[Big Mac]

As reported today on FNC's Special Report, the Democrats in Congress have displayed their open hypocrisy in regard to Medicare. In 2003 President Bush proposed modest cuts to the Socialist program, which the Democrats all carped against. They claimed that it would be terrible to reduce payments to Medicare and that Bush would only follow it up with broader cuts. Never mind that it's been apparent for a long time that Medicare is financial time bomb.

Now, six years later, President Obama, to his credit, has proposed Medicare cuts slightly larger than the cuts President Bush proposed in 2003. The Democratic response? They're apparently going to accept the cuts. [Edit for Chuckit's sake:] That which they vigorously opposed six years ago they now enthusiastically accept, calling the cuts "Medicare Savings." They opposed it just because Bush requested it, and now they accept it willingly because Obama requested it. If those offenders had been true statesmen, they would not have resisted reform of a system that threatens to bankrupt the country. The immense financial liabilities of Medicare didn't just arise over night. These despicable politicians knew Bush was right. Those who argued that Bush's initial cuts would be followed up by even deeper cuts if the first round got through aren't making that argument now. Convenient. These partisan hacks were against Medicare reform before they were for it just because Bush was a Republican. This blatant hypocrisy invalidates all of their previous arguments against financial reform of the pernicious Socialist institutions that threaten to bury U.S.. These hacks clearly did not have the interests of their constituents or the broader country at heart, which while typical should not be excused. They should be thrown out.

That is how the hypocrisy of the far left in Congress harms us all. Shame on them. And all stumblebummike can do is . Shame on all the enablers of the destruction of this once great country.

[stumblinmike]

[SpaceMonkey]

I didn't realize that Bush was still around to follow it up with broader cuts. Best of both worlds!

[Chuckit]

So by accepting the cuts, they're harming the country? By invalidating their previous arguments, they're harming the country? The "that's how the hypocrisy in the far left in Congress harms us all" doesn't logically follow from anything you said.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

I think he's saying by not accepting the cuts 6 years ago (when they were playing politics rather than doing something that needed to be done- IE: business as usual for liberal Democrats) they harmed the country.

[Shaddim]

It was a "bad thing" 6 years ago, but now it's the will of god.

I'm shocked I tell you, shocked.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

So by accepting the cuts, they're harming the country? By invalidating their previous arguments, they're harming the country? The "that's how the hypocrisy in the far left in Congress harms us all" doesn't logically follow from anything you said.

I take you for being far swifter than that supposed act miscomprehension implies, Chuckit. But that level of sarcasm would be atypical for you as well. Strange. If you truly don't understand what I meant, read CRASH HARDDRIVE's response to you. In the mean time, I've added additional lines to make it even easier for the dense and the smart-alecks to understand.

[Big Mac]

In related news, here's a great article from Forbes on the stupidity or mendacity of touting Medicare-for-all as a solution to the cost of health care or the problem of the uninsured:

Snake Oil For Our Health Care Ills - Forbes.com

It may contradict the theme of this thread - that cost cuts to Medicare are a good thing. If Obama is cutting costs just by reducing payments to providers, that just shifts the burden, as the article points out. We need real, dramatic reform of the system that truly brings down costs instead of having them spill over as an externality. The only way I know of to reduce costs is to have more competition. The major components of Medicare, Parts A and B, have no competition.

WARNING: DON'T READ THE ARTICLE IF YOU BOW AT THE ALTAR OF OBAMA OR MARX! MAY BE HARMFUL OR FATAL TO SOCIALIST DELUSIONS!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

That is how the hypocrisy of the far left in Congress harms us all. Shame on them. And all stumblebummike can do is . Shame on all the enablers of the destruction of this once great country.

Harry Reid on Bush's $700 billion bailout plan;

"Where is President Bush?" Sen. Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, demanded on the Senate floor. "President Bush has sent Congress an unprecedented $700 billion bailout proposal - $700 billion straight from the pockets of every single man, woman and child in America. "It is time for him to explain how his plan, drafted literally under the cover of darkness, will help America weather this storm."

"drafted under the cover of darkness" (like in Chris Dodd's office with Pelosi!) "Explain how his plan will help Americans weather this storm" as if anyone is explaining shxx about how Obama's plans are supposed to help us weather the storm. Sure, the claim was it was going to save 3 million jobs over 1.6 million jobs ago.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

It was a "bad thing" 6 years ago, but now it's the will of god.

I'm shocked I tell you, shocked.

It's can't be the will of God. They're Liberals, and are bound by sacred oath to never invoke God in public....

[hyteckit]

What a bunch of BS.

Pres. Obama is a socialist, the most leftist of leftist Senators before he became President.

Pres. Obama cutting Medicare, a socialist program? What BS.

Democrats are just the Tax and Spend party. Cutting medicare? Haha.. more BS from the Liberal media.

