Skip to comments.NY Republican Congressional Candidate Demagogues Medicare Cuts
Posted on 04/02/2010 9:01:31 AM PDT by Notary Sojac
Throughout the health care debate, I argued that it was a huge mistake for Republicans to focus on attacking the Medicare cuts in the Democrats' health care legislation, because it reinforces the third-rail status of the program that will need to be seriously reformed to avert the impending fiscal collapse of the United States. Now, we're starting to see GOP candidates dig themselves in even further, by continuing to attack the Medicare cuts.
Earlier this morning, I received a press release from Chris Cox, a Republican seeking to replace Tim Bishop in New York's 1st Congressional district. His press release ...... reads, in bold letters, "Tim Bishops vote for government-run health care leads to cuts in Medicare for 800,000 New York seniors....Many of our grandparents, mothers and fathers depend on Medicare to receive necessary health care, but with the reckless health care bill that Tim Bishop helped pass, their benefits have been put in danger. "
The intellectual incoherence in this statement is amazing. It attacks Bishop for voting for government-run health care while arguing that the mother of all government-run health care programs cannot be touched.
Should Republicans retake the majority with new representatives like Cox, we'll never be in a position to repeal Obamacare because Republicans won't be able to make a credible philosophical argument against government-run health care.
Cox's defense of the sanctity of Medicare should be viewed as nothing less than a direct assault on younger generations who will be forced to grapple with the burden of unsustainable growth in entitlements.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Remember, this is NY state. No other argument works with these people
It is my opinion that, when measured on a "Support for Individual Liberty and Respect for the U.S. Constitution" Scale of 0 to 100 (with James Madison being a 99 or 100 and Woodrow Wilson being, say, a 12), the AVERAGE modern democrat politician scores no more than (with our current president being somewhere around a 2 or 3).
Unfortunately, most republican politicians score no higher than +/-25 on that same scale.
There is not currently a political party in this country which has EARNED and DESERVES my vote.
But, 25 or 30 IS better than 3, so...
...AVERAGE modern democrat politician scores no more than 12
It helps to actually include the number...
Its honestly quite difficult to predict how our government will respond when its close to Medicare-induced insolvency. Will it respond like Greece, with sharp cuts to programs and calls for austerity? Will the people then pour into the streets in protest?
OBAMACARE CUTS TO SENIORS HEALTHCARE
THE FOLLOWING CUTS HIT SENIORS OVER THE NEXT THREE YEARS. AFTER THAT BIGGER CUTS TO MEDICARE KICK IN. THIS MUST BE REPEALED!!
Medicare cuts to inpatient psych hospitals (7/1/10)
Medicare Advantage cuts begin
Medicare cuts to home health begin
Wealthier seniors ($85K/$170K) begin paying higher Part D premiums (not indexed for inflation in Parts B/D)
Medicare reimbursement cuts when seniors use diagnostic imaging like MRIs, CT scans, etc.
Medicare cuts begin to ambulance services, ASCs, diagnostic labs, and durable medical equipment
Impose new annual tax on brand name pharmaceutical companies which will raise drug prices
Americans begin paying premiums for federal long-term care insurance (CLASS Act)
Prohibition on Medicare payments to new physician-owned hospitals
Seniors prohibited from purchasing power wheelchairs unless they first rent for 13 months
New Medicare cuts to long-term care hospitals begin (7/1/11)
Additional Medicare cuts to hospitals and cuts to nursing homes and inpatient rehab facilities begin (FY12)
New tax on all private health insurance policies to pay for comp. eff. research (plan years beginning FY12)
Such was their reason for dividing, separating, checking and balancing the very limited powers they would allow to their national government in the Constitution which structured it.
Those ideas have been bypassed and ignored for decades, and such massive programs as Medicare have "bought" votes for powerful politicians, without proper acknowledgement of the violation of constitutional principle involved.
Michael Barone's column this week in the Washington Examiner rightly framed the appropriate parameters of the current debate between Tea Partiers and Progressives as being between the ideas of liberty and the ideas of expansion of government.
The comments cited here illustrate the difficulty faced by those who want to use a "principles-based" argument against the most recent overreaching power grab, but, at the same time, try to make an "issues-based" argument for holding to another government program.
Those who describe themselves as "conservatives" will be entrapped in their own arguments if they do not make a thorough study of the Framers' ideas of liberty so that they may be able to defend their positions based on principles, not issues.
I demagouge the cuts because the manner of the reductions has not been indicated. The reductions will probably never be made.
Cutting Medicare expenses is the only element of Obamacare that I would support.
Dems are claiming there are no cuts. Plus if seniors find out ho badly they are being hurt this will be repealed just like catastrophic care was. It was passed in 1988 and repealed in 1989 after seniors went on the war path against Dems.
You use what ammo the enemy gives you. In this case it’s the $523 BILLION Cut & gut of Medicare. Yes it need fixing, but not this way.
My new bumper sticker reads: $523 BILLION MEDICARE CUT & GUT, HOW’S THAT FOR HOPE & CHANGE? I drive by a local SS office a couple times a week!
Cutting medicare is one thing, say, if cuts were used to make medicare itself more fiscally sound. The Dems' plan is to cut medicare (if they ever really get around to it), and spend it on new bureaucracies and entitlements.
That is worse than making no changes at all.