So what is your non republican solution to the problem of "pre-existing condition" coverage?
My solution would be to change the time limit - increase the 6 month limit for waiving of the condition, and the reduce 12 month limit for the actual "pre-existing condition" exclusion. One page bill.
How does that differ from what is in the current ObamaCare Bill?
QuoteMy solution would be to change the time limit - increase the 6 month limit for waiving of the condition, and the reduce 12 month limit for the actual "pre-existing condition" exclusion. One page bill.
How does that differ from what is in the current ObamaCare Bill?
If the Bill hasn't been published what is Elder going off about?
If the Bill hasn't been published what is Elder going off about?
So, suppose, someone has insurance at X company and gets cancer. Then X company lays off a bunch of people, and now this person gets a job at Y company. But his/her cancer is now a pre-existing condition and is excluded from coverage. How does sirs' clever comment give this person the treatment they require to get well?
You can't govern unless you are in power. So unless a conservative is a member of a political party, they might as well be a libertarian for all the good it will do.
My larger point is that philosophies don't win elections, people do.
And people aren't perfect. So i doubt you will ever find a perfect conservative,nor should you expect to find one, because for a conservative candidate to be viable, to be representative of an entire district, state or country, he or she sometimes has to listen to the other side, to find common ground, reach agreement on that which can be agreed upon while striving to convince the opposing side of the error of their ways. Not an easy gauntlet to run.
But we all compromise, because a principled conservative might not have the perfect candidate to vote for, so they settle for their second or third choice. Some of the biggest Bush supporters in this forum claim to be conservatives and Bush was no more conservative than Nixon.
How do you damn politicians for what you yourself do?
They settle, you settle. They make tradeoffs, you make tradeoffs.
They negotiate.
Because both you and they live in the real world and that is the way the real world works.
While Mr. Elder may or may not also realize this, he is not imagining or setting up a strawman that the Republican Party and its spokesmen in general seek to position the GOP as the political party of fiscal conservatism and smaller government.
QuoteWhile Mr. Elder may or may not also realize this, he is not imagining or setting up a strawman that the Republican Party and its spokesmen in general seek to position the GOP as the political party of fiscal conservatism and smaller government.
On scale, they are. Or do you think the Democrats are the Party of fiscal conservatism?
That the Democratic Party is not the party of fiscal conservatism and smaller government does not mean the Republican Party ipso facto then is such a party.
American businessman, politician, and current Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, considers himself a fiscal conservative and expressed his definition of the term at the 2007 United Kingdom Conservative Party Conference.
?
To me, fiscal conservatism means balancing budgets - not running deficits that the next generation can't afford. It means improving the efficiency of delivering services by finding innovative ways to do more with less. It means cutting taxes when possible and prudent to do so, raising them overall only when necessary to balance the budget, and only in combination with spending cuts. It means when you run a surplus, you save it; you don't squander it. And most importantly, being a fiscal conservative means preparing for the inevitable economic downturns - and by all indications, we've got one coming.
?
--Michael Bloomberg[17]
So? Are they significantly more fiscally conservative than their Democratic counterparts? Not that I can tell. They may oppose the government health care plan now, but they do so, as best I can tell, less from a desire to adhere to fiscal conservatism than from political expediency. Why? Because when the Republicans had the Presidency and a majority in Congress, they chose to follow the politically expedient path of significantly expanding Medicare. And even now, one of the frequent Republican objections to the bill is that it infringes on Medicare. The party talks about fiscal conservatism but its actions reveal a different value.QuoteThat the Democratic Party is not the party of fiscal conservatism and smaller government does not mean the Republican Party ipso facto then is such a party.
Sure it does. They, on average, are more fiscally conservative than their Democrat counterparts.
Nice bait.
That they should be even more fiscally conservative in the minds of some is fine, they are entitled to that opinion. But, to mix metaphors, to be called hypocritical for claiming to be for immigration reform, when you don't call for rounding up all the aliens and shooting them, does not mean you are not for immigration reform.
So let me see if I got this right. Bloomberg claims to be fiscally conservative, espouses this idea, and so therefore this idea must be fiscal conservatism?
But be careful what you wish for. A true fiscal conservative would double your taxes in a heartbeat.QuoteAmerican businessman, politician, and current Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, considers himself a fiscal conservative and expressed his definition of the term at the 2007 United Kingdom Conservative Party Conference.