It's all a lie I tell you.

[hyteckit]

Oh by the way, Medicare and Medicaid is being cut in order to make room for the new Public Option in health-care reform.

Democrats are voting for the cut because Pres. Obama is provided an alternative, and a solution to health-care reform.

Pres. Bush just want to cut medicare without providing an alternative.

See the difference?

Pres. Bush - Cutting medicare with no alternative.
Pres. Obama - Cutting medicare with an alternative.

Pres. Bush - Demolishing someone's damage home and provide nowhere for the person to live.
Pres. Obama - Demolishing someone's damage home and find a alternative home for the person to live.

You see, Democrats are actually fiscally responsible and compassionate. They need to cut medicare in order to provide for the Public Option in health care.

Republicans? Well they just toss you into the street and call it "personal responsibility". Give money to the rich and call it "personal responsibility". Let you rot in Katrina and call it "personal responsibility". Spend billions upon billions to fight unnecessary preemptive wars and the same time cutting income taxes, with no way of paying for the war.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I think he's saying by not accepting the cuts 6 years ago (when they were playing politics rather than doing something that needed to be done- IE: business as usual for all opposition politicians, regardless of political leaning) they harmed the country.

Fixed. ie: conservatives are just as guilty of playing politics rather than doing something that needs to be done, but is being done by someone on the other side of the political fence.

[Big Mac]

Certainly that's true in many cases, Wikedjak. But you probably don't recall that the Republicans wanted to give Clinton the line item veto. That's one prominent example that works against your claim.

[besson3c]

I'm relieved that you spared no time in putting people on the defensive and get knees jerking by waiting to haul out the word "Socialist" until the second sentence of your original post, Big Mac!

[Dakar V]

I believe this is what I'd call a lose/lose situation. I congratulate you on finding the crap lining on what is something you'd otherwise be happy to hear, Big Mac.

[ort888]

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I think he's saying by not accepting the cuts 6 years ago (when they were playing politics rather than doing something that needed to be done- IE: business as usual for liberal Democrats politicians)

Fixed that for you. Your hypocrisy is harming the thread.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

It's can't be the will of God. They're Liberals, and are bound by sacred oath to never invoke God in public....

hence the lowercase "g".

[kobi]

I can't believe Big Mac still thinks Fox reports news, and would use them as a legit news source.

[besson3c]

And here we go! Thread number 3094832094809243 that will inevitably turn into "Republicans rule, Democrats drool", or vice versa.

See, it's all about how you start it off. If you restrain yourself from diving into the usual labels and knee jerky things, you might be able to postpone the collapse of the thread by a dozen posts or so

[Big Mac]

No, not at all besson. The Republicans sucked in the last years they were in the majority, too. They rubber stamped Bush's spending, and he failed to veto anything from them. I don't claim Republicans or the part to be perfect. Far from it. I do claim, however, that the Democrats are considerably worse and do much more harm to the country than Republicans. There are just too many examples of Dems blocking attempts at reform of these bankrupting Entitlements, passing or expanding new wasteful programs, expanding the scope of government in unconstitutional ways and generally, willfully disregarding their oath to uphold the Constitution.

[besson3c]

And again, for the 1239130918309183th time, you throw out some opinions that you do not attempt to substantiate so that I have no idea where you are coming from. Again, we can't debate your feelings.

Do not mistake this as me disagreeing with you, because you have given me nothing for me to disagree with. Just trying to salvage this thread.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Oh by the way, Medicare and Medicaid is being cut in order to make room for the new Public Option in health-care reform.

Oh... by the way? As if you had to mention this.

Democrats are voting for the cut because Pres. Obama is provided an alternative, and a solution to health-care reform.

this is like saying; "we're going to cut welfare and everyone will work for the government." An alternative? No thanks on both counts. I'd rather you let the older, milder brand of socialism remain intact.

BTW, Obama doesn't even have Congressional Democrats on board and you're throwing confetti already. This health care proposal is being exposed for the expensive joke that it is.

Pres. Bush just want to cut medicare without providing an alternative.

Example? Oh and... bye.

See the difference?

No. Maybe you can show me. See ya next thread.

Pres. Bush - Cutting medicare with no alternative.
Pres. Obama - Cutting medicare with an alternative.

Show me where Bush cut medicare without an alternative.

Pres. Bush - Demolishing someone's damage home and provide nowhere for the person to live.
Pres. Obama - Demolishing someone's damage home and find a alternative home for the person to live.

I don't know what you're talking about here, but you can bet your a$$ that Bush likely tried to give the same alternative Obama is talking about and got turned down flat by the Democrat majority. The same majority that believes it's a great idea now. Hence, the hypocrisy thread affirmed by my example in an earlier post.

You see, Democrats are actually fiscally responsible and compassionate. They need to cut medicare in order to provide for the Public Option in health care.

