Mitch McConnell Folds Like ....

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Tynda wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Tynda wrote:I've been asked before if I am a "Reagan Republican".  I've always answered no, "I'm a Goldwater Republican".

Probably not many under 60 will understand the difference.  Goldwater was not just a US Senator who ran for President.  He was also extensively involved in a family business in Arizona, a General in the Air National Guard, and a Mason.  While very conservative, some of his quotes would shock today's "conservatives".  Goldwater believed in being not only conservative, but also to be practical.  Dogma did not come first for him.  Making sense did.

Among the many things Goldwater said, was that government must stay out of people's bedrooms.  Consider the implications of that when it comes to gays, and in his day, certain acts in the bedroom that we illegal in virtually every state.

Nice summation of your conservative credentials and I applaud you for them. As to how germane it is to the discussion of defunding Obamacare or the need for Republicans to run with this "golden opportunity"  that Obamacare is providing them, I fail to see it. However if the Republican's "golden opportunity" of which you speak is an euphemism for single payer then it is incumbent upon you to be aware that Goldwater opposed and voted against Medicare in the '60s and LBJ beat him like a drum because of it. Taking into consideration Goldwater's stance against Medicare, I can't believe he would have supported "single payer". Check out this ad from the 1964 campaign.

http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1964/medicare

That "ad" is a Lyndon Johnson ad.  It hardly can be considered representative of what Goldwater would have actually thought.  The ad was intended to show Goldwater in the worst possible light, much like the girl picking flowers, that only showed a single time, but is iconic in politics.

Oh I understand it's an LBJ ad and as I stated he beat Goldwater like a drum, but there is no denying the historical fact that Goldwater opposed Medicare and voted against it. And there is no denying the historical fact that Goldwater campaigned on reforming Social Security and wanted to do away with the compulsory nature of the program. Presidential historian Michael Beschloss even claims that Goldwater stated, "perhaps Social Security should be abolished."

Yet as a self-dentified Goldwater Republican you are arguing that if Goldwater was alive today that he support a single payer health system even though history demonstrates that Goldwater's fundamental principles were in opposition to that type of government program? Wow!

Not exactly.  Just because I best affiliate with what Goldwater stood for, that does not mean that I would follow 100% of what he stood for.  I'm an individual, not a follower in the crowd, much like you are and individual who doesn't just get in line, but rather we can think for ourselves.

A good description of Goldwater on government is that he viewed excessive federal government in this county as a greater danger than the Soviet Union.  I don't know.  Facing several 10s of thousands of nuclear weapons is a pretty serious threat, I'm not sure even Obama can top that threat.

But the thing to remember about Goldwater is that he was politically active when this country was spending from 3 to 4% of GDP for health care.  That's a far cry from today's 18%.  I think Goldwater would have seen this 18% as massive waste, no matter how it was being run or who was running it.  Health care costs have increased so much that I think its speculative on how Goldwater would react to it.  He was never faced with spending of this mangntitude so I think it would be impossible to actually know his thoughts.  But I do think that Goldwater would be highly upset by what has happened in the last 50 years and would definitely be looking for a solution.  Given that there are very few "solutions", what would he choose to support?  A health care system with massive waste and inefficiency, or more central government?  I'd suggest that you consider more than just his political positions when evaluating what he might have done.  Remember he was a very active Mason, and helping the poor and the sick are Masonic tenants.

Do I support NSP? You know that I do. Because its "socially" correct? Not on your life. The system we have now is destroying our economy. Half of all bankruptcies are rooted in unpaid health care claims. 1 in 6 have no insurance. Of the remaining 6, about 2 have extremely limited coverage. Health care has been increased at about double he rate of inflation for 20+ years - that's how it gotten to 18%. It shows no sign of slowing, and sure as hell ObamaCare is not going to help the situation.

