cp - I think you are wise enough and astute enough to fully understand that this tieing of Daniels to the healthcare plan is only a poison kiss to the right wing constituency which has disproportional influence in the GOP primary process.it is sort of entertaining how democrats are now admitting that the President's healthcare plan is a poison-kiss, and attempting to tie it to the candidates that they see as a threat.
They do NOT see it as a poison kiss to the nation as a whole or the November electorate.
And I suspect you understand that also.
Every incumbent would love to pick their opponent. Were I in the White House or on the upper levels of the Democratic political team, I would be doing everything possible to make sure that my opponent in 2012 was either Palin, Paul, or Bachmann. Any of those three would give you a repeat of the Democratic results in 1964. Others might have just as bad of luck and results. But those three are sure bets with sure results.
Last edited by haymarket; 05-19-11 at 03:24 PM.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers
http://www.debatepolitics.com/health...e-against.html (GOP and the Health Care Mandate: They were for it before they were against it!)
Isn't that the nature of politics during an election cycle? To expose the weaknesses or hyporcrytical nature of the potential candidate?...and attempting to tie it to the candidates that they see as a threat.
I fail to see what you're getting at here. Okay...so Mitt Romney has taken in over $10M in campaign contributions. What's that go to do with the health care reforms he enacted while Gov. of Massachusettes?Obama has made a point of saying specifically how wonderful he thinks Romneycare is on... how many occasions since Romney took in $10 million?
WRONG! If anything, he's calling three GOP hopefuls out for claiming to be against ObamaCare while having made claims to support the individual mandate in the past (or a form of it presently; Re: Newt Gingrinch...they were for it before they were against it...see link above.)Having spent 3 years blaming them for his inability to spark an economic recovery, it seems that Obama has decided to blame Republicans for Obamacare, too
Oh...wait to toot your own horn, Mr. Daniels.However, before we get into the words (and I have more than a few questions about those), let's look at deeds. what did Mitch Daniels actually do to reform healthcare in his state?
Oh, well would you look at that.
Last edited by Objective Voice; 05-19-11 at 03:38 PM.
Essentially, your argument is that states have the right to either ensure that their citizens have access to affordable health care or just to let them die fending for themselves. I wholeheartedly disagree and think that your interpretation is a perversion of what the founding fathers intended for this nation. State and federal gov'ts have a constitutional obligation to provide for the general welfare of their citizens.
Last edited by Sgt Meowenstein; 05-19-11 at 03:46 PM.
Right, all state politicians want to get re-elected by killing off their uninsured. What a great campaign platform. Where does your responsibility lie on personal issues? If you cannot sell your program to your local or state govt. whose fault is that>?
A) WE do promote the general welfare in healthcare and we do it by making ERs take in pretty much any one who comes to see them if they are in a life-threatening state (and that can be defined pretty loosely). But seriously, a bad cough could be pneumonia and left untreated, the person could die, so they will be seen.
B) In providing for the general welfare in this fashion, we are wasting not just tax-payer dollars but premium dollars hand over fist.
Thus, the way I look at it - you have three choices: you can 1) let people die or continue getting sicker until they do; 2) continue this highly inefficient form of "socialized medicine"; or 3) come up with a way of doing it that is much more efficient and inexpensive for tax-payers and premium-payers.
Those are the options: 1) live like the developing world; 2) maintain the status quo; 3) develop something that is either our own solution or develop something based on what all the rest of the developed nations of the world do.
"Hmmm...Can't decide if I want to watch "Four Houses" or give myself an Icy Hot pee hole enema..." - Blake Shelton
This argument is absurd. You're saying that state's have the right to let people die in the street, and if the people don't like it, tough luck - move to another state.
If you think that your version is even remotely close to what the founding fathers had in mind for the citizens for this nation, you are sadly mistaken.