Comments on: Mormons For President?

By: Romney is No Conservative « Furthermore…

Romney is No Conservative « Furthermore… — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:42:06 +0000

[...] Romney also has a major identity problem. Romney ’s tried to go from claiming to be a super-moderate New England Republican to being a super-conservative national primary type Republican. Mitt couldn’t pull it out against McCain. Did we not learn from electing John McCain in 2008? Romney needs to remember that many supported him in 2008 simply to stop McCain, not because they thought he was the next Reagan. Romney hasn’t shown that he is someone that the country can vote for. So, at this point mind you, he would be relying on votes against Obama to put him over the top. And even still, if the polls are to be believed, mormons rank among America’s most disliked religious denominations. If you like David Frum, you should like Mitt Romney. Click here and here. [...]

By: gerrysh

gerrysh — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 19:47:55 +0000

Do the trolls actually believe that anyone reads their off-topic rants? Just search for “Mormon” on this page and see all the garbage posts that fly by.

By: larryo

larryo — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:45:41 +0000

BTW, sinz, you wrote: “In the 1970s, I got to see firsthand how liberal government had turned America’s greatest cities into pestholes ‘reminiscent of Calcutta,’ as the late Theodore H. White wrote.” Richard Nixon was elected in 1968, and a Republican was in the WH until 1977. What did these conservative leaders to to clean up the cities? Why, what they always do – they undertook deficit spending (which they ardently advocate against) for money to feed the war machine and the mega-corporations but no one else. Carter faced double-digit inflation on account of the policies of his predecessors. So tell us again: Who was responsible for the sorry state of the cities in the 1970’s?

By: dendup

dendup — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:18:17 +0000

McCains health care proposal was focussed on cutting costs. His plan covered everyone, but provided only a catostrophic care. This was not clear in most comparisons during the campaign. The market would be available to provide the rest. Every health care system rations care in some way. The free maket rations care on an ability to pay. HMO’s are essentially a rationing system for employer subsidized care. Congress and the President decide how to ration care in Medicare/caid. We need to have a discussion about all this without using emotionally charged language if we want to make any meaningful progress. Are there groups who should not get subsidized health care, or should get a more limited version of it? What procedures, treatments, medications shouldbe excluded from subsudized health care? When we talk about various heath care funding systems, we are really talking about these questions.

By: larryo

larryo — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:42:43 +0000

sinz – you and I have crossed swords often enough so you ought to know that I don’t “stroke” you or anyone else here – I was agreeing with you on the specific points you raised, all of which I thought were good ones. There were several, in fact, in a row. How do you reconcile that with your “leftist” stereotype. Second, I do not think the collected rightists here are in disarray – in fact, it appears to me that you divide up into three pretty distinct groups, with the views of one of which I agree so often it surprises me. Third, I am civil to everyone here – everyone – except ireign. I will be civil to her as soon as she is civil to me. She initiated the uncivility – the cheap shots and the personal attacks in response to something I wrote about what I really believe – and she can put an end to it any time she wants. In the meanwhile, if she aims her vitriol at me I will continue to excoriate her and you can completely lose patience if you wish – I suggest you redirect your complaint in that light. Before you cite me to mikedbike, I just turned his own polemic around on him – surely that is fair. Finally, I have found significant common grounds of agreement on various points with several of the columnists here – Mssrs. Vecchione and Ligon, for example, and even with you over the past few days – how that could possibly be offensive you escapes me, I admit. You are embarrassed at the state in which you and your political bedfellows find yourselves – some of your most cherished myths and superstitions have been exposed for what they are. I more than understand – I was humiliated when Clinton turned out to be the charlatan he is (i.e. his support for the unfettered mobility of capital which he called “free trade” and his push to scuttle Glass-Steagal), but even Clinton knew the way out of the economic doldrums that Reagan and GHWB left in their wake and even Clinton had some sense of his duty to the general welfare of the nation as a whole. You cannot say that about Reagan or either Bush. What none of you seem to understand is that this discussion between the right and the left has been going on since the time of the colonists, and the compromises that were reached were embodied in the Constitution. The real work is done on the grounds of common agreement between what Madison called “the factions,” which he abhorred. The more common ground we can find the better. Or, to put it another way, sinz, it’s not all about you – sorry.

By: ireign

ireign — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:28:57 +0000

Sinz-I would prefer nothing or perhaps even a single-payer solution to Romney’s plan in Massachusetts. At least under a single payer plan, I would pay less in health care costs although my coverage would not be as good. Under the plan you propose, I get hit with more costs and keep the same level of service. Your proposal isn’t an alternative so much as an acceptance of President Obama’s proposal. There was a counter proposal by Senator McCain and unfortunately, the American people sided with Obama. So while Republicans can bring up the proposal again, as Obama put it, “he won.” As to your point that we are already providing for the uninsured who go to the emergency room, that is far different than having to pay the cost for someone with a sinus infection. I am perfectfully willing to subsidize those who are gravely ill.