I believe sound economics is a conservative principal. Waste is a liberal principal. Pre-ObamaCare health coverage in this country is waste. I'm under no impression that NSP will be all sunshine and flowers. It won't be. Its just that I don't see any other way to control the waste in health care and the massive wealth redistribution from all of us to the health care industry.

You keep talking how affordable healthcare is some kind of entitlement...it's not.  You also mistakenly believe that somehow having the government in control of it will somehow reduce or contain costs...they won't.  What they will do and be very, very good at is rationing care. I pity the elderly or anyone who doesn't pay Uncle Sam it's 30 pieces of silver in taxes every year because those that don't "contribute" will represent nothing but an unnecessary drain on the government. You see most things fairly clearly but somehow have your blinders on by rationalizing the takeover of 1/6 of our economy for your own selfish gain. I pity what is in store for you and am repulsed by what you are bringing to me. All government is an enemy against freedom yet some limited government is needed to maintain it. The founders placed the shackles around our government for a reason and now misguided individuals are removing those chains in the name of their idea of fairness.

Tynda wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Tynda wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Tynda wrote:I've been asked before if I am a "Reagan Republican".  I've always answered no, "I'm a Goldwater Republican".

Probably not many under 60 will understand the difference.  Goldwater was not just a US Senator who ran for President.  He was also extensively involved in a family business in Arizona, a General in the Air National Guard, and a Mason.  While very conservative, some of his quotes would shock today's "conservatives".  Goldwater believed in being not only conservative, but also to be practical.  Dogma did not come first for him.  Making sense did.

Among the many things Goldwater said, was that government must stay out of people's bedrooms.  Consider the implications of that when it comes to gays, and in his day, certain acts in the bedroom that we illegal in virtually every state.

Nice summation of your conservative credentials and I applaud you for them. As to how germane it is to the discussion of defunding Obamacare or the need for Republicans to run with this "golden opportunity"  that Obamacare is providing them, I fail to see it. However if the Republican's "golden opportunity" of which you speak is an euphemism for single payer then it is incumbent upon you to be aware that Goldwater opposed and voted against Medicare in the '60s and LBJ beat him like a drum because of it. Taking into consideration Goldwater's stance against Medicare, I can't believe he would have supported "single payer". Check out this ad from the 1964 campaign.

http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1964/medicare

That "ad" is a Lyndon Johnson ad.  It hardly can be considered representative of what Goldwater would have actually thought.  The ad was intended to show Goldwater in the worst possible light, much like the girl picking flowers, that only showed a single time, but is iconic in politics.

Oh I understand it's an LBJ ad and as I stated he beat Goldwater like a drum, but there is no denying the historical fact that Goldwater opposed Medicare and voted against it. And there is no denying the historical fact that Goldwater campaigned on reforming Social Security and wanted to do away with the compulsory nature of the program. Presidential historian Michael Beschloss even claims that Goldwater stated, "perhaps Social Security should be abolished."

Yet as a self-dentified Goldwater Republican you are arguing that if Goldwater was alive today that he support a single payer health system even though history demonstrates that Goldwater's fundamental principles were in opposition to that type of government program? Wow!

Not exactly.  Just because I best affiliate with what Goldwater stood for, that does not mean that I would follow 100% of what he stood for.  I'm an individual, not a follower in the crowd, much like you are and individual who doesn't just get in line, but rather we can think for ourselves.

A good description of Goldwater on government is that he viewed excessive federal government in this county as a greater danger than the Soviet Union.  I don't know.  Facing several 10s of thousands of nuclear weapons is a pretty serious threat, I'm not sure even Obama can top that threat.

But the thing to remember about Goldwater is that he was politically active when this country was spending from 3 to 4% of GDP for health care.  That's a far cry from today's 18%.  I think Goldwater would have seen this 18% as massive waste, no matter how it was being run or who was running it.  Health care costs have increased so much that I think its speculative on how Goldwater would react to it.  He was never faced with spending of this mangntitude so I think it would be impossible to actually know his thoughts.  But I do think that Goldwater would be highly upset by what has happened in the last 50 years and would definitely be looking for a solution.  Given that there are very few "solutions", what would he choose to support?  A health care system with massive waste and inefficiency, or more central government?  I'd suggest that you consider more than just his political positions when evaluating what he might have done.  Remember he was a very active Mason, and helping the poor and the sick are Masonic tenants.