If they don't get their way politically, there will be no cut and there will be no fiscal responsibility. Fiscally responsible. Apparently, a massive national deficit is now fashionable.

Republicans? Well they just toss you into the street and call it "personal responsibility". Give money to the rich and call it "personal responsibility". Let you rot in Katrina and call it "personal responsibility". Spend billions upon billions to fight unnecessary preemptive wars and the same time cutting income taxes, with no way of paying for the war.

Nope, instead we'll spend enough to make Iraq look like a piece of Bazooka bubble gum, more bailouts, more worthless stimulus packages, all the while people are still increasingly claiming jobless benefits and unemployment fastly approaching 10%. Obama lied and jobs fried. No exit strategy. We're still at war and now we're creating terrorists in Pakistan. Like I said in February, 4 more years at twice the speed.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

And again, for the 1239130918309183th time, you throw out some opinions that you do not attempt to substantiate so that I have no idea where you are coming from. Again, we can't debate your feelings.

It's all well and good for you to say that besson, but I've substantiated my opinions. This issue is a matter of the public record. It came from national news report that can be verified through external sourcing if you're a part of the extreme fringe left that claims not to believe anything broadcast by Fox News. I really don't see what more I can do for you to drop this absurd objection that you've been raising in the last two PWL threads in which we've interacted. There's no question that the Administration's unambiguous claims and economic forecasts regarding the effect of the Stim/Pork bill on unemployment were failed projections, and there's no question that Democrats who opposed President Bush were being blindly partisan because they now support even deeper cuts under Obama.

Chuckit's poor attempt at humor aside (I think that's what he was going for), even a blind partisan like hyteckit sees the evidence I've presented - he counters with a left-wing interpretation of the Congressional record but doesn't deny its existence. Of course, my conservative friends had no trouble comprehending my posts to this thread. You, on the other hand, either have failed at reading comprehension when it comes to politics or are being willfully obtuse. I don't really buy the first possibility; the second is much more likely. Either you're learning disabled when it comes specifically to politics (while being very intelligent when it comes to technology), or you're playing dumb and just trolling me with these comments. If it's the former I'm sorry about your condition; if it's the latter then bully for you, but you're not contributing anything to the discussion with these antics.

[besson3c]

Big Mac: point me to where you lay out your argument. I honestly don't recall seeing it.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Fixed. ie: conservatives are just as guilty of playing politics rather than doing something that needs to be done, but is being done by someone on the other side of the political fence.

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Fixed that for you. Your hypocrisy is harming the thread.

Neither of these attempts are what Big Mac actually said.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Neither of these attempts are what Big Mac actually said.

That's why they're called "fixes"

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

That's why they're called "fixes"

Then pretend to 'fix' his post, not someone saying "I think he's saying..."

Logic is truly a dying art.

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

As reported today on FNC's Special Report, the Democrats in Congress have displayed their open hypocrisy in regard to Medicare. In 2003 President Bush proposed modest cuts to the Socialist program, which the Democrats all carped against. They claimed that it would be terrible to reduce payments to Medicare and that Bush would only follow it up with broader cuts. Never mind that it's been apparent for a long time that Medicare is financial time bomb.

Now, six years later, President Obama, to his credit, has proposed Medicare cuts slightly larger than the cuts President Bush proposed in 2003. The Democratic response? They're apparently going to accept the cuts. [Edit for Chuckit's sake:] That which they vigorously opposed six years ago they now enthusiastically accept, calling the cuts "Medicare Savings." They opposed it just because Bush requested it, and now they accept it willingly because Obama requested it. If those offenders had been true statesmen, they would not have resisted reform of a system that threatens to bankrupt the country. The immense financial liabilities of Medicare didn't just arise over night. These despicable politicians knew Bush was right. Those who argued that Bush's initial cuts would be followed up by even deeper cuts if the first round got through aren't making that argument now. Convenient. These partisan hacks were against Medicare reform before they were for it just because Bush was a Republican. This blatant hypocrisy invalidates all of their previous arguments against financial reform of the pernicious Socialist institutions that threaten to bury U.S.. These hacks clearly did not have the interests of their constituents or the broader country at heart, which while typical should not be excused. They should be thrown out.

That is how the hypocrisy of the far left in Congress harms us all. Shame on them. And all stumblebummike can do is . Shame on all the enablers of the destruction of this once great country.

Time for your nap, Mac. You're getting cranky...

[G Barnett]

See, I've somewhat recently come of the opinion that one of the biggest things we could do to fix our healthcare situation is to legislatively revert the insurance business back to the way it started -- 100% non-profit.

After all, they were at first coops where people pooled money to cover healthcare for a larger group than ordinarily could be handled at one time individually, due to everyone's varying medical needs. Everything that came in went out as medical payments or was held specifically for medical payments.