?
To me, fiscal conservatism means balancing budgets - not running deficits that the next generation can't afford. It means improving the efficiency of delivering services by finding innovative ways to do more with less. It means cutting taxes when possible and prudent to do so, raising them overall only when necessary to balance the budget, and only in combination with spending cuts. It means when you run a surplus, you save it; you don't squander it. And most importantly, being a fiscal conservative means preparing for the inevitable economic downturns - and by all indications, we've got one coming.
?
--Michael Bloomberg[17]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservatism)
So? Are they significantly more fiscally conservative than their Democratic counterparts? Not that I can tell.Then you haven't been paying attention.
QuoteSo? Are they significantly more fiscally conservative than their Democratic counterparts? Not that I can tell.Then you haven't been paying attention.
Which party cut school lunch programs by calling ketchup a vegetable? And which party protested and ridiculed that attempt at cost savings?
Just but one example.
Which party slowed the growth of entitlement programs by slowing the rate of growth and which party howled like scalded cats when they did so?
there is bound to be a lot of resistance to takeing Grandmas payments back
| Ask most Republican politicians what they stand for, and they'll quickly pledge allegiance to the principles of limited government, restrained federal spending, and fiscal responsibility. But follow up and ask what policies are needed to achieve these goals, and the answers don't come as easily. In fact, to date, only one GOP legislator has drafted a comprehensive plan to cut spending, eliminate the deficit, and balance the federal budget. Rep. Paul Ryan from Wisconsin is an energetic, wonky conservative who, at 40, has made it his mission to "fix the country's fiscal problem." And he's put forward a way to do so—a way that, at least in theory, could actually work. Ryan comes from a family of industrial earth-movers—the business, now run by his cousins, was started by his grandfather, and he helped out as a kid. They clear away obstructions so new foundations can be laid. And that's Ryan's goal, not just for the GOP, but eventually, he hopes, for the rest of America. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which produces Congress's official projections about the long-term fiscal effects of legislation, Ryan's Roadmap for America’s Future would zero out the deficit, balance the budget by 2063, and reduce Medicare's expected share of the economy in 2080 from a projected 14.3 percent of GDP to a mere 4 percent. The Roadmap also calls for a substantial simplification of the tax code and a replacement of the corporate income tax with an 8.5 percent business consumption tax. CBO's projections are inherently uncertain—even the most competent economic forecasters can only guess at how the world will change over 50-plus years. But the result is, at the very least, a compelling conservative vision of the country's fiscal future. In other words, it's a thoroughly radical idea. But talk to Ryan about the plan, and he'll insist that, despite all evidence to the contrary, drastic as it sounds, the American people are ready for it. "They know the fiscal situation's bad," he tells NEWSWEEK. "They know this debt is wrong. They know we've got a problem." Yet despite its concerns about the deficit, the public is also deeply attached to Social Security and Medicare. And that's why Republicans are so skittish about Ryan's plan. Indeed, it's not clear that many of his fellow GOP legislators are willing to sign up for Ryan's hard-core brand of fiscal responsibility. Electorally, his plan may be more of a problem for the GOP than a solution. To date, his proposal, which is actually an update of a plan he initially put forth in 2008, has a mere nine cosponsors—mostly conservative stalwarts. A number of prominent Republicans, including presidential hopeful Tim Pawlenty and House Minority Leader John Boehner, have explicitly declined to support the proposal. At the same time, GOP leaders like Mitch McConnell, Michael Steele, and Newt Gingrich have all released statements staunchly opposing cuts to Medicare—the same sort of cuts that are crucial to Ryan's plan. [...] ... Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute and author of Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution, says that Ryan's plan offers "one of the few serious plans in Washington." Yet he worries that "it is far too serious for today's Republicans." [...] ... Asked about the barriers his own party has erected to entitlement reform, [Ryan's] response is a boilerplate dodge that begins, "I think we need to get beyond the old politics." Yet in the Republican Party, the old politics of pandering to seniors and posturing about unnamed spending cuts still rules. "The Ryan Roadmap is a test," says Cato's Tanner, "and right now the Republican Party is failing it." |
In fact, to date, only one GOP legislator has drafted a comprehensive plan to cut spending, eliminate the deficit, and balance the federal budget.