Do I support NSP?  You know that I do.  Because its "socially" correct?  Not on your life.  The system we have now is destroying our economy.  Half of all bankruptcies are rooted in unpaid health care claims.  1 in 6 have no insurance.  Of the remaining 6, about 2 have extremely limited coverage.  Health care has been increased at about double he rate of inflation for 20+ years - that's how it gotten to 18%.  It shows no sign of slowing, and sure as hell ObamaCare is not going to help the situation.

I believe sound economics is a conservative principal.  Waste is a liberal principal.  Pre-ObamaCare health coverage in this country is waste.  I'm under no impression that NSP will be all sunshine and flowers.  It won't be.  Its just that I don't see any other way to control the waste in health care and the massive wealth redistribution from all of us to the health care industry.

Finally, after all this dancing around, you admit you support a single payer system. One doesn’t have to agree with everything a candidate/politician says but even still, to be at such odds with such a core tenant of Goldwater’s political philosophy and to describe yourself as a devotee seems muddled. How can you possibly square that circle? You seem more like an Eisenhower Republican than Goldwater.

I downloaded Goldwater's "Conscience of a Conservative" and after reading it, I think you are mistaken in what Goldwater really said. From “Conscience of a Conservative”:

“For many years it appeared that the principal domestic threat to our freedom was contained in the doctrines of Karl Marx. The collectivists— non-Communists as well as Communists— had adopted the Marxist objective of “socializing the means of production.” And so it seemed that if collectivization were imposed, it would take the form of a State owned and operated economy. I doubt whether this is the main threat any longer.”

Goldwater continues:

“The currently favored instrument of collectivization is the Welfare State. The collectivists have not abandoned their ultimate goal— to subordinate the individual to the State— but their strategy has changed. They have learned that Socialism can be achieved through Welfarism quite as well as through Nationalization. They understand that private property can be confiscated as effectively by taxation as by expropriating it. They understand that the individual can be put at the mercy of the State— not only by making the State”

While Goldwater felt that the threat was more from within than from without, he despised the strategy of containment and favored a more robust approach to the Soviet threat with the use of an increased bomber fleet. The Soviet launcher capability in 1964 was under 400 and warheads at around 500, nowhere near your claimed 10s of thousands. Goldwater also believed the Soviet missiles were of poor construction and inaccurate (correctly) and was backed by General Curtis LeMay in his belief.

When Medicare (which Goldwater voted against) was passed, NEH (national expenditure on healthcare) was at 6%. And while NEH is now close to 18% of GDP today, 6% of that is due to the added government spending found in Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP. Government spending has accounted for a third of the increase in healthcare spending since Goldwater ran for President and much of the additional 6% increase in the private sector is due to cost shifting from government price caps in Medicare/Medicaid to the private sector. Actuarial firm Milliman estimates that cost shifting adds $1,800 to the cost of health care per family.

Not only is single payer not socially correct, its economic principles are unsound and unsustainable. It is a house of cards. Its hubris and arrogance is a vain attempt to control costs through price capping, care rationing and bureaucratic decision making. While there can be "waste" in any market place, I refuse to believe that Goldwater would prefer a central planned bureaucracy to the private market even with its warts. It is free market economics that are a hallmark of Conservatism and while wealth can be destroyed in the market place, free markets still represent the best and most efficient way of making decisions and running a diverse but imperfect economy. Unfortunately what we have in the healthcare industry today is crony capitalism not free market economics. Injecting absolute government control into a sixth of the US economy is not reform or fixing the problem, it is just a recipe for a greater wealth transfer from the young to a rapidly aging segment of the population.