Kill the for-profit insurance companies and make them put 100% of every premium (minus salaries for the employees, of course) right back into the system. As non-profit entities they won't have shareholders to answer to, nor any need to chase and try to generate ever-escalating revenue returns.

[besson3c]

G Barnett: the problem is how do you separate what is rationally best with what is politically agreeable? There are just too many forces that would try to work against that sort of thing happening, both in and outside of the government. I predict that what Obama wants to do will become a huge political shitstorm, and all he wants to do is provide government competition against private insurers, not take away private insurance for those that prefer it. I can only imagine what proposals that involve taking away these sorts of profits would do.

Then again, I think that what you propose could provide a huge boost to our economy. I think going at it this way is probably the smartest way to go about trying to create traction for this.

[Rumor]

Democrats and Republicans not agreeing? Wow, is this supposed to be unexpected?

[G Barnett]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

G Barnett: the problem is how do you separate what is rationally best with what is politically agreeable? There are just too many forces that would try to work against that sort of thing happening, both in and outside of the government. I predict that what Obama wants to do will become a huge political shitstorm, and all he wants to do is provide government competition against private insurers, not take away private insurance for those that prefer it. I can only imagine what proposals that involve taking away these sorts of profits would do.

Oh, I know, it's probably completely political poison, but it does seem to be the most effective way to fix things without completely overhauling the system and subsuming it under government auspices. After all, it would still leave BCBS, MuOmaha, etc. as separate private entities, just force them to restructure under non-profit organization and guidelines. I suppose one selling point would be that as non-profits, they'd be 100% tax-exempt....

Then again, I think that what you propose could provide a huge boost to our economy. I think going at it this way is probably the smartest way to go about trying to create traction for this.

At least it should help healthcare become more affordable, once the insurance companies aren't constantly watching out for reasons to deny coverage and force procedures ever more expensive by setting bizarrely low percentages of "quoted prices" that they'll cover.

[kylef]

Would you rather they stuck up to their 'values' and not let the medicare cuts go through? Also, times change.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by kylef 

Also, times change.

Not for someone who's conservative.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Not for someone who's conservative.

I think this is unfair. Are the ideas being bantered about right now really new? Are they change? Aren't they really just ideas being slowly abandoned by those who've adopted them abroad?

Is change for nothing more than change's sake the goal here or do we pay attention to the merits of the ideals? I read; "All he wants to do is provide competition to private insurers." Government using the collective resources of the nation to compete against... ourselves? How is that sensible? How is that fair? *Hint, a government with the precedent of waste, fraud, deceit, and abuses of civil liberties does not all of a sudden become a righteous steward of resources because there's a leftist ideologue at the helm. What successes can we claim of any government program that we should give them something as profound as the quality of health of all? I don't see this as a problem of the people having too much leverage against the government, but the other way around.

The ol' addage; "if the government can give you everything you need, they can take everything you have" really holds true here.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I think this is unfair. Are the ideas being bantered about right now really new? Are they change? Aren't they really just ideas being slowly abandoned by those who've adopted them abroad?

Perhaps, but the fundamental characteristic of conservatism is to resist change.

[besson3c]

Particularly change that involves the government. It seems like there are Conservatives who won't be happy until the government implodes and therefore ceases to exist, either literally or figuratively.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Particularly change that involves the government. It seems like there are Conservatives who won't be happy until the government implodes and therefore ceases to exist, either literally or figuratively.

But wouldn't that be a change? How could conservatives support that?

[besson3c]

That would be spornfing change.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

But wouldn't that be a change? How could conservatives support that?

No, that's restoration.

[Laminar]

Would we get slaves back, too?

[Dakar V]

You wish.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

*Hint, a government with the precedent of waste, fraud, deceit, and abuses of civil liberties does not all of a sudden become a righteous steward of resources because there's a leftist ideologue at the helm. What successes can we claim of any government program that we should give them something as profound as the quality of health of all? I don't see this as a problem of the people having too much leverage against the government, but the other way around.

The ol' addage; "if the government can give you everything you need, they can take everything you have" really holds true here.

Wonderfully said, ebuddy. Unfortunately, the country put the Left in control. I've resigned myself to seeing the country turn itself into a less snooty imitation of France.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Wonderfully said, ebuddy. Unfortunately, the country put the Left in control. I've resigned myself to seeing the country turn itself into a less snooty imitation of France.

Thanks Big Mac. I'm blushing. The one hope I have left is that at least a few Democrats seem to be able to discern good change from bad change or at least... they don't want to lose their seats in 2010.

Otherwise, from the tone of this thread change is always good. Even bad change is good. They can't tell you why. They can't give you any examples of successes on anything of this magnitude. They can't explain why systems that have adopted the model we're discussing are moving away from them. Instead, let's turn our system completely on its head for change's sake because after all, there's a (D) in the White House. They won. We lose.