Given the massive growing deficits in this country, universal healthcare coverage is going to be on the backburner for quite sometime. Moreover, it is inevitable that we are going to have a big costly medical program in this country at some point. If Hillary had been willing to make a few concessions, we would have had one in 1994.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:28:54 +0000

To larryo: You are trying my patience, because you are the least civil of any of the posters here. Calling someone else’s post “idiotic,” making cheap shots and personal attacks. I do not appreciate your “stroking” me with your compliments; I do not want to be your cat’s paw, doing your work by criticizing conservatives while you sit back and smile at the disarray. Let me assure you, the feeling is mutual–but the civility, apparently, is not. In the 1970s, I got to see firsthand how liberal government had turned America’s greatest cities into pestholes “reminiscent of Calcutta,” as the late Theodore H. White wrote. But unlike you, I always try to be civil. I always treat you like a fellow American citizen. Try treating us the same way, and you might find more willingness by the Right to consider your arguments. No one ever wins someone over by saying “I think you’re stupid because….”

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:20:45 +0000

To Ireign: If we cannot defend our ideas in the face of criticism by a leftist like larryo here on this NG, how can we defend them before the Democrats (including Obama’s minions) in any public debate or political campaign? I tried to explain how RomneyCare works. Instead of offering any alternative proposal for health care, all you did was say “It wouldn’t work elsewhere.” You didn’t suggest any modifications to it, you just trashed it. That’s not helpful. This isn’t 1993; the GOP isn’t going to be able to stop health care reform from going forward this time, because the business community has flipped and now favors it. If we can’t offer an alternative to the liberals’ proposals, their proposal will pass. And unlike the stimulus package, once health care reform passes, it will be permanent, just like Medicare is. The GOP desperately needs a better answer to this issue than just “NO”.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:57:38 +0000

ireign: Health care for illegal aliens is already a problem in America, and would continue to be, even if we didn’t change the current health care system at all. The reason is that by law, no hospital can refuse to treat an illegal alien, even if that person is unable to pay. And hospitals and their doctors don’t work for free. So who pays for the treatment of an impoverished illegal alien at a hospital Emergency Room? Right now, you and I do: The cost of treating him is part of the hospital’s overhead, and they have to charge the insurers for it. (And that’s a big charge, because Emergency Room care is expensive care.) Then the insurers promptly raise our premiums to cover it. If the illegal alien gets treated at a city hospital or government-run clinic, then our taxes pay for that. So in any health care system you can imagine, care for illegal aliens must be paid for–as long as they stay in America. One more thing: I was NOT suggesting that each individual state should adopt the Massachusetts plan on its own. Some states are suffering with relatively high unemployment and they couldn’t really make a go of any state plan. I was suggesting that RomneyCare offered a model for how a *national* plan could be run. It would be simpler and less intrusive on private business than some of the schemes that the liberal Dems in Congress are liable to concoct.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:42:52 +0000

ireign: “….address what the majority of Americans are unhappy about today, ergo rising health care costs.” There are no magic solutions to rising health care costs. Oh, we can try to reform the health care system to squeeze out waste and duplication of efforts–but that’s a one time saving. And even after all the waste has been squeezed out, health care costs will continue to be driven upward by the steady aging of the U.S. population. This is a problem for every Western nation these days, not just America. In America, managed care has already addressed the problem of costs at the low end (i.e., urgent care by a primary care physician). They require cheaper generic drugs to be used when possible, require referrals to specialists, etc. But at the high end of costs, the big-ticket illnesses like metastatic cancer or my kidney failure, there usually are no cheaper options. My two options are dialysis (for now), and a kidney transplant followed by immunosuppressants for the rest of my life. Both of these options are very expensive, and most of the prescription drugs for these treatments have no generic equivalent. Finally, some have hoped that prevention–aggressive screening, healthier lifestyles–might lower health care costs. But the few studies that have been done so far don’t seem to bear that out. I am not sure why. Perhaps it’s just that diseases like chronic kidney disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and arthritis, cannot be cured–and continue to worsen–no matter how early they are detected. If that’s true, then what we really need is some major breakthroughs in geriatric medicine and in the cure or prevention of degenerative disease. If stem-cell research could cure spinal cord injury, kidney failure, Alzheimer’s disease, etc., health care costs in this country (and elsewhere) would drop dramatically.