Political Crossfire Forums

Moracca · Joined: 20 Jun 2006 Posts: 2821 Location: ar-Raba, KOM

I was just curious to see how other "neo-cons" thought of the leftist goals in the social services arena. Personally I feel that the leftist agenda concerning nationalized health care and socialism in general is a noble goal. I mean, the fact that leftsists want to ensure that everyone has at least access to health care, a place to stay and food to eat is as American to me than anything else. The problem is implementing these programs. I think that if we can find responsible ways to implement these programs we will have taken many steps forward in making the US a better place. However, the costs associated with these programs would be enormous.

Anyway, I'd like to see what everyone out there thought of the end result of these leftist ideals without too much argument on how to establish them. We all know that implementation is the problem along with the ability to sustain them longterm.

Somebloke · Joined: 08 May 2006 Posts: 2550 Location: London

While I am not a neo-con, I beleive that they have faith in the amazing miraculous powers of the market to always give people what they want in a way better than any government ever good.

Or they're just greedy. Either way.

callous · Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 2:55 pm Post subject: Re: Neo-Con on Leftists

Moracca wrote: I was just curious to see how other "neo-cons" thought of the leftist goals in the social services arena. Personally I feel that the leftist agenda concerning nationalized health care and socialism in general is a noble goal. I mean, the fact that leftsists want to ensure that everyone has at least access to health care, a place to stay and food to eat is as American to me than anything else. The problem is implementing these programs. I think that if we can find responsible ways to implement these programs we will have taken many steps forward in making the US a better place. However, the costs associated with these programs would be enormous.

Anyway, I'd like to see what everyone out there thought of the end result of these leftist ideals without too much argument on how to establish them. We all know that implementation is the problem along with the ability to sustain them longterm.

I believe a national healthcare system shouldn't go the entire way.

A person who averages 25 hours a week working over a 6 month period should have full healthcare benefits no questions asked.

A person who is disabled and can not work should have full healthcare benefits no questions asked.

A hippie living on the street making a living out of asking people for money? f**k em.

BigOMG · Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 2:55 pm Post subject:

As noble as those goals sound, I for one do not believe that is the main reason they push for them. If they can help a group of people or voters, they think that group will keep them in power. That's it. They might feel better about themselves if they actually help one person, but in the long term it will only help them and their special interests.

Issues such as these should be handled at the local level, the State level at the highest.

Moracca · Joined: 20 Jun 2006 Posts: 2821 Location: ar-Raba, KOM

BigOMG wrote: As noble as those goals sound, I for one do not believe that is the main reason they push for them. If they can help a group of people or voters, they think that group will keep them in power. That's it. They might feel better about themselves if they actually help one person, but in the long term it will only help them and their special interests.

Issues such as these should be handled at the local level, the State level at the highest.

On top of the things that you mention I also believe that if the government is in control of health care and other things that it gives them that much more power over the people who look to the government for so many things.

Nothing is ever going to be perfect. But at times I'd like to shake things up a little to see what other sorts of ideas people have about solutions to problems out there.

callous · Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 3:05 pm Post subject:

Moracca wrote: BigOMG wrote: As noble as those goals sound, I for one do not believe that is the main reason they push for them. If they can help a group of people or voters, they think that group will keep them in power. That's it. They might feel better about themselves if they actually help one person, but in the long term it will only help them and their special interests.

Issues such as these should be handled at the local level, the State level at the highest.

On top of the things that you mention I also believe that if the government is in control of health care and other things that it gives them that much more power over the people who look to the government for so many things.

Nothing is ever going to be perfect. But at times I'd like to shake things up a little to see what other sorts of ideas people have about solutions to problems out there.

I think Id rather have the government taking care of health care than taking care of whether i'm "safe from terrorists" or not.

Chymical · Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 3:14 pm Post subject:

I think no one should have healthcare. Kill all doctors and burn down the hospitals.

