common defense, yes, the authority to wage war. Post offices, etc. and taxes only to the extent that is required for it’s minor functions. Certainly not taxes that far exceed the state governments.
It most certainly would not have the power that the Federal Government as assumed in the last 100 years. It would not be allowed to dictate wealth redistribution ( social Security, Medicare, payments to farmers to not grow crops, etc), pork projects like we saw with the stimulus fiasco. Nor would it have the authority to run up massive debts to provide all the entitlement programs.
The sad fact is that we are a socialist nation, as much as we would like to deny it, and the passage of the next two entitlements (health care takeover and federal control of student loans) will pretty much seal the deal.
James Madison and Thomas Jefferson didn’t mean for us to end up being a Nanny State but yet here we are.