The Myth of American "Democracy"

[Herb Schaffler]

"Yes, they are in the business to make money. That is the flaw of the HMO design. If they are in it for cash, then they necessarily aren't in it for keeping people healthy."

HMO's were created by an act of Congress in 1973. The purpose was to concentrate on preventive care in order to bring down costs, but it backfired. People got the feeling that they were getting free health care with the insurance companies paying for routine care so they overused the system. It would be the same thing if car insurance paid for every little preventive maintenance. Can you imagine how much care insurance would go up? In order to control these rising costs, HMO's had to start putting ceilings on the costs of services and denying coverage of other services, the same thing Medicare and Medicaid have done. These problems have been caused by government. How is more government the solution, especially when we see its results in countries with socialized medicine.

[Herb Schaffler]

The 40,000,000 that have no access to health insurance are: 40% are illegal aliens who aren't entitled to it because their not citizens, 40% are below 34 years old and don't feel a need for it, and 8% make over $75,000 and feel they can insure themselves. When you break it down, it doesn't seem quite as desperate a situation as liberals make it out to be. By the way, I'm not a conservative, I call myself a libertarian.

[Herb Schaffler]

"Your conservative movement calls for tort reform to make sure incompetent doctors don't get put out of business for messing up too bad."

One of the reasons why medical costs are so high is because of frivolous lawsuits. Bad doctors do need to be held accountable for negligence, but there needs to be some kind of ceiling on awards, something Democrats are opposed to because of their ties with the trial lawyers. This is something Democrats should support if they are really concerned about bring down costs. I suspect Democrats really support socialized medicine because of their belief in big government power.

[Herb Schaffler]

"Democrats don't have control of the news media. I know there's a popular myth out there saying they do"

I didn't know that Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Dan Brokaw, Katie Couric, Mike Wallace, etc. were such bastians of conservatism. If they are such conservatives, why does 80% of them vote Democrat? Why don't they report that Hillary has been caught on tape commiting 4 felonies in connection with soliciting illegal campaign contributions in her 2000 Senate race and that a trial will be coming up next month to determine whether or not she will be a defendant? I'm glad that the liberal media no longer has a monopoly on news coverage. I'm glad Fox presents an alternative viewpoint and that we have conservative talk radio and the internet. Now people are able to read and hear other viewpoints.

[Herb Schaffler]

"Conservatives always try to structure society as top-down. Thus, we have supply side voodoo economics that think the best way to create prosperity is to give irresponsible tax breaks to the rich and the corporations. Progressives believe that you have to get money to the common people, so they have spending cash that will create demand for products and services and thus more business and innovation. They seek to raise the minimum wage in order to force companies to do what's best for the American economy, not what's best for their own bottom line. Bottom-up is the best way to create a civilization."

Historically, supply side economics has worked, demand side economics has caused more unemployment. In the early 20's, there was a recession, but it was short lived because Harding lowered taxes and spending and the economy was able to adjust. Businesses had more money to build capital improvement and set the stage for the roaring economy of the 20's. In the late 20's, there was a correction which is the result of our central bank system (the Federal Reserve). That could have been a shorter and milder recession had Hoover followed the same policies that Harding followed earlier, instead, Hoover raised wages expecting to create more demand. That resulted in more business failures as companies could not afford to pay the higher wages.

JFK's supply side tax cuts resulted in the good economy of the 60's. It allowed LBJ to have his "butter and guns".

Reagan's supply side cuts set the stage for the good economy of the 80's and after a short correction caused by George Bush Sr's tax increases helped fuel the high tech economy of the 90's.

Increasing minimum wages has resulted in rising unemployment as opposed to stimulating the economy. If businesses feel those employees aren't worth those higher wages, they don't pay them. They either go out of business, or they hire higher skilled people who do deserve the higher wages, or they automate. There has been a rise in black male teenage unemployment which has parralleled the rise in the minimum wage.

Demand side economics sounds good in theory, but it just doesn't work.

[Herb Schaffler]

The private sector works better than the public sector because of the profit motive. The profit motive gives incentives to control costs to make a profit. Competition tends to drive toward better quality. These incentives don't work at the public sector because there is no competition. What we have in our American health care system is not a true free market anymore because the government has so distorted it. We certanly don't need more government as a solution. We certainly don't need socialized medicine and the problems inherit in it.

[Corvair]

Originally Posted by DavidYeah

Corvair:

Okay, so maybe I use "conservative" in a way you are unfamilar with. I'll try to explain my point of view.

I define a conservative as someone who believes society should be shaped as a sort of hierarchy...

David, your posts are dripping with condescension and sophistry.

You have made up, out of whole cloth, your own definition of "conservative" and you ascribe your definition to anyone who refers to himself as conservative. This is arrogant beyond belief. Would you be surprised to know I'm a volunteer for Big Brothers Big Sisters and mentor a ten-year-old boy who has never met his father? Or that I have many times bought a meal for a stranger who asked for money and have sat at a table with him while he ate? Or that I donate on a regular basis to the local 'mission'? Do I still fit your definition of "conservative"? You don't know me from a hill of beans.

Common conservatives such as yourself look to the elites as the beacon of American prosperity, and seek to emulate them...

You mean elites like Bill Gates? Or maybe Rob Reiner, Leonardo DiCaprio, Michael Moore or their ilk? No, wait, they're all liberal Democrats -- or as you say, "progressives." (When exactly was this word appropriated as a substitute for "liberal"?)

You have no idea who I look up to or seek to emulate.

...we have supply side voodoo economics that think the best way to create prosperity is to give irresponsible tax breaks to the rich and the corporations...

How did you come to think that it is irresponsible to let a person keep what he himself has earned? What is the source of your envy? It's his money; not yours, not the government's. Your scheme of income redistribution has never, ever worked, and it never will.

...the Democrats were the conservative party of that era that perceived blacks as a threat to the culture, and a threat to the prosperity of their children in the future; quite similar to the current conservative movement in regards to Mexican immigration...

Another example of your disingenuousness from a different post.

Why is this so hard to understand? The issue has nothing whatsoever to do with Mexican immigration. It has to do with illegal immigration. He can come from China, England, Canada, Australia, Egypt, you-name-it. We have borders and we have laws outlining the proