Posted on 03/17/2005 6:22:13 AM PST by RockinRight
Kitty doesn't like you...
Not everyone "refuses" to pay their own way. A lot of people can't at the present time. Children, for example, cannot pay their own way. Disabled people cannot work and earn money and thus, cannot pay their own way.
Bump for after work.
The Republicans also won the 1994 congressional and senate elections.. retaking control of both for the first time since the 20's.
With Gingrich and Clinton deadlocked the budget stayed steady. And no huge new programs came in, despite Clinton trying to push in commie-care.
Then add to the fact that Clinton was very pro-free trade.. and I believe was more pro-business then 99% of other Dems. Look at his Treasury Secratary Lawrence Summers, and how he ruffled the feathers at Harvard lately. Not your typical leftist.
Don't be fooled. The feds are just shifting more of the cost to the states. That constitutes a "savings" to them.
Federal regulations won't actually let the states cut the Medicaid roles or non-optional services. The states will just have to suck it up.
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/press/2005/pr050308.htm
We used to have the church in charge of those who honestly need help. Since the government took that over too, the church is withering and dying. Its no longer the community insurance program that it once was.
With voluntary donations you can ensure that the money actually gets to those in need as well. For example if I was donating to help sick poor people, and hte charity had a bureaucracy the size of the federal government's, I would pick a different charity.
Yet under President Bill Clinton, the economy soared, though he increased taxes. Hmmmmm.
Tax increases (and unless you are a liar or an idiot you would have to concede that rescinding a tax cut is a tax increase) do not usually reduce deficits, because they tend to have a contractionary effect on the economy and GDP, which results in higher unemployment claims, etc. Furthermore, with the "increased revenues" projected by the CBO's static revenue projections, congress then thinks it has more money to spend, which it naturally feels obligated to apply to new spending increases.
As far as the economy "soaring" under clinton, it didn't really start soaring until after the republican revolution of 1994 (which is also when the republicans started to rein in the spending increases). Also, the growing economy that clinton inherited started rebounding in March 1991 (nearly two years before clinton took office) and the only reasons his tax increase didn't derail the economic recovery were (1) Greenspan's monetary policy which fueled growth, and (2) the expansion of the internet and the ensuing e-commerce boom. Neither of these phenomenae resulted from clinton's tax increase.
So the American people still pay or lose.
Oh it would be so much better to institute REAL reforms instead of playing these games.
No business should be allowed to stay in operation if the population cannot afford its services. Think about it.
People will die regardless. That's a fact.
That's all well and good but we have to live in the present.
Besides, the 'good old days" weren't so great, a lot of people died unpleasant deaths at young ages. A lot of people "fell through the cracks".
A person like me probably would have been locked up in some institution for the disabled, where low wage workers would have abused me and I would have had no semblance of a life. And I would either already be dead or close to it.
One of the biggest problems with Medicaid is the same problem that is causing health insurance rates to go up for everyone. Rising healthcare costs. But how much of that is due to new technology? Being able to save premature infants but at the cost of many thousands of dollars (in some cases, millions)?
Interesting how you essentially labeled any conservative who supports family, church & charity over taxpayer-funded welfare as being "extremist," "uncaring about the poor, the elderly and disabled and other groups of vulnerable Americans," and "evil."
You are no conservative.
Medicaid is probably as much a part of the problem as it is part of the solution, possibly more. But if you think eliminating the tax cuts (i.e. raising taxes) is the answer you are sadly mistaken. Eliminating the tax cuts will have a negative impact on GDP, the stock market, and the deficit. The economic slowdown will derail any revenue growth that the tax increase was expected to raise, but spending will have already grown to expand the deficit. Medicaid is in the same boat either way.
Then why don't they do it with their own money, not mine?
I'll care for the poor ... with my own money.
When they do it with my money, it's not "caring for the poor", it's "buying votes".
"Besides, the 'good old days" weren't so great, a lot of people died unpleasant deaths at young ages. A lot of people "fell through the cracks"."
Its tough to compare because of different technology as well. A heck of a lot of people are falling through the cracks today as well, or just incompetence of the medical system in general.
"A person like me probably would have been locked up in some institution for the disabled, where low wage workers would have abused me and I would have had no semblance of a life."
Back then the economy was also only a fraction of the size it is today per capita. I am just pointing out that just because the government isn't redistributing money at gun point.. doesn't mean there is no help, especially for those who honestly need it.
"I hate Medicaid but I'm sick and have no other options."
I agree with you, also. There are people who genuinely need Medicaid & other social programs. Charities, religious & otherwise, may help, but usually they're not enough.
I am against eliminating social programs. Rather, there should be a way to curb abuses.
You can tell a society by how it treats its weakest members. The government should provide some kind of safety net. To those are able-bodied, I say: be grateful you don't need Medicaid . . . and pray you never do.
**************
Would you define yourself as a Republican? I would not, based on the above.
What radical agenda to end Medicaid?
But there isn't much help for those who honestly need it.
There are no charitable programs in existence that could do even a quarter of what Medicaid can do. Not everyone has families and churches that can provide for them. Health care is very expensive.
" Rising healthcare costs. But how much of that is due to new technology? Being able to save premature infants but at the cost of many thousands of dollars (in some cases, millions)?"
Basically healthcare is rising around the world, as we can do more. Many people alive today would be dead 80 years ago, because the technology simply didn't exist.
But in America we have an added hindrance. An out of control cartel, the doctors union.. which limits supply. And makes it so that only people with 10 years of schooling are allowed to perscribe medication.
When you limit supply like that, the inevitable result is out of control prices. 75% of applicants to medical school are turned down. Including one of my friends who had to go to the Caribean for his medical education. He had straight A's.. (which I didn't believe until he showed me his transcripts).. and they rejected him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.