Evolution...

you'll thank me in ten thousand years.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 8181

Chymical wrote: I think no one should have healthcare. Kill all doctors and burn down the hospitals.

Evolution...

you'll thank me in ten thousand years.

Yeah, but we'll murder you tomorrow. :lol:

Chymical · Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:56 pm Post subject:

In that case I want universal healthcare please ;)

JoeBen81 · Joined: 13 Jun 2006 Posts: 4548

Chymical wrote: I think no one should have healthcare. Kill all doctors and burn down the hospitals.

Evolution...

you'll thank me in ten thousand years.

So I end up dying of Diarehhia at the age of 25, no thanks!

But I have thought about this and the results would be undeniable.

beachbum bob · Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:54 pm Post subject:

Moracca wrote: BigOMG wrote: As noble as those goals sound, I for one do not believe that is the main reason they push for them. If they can help a group of people or voters, they think that group will keep them in power. That's it. They might feel better about themselves if they actually help one person, but in the long term it will only help them and their special interests.

Issues such as these should be handled at the local level, the State level at the highest.

On top of the things that you mention I also believe that if the government is in control of health care and other things that it gives them that much more power over the people who look to the government for so many things.

Nothing is ever going to be perfect. But at times I'd like to shake things up a little to see what other sorts of ideas people have about solutions to problems out there.

my mom is 78yrs old and a hard rightwing repub who has never voted any other way and she praises how well medicare works....

Heinz · Joined: 30 May 2006 Posts: 1636 Location: Philadelphia

Quote: my mom is 78yrs old and a hard rightwing repub who has never voted any other way and she praises how well medicare works....

Good for her.....

You're probably a 50 something year old who hardly votes anything but Dem.

Most anything the government touches turns to crap. Ask the people in New Orleans what relying on the local, state and federal government got them. It got them dead.

Federali · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 162

Only thing Neo-Cons are interested in is Money and Power and misleading the American public,
that's why Republicans are in shambles right now.

JoeBen81 · Joined: 13 Jun 2006 Posts: 4548

Federali wrote: Only thing Neo-Cons are interested in is Money and Power and misleading the American public,
that's why Republicans are in shambles right now.
Ahh yes... it never fails...

poweRob · Joined: 15 Jul 2004 Posts: 22198

Moracca wrote: I was just curious to see how other "neo-cons" thought of the leftist goals in the social services arena. Personally I feel that the leftist agenda concerning nationalized health care and socialism in general is a noble goal. I mean, the fact that leftsists want to ensure that everyone has at least access to health care, a place to stay and food to eat is as American to me than anything else. The problem is implementing these programs. I think that if we can find responsible ways to implement these programs we will have taken many steps forward in making the US a better place. However, the costs associated with these programs would be enormous.

Anyway, I'd like to see what everyone out there thought of the end result of these leftist ideals without too much argument on how to establish them. We all know that implementation is the problem along with the ability to sustain them longterm.

Basically I'd like to see a "medicaid for all" program. It's an institution already in place and we wouldn't need to create a brand new bureaucracy for health coverage. It's proven to be vastly efficient especially compared to it's private insurance counterpart.

It' leaves doctors and hospitals and such alone while just federalizing the coverage. I'd suggest paying for it with a shift from the star wars funding with an 8 year implementation so it's not all-at-once starting with the young and the elderly and working inward on age coverage. Completely remove the health coverage of people away from businesses and income deductions. This would increase company profit and personal income which would in turn increase personal spending and allow for increased business hiring.

Implement an 1% federal sales tax with the exemption for food and medicines to pay down the national debt, with a shift after debt paydown is reached, keep the 1% federal sales tax and opt for an income tax break instead. This would increase spending thus federal revenue should a proper balance be maintained.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 8181

Chymical wrote: In that case I want universal healthcare please ;)

Sorry, no hospitals.

Moracca · Joined: 20 Jun 2006 Posts: 2821 Location: ar-Raba, KOM

poweRob wrote: Moracca wrote: I was just curious to see how other "neo-cons" thought of the leftist goals in the social services arena. Personally I feel that the leftist agenda concerning nationalized health care and socialism in general is a noble goal. I mean, the fact that leftsists want to ensure that everyone has at least access to health care, a place to stay and food to eat is as American to me than anything else. The problem is implementing these programs. I think that if we can find responsible ways to implement these programs we will have taken many steps forward in making the US a better place. However, the costs associated with these programs would be enormous.

Anyway, I'd like to see what everyone out there thought of the end result of these leftist ideals without too much argument on how to establish them. We all know that implementation is the problem along with the ability to sustain them longterm.

Basically I'd like to see a "medicaid for all" program. It's an institution already in place and we wouldn't need to create a brand new bureaucracy for health coverage. It's proven to be vastly efficient especially compared to it's private insurance counterpart.

It' leaves doctors and hospitals and such alone while just federalizing the coverage. I'd suggest paying for it with a shift from the star wars funding with an 8 year implementation so it's not all-at-once starting with the young and the elderly and working inward on age coverage. Completely remove the health coverage of people away from businesses and income deductions. This would increase company profit and personal income which would in turn increase personal spending and allow for increased business hiring.

Implement an 1% federal sales tax with the exemption for food and medicines to pay down the national debt, with a shift after debt paydown is reached, keep the 1% federal sales tax and opt for an income tax break instead. This would increase spending thus federal revenue should a proper balance be maintained.

Finally, something to consider. :wink:

blockhead · Joined: 29 Oct 2006 Posts: 597 Location: SouthWest

poweRob wrote: Moracca wrote: I was just curious to see how other "neo-cons" thought of the leftist goals in the social services arena. Personally I feel that the leftist agenda concerning nationalized health care and socialism in general is a noble goal. I mean, the fact that leftsists want to ensure that everyone has at least access to health care, a place to stay and food to eat is as American to me than anything else. The problem is implementing these programs. I think that if we can find responsible ways to implement these programs we will have taken many steps forward in making the US a better place. However, the costs associated with these programs would be enormous.

Anyway, I'd like to see what everyone out there thought of the end result of these leftist ideals without too much argument on how to establish them. We all know that implementation is the problem along with the ability to sustain them longterm.

Basically I'd like to see a "medicaid for all" program. It's an institution already in place and we wouldn't need to create a brand new bureaucracy for health coverage. It's proven to be vastly efficient especially compared to it's private insurance counterpart.

It' leaves doctors and hospitals and such alone while just federalizing the coverage. I'd suggest paying for it with a shift from the star wars funding with an 8 year implementation so it's not all-at-once starting with the young and the elderly and working inward on age coverage. Completely remove the health coverage of people away from businesses and income deductions. This would increase company profit and personal income which would in turn increase personal spending and allow for increased business hiring.

Implement an 1% federal sales tax with the exemption for food and medicines to pay down the national debt, with a shift after debt paydown is reached, keep the 1% federal sales tax and opt for an income tax break instead. This would increase spending thus federal revenue should a proper balance be maintained.

I could work with that.

Moracca · Joined: 20 Jun 2006 Posts: 2821 Location: ar-Raba, KOM

Federali wrote: Only thing Neo-Cons are interested in is Money and Power and misleading the American public,
that's why Republicans are in shambles right now.

Congrats. You just described politicians in general from both parties. The GOP just happens to be on the sh!t end of the shamble cycle.

Charlie Man · Joined: 02 Aug 2005 Posts: 4522

Yeah, I think there's a lot of support for more nationalized health care right now because we're seeing corporatized health care fail before our eyes. Also, a health care system is one of the biggest ways to use common money for the common good more efficiently than individuals can themselves.

I do agree that insurance can be nationalized very safely and effectively without touching the care itself, but what about high costs? I think that slightly stricter oversight of malpractice, nationalized malpractice insurance, and rewards for general practicioners may be a part of health care reform that could drive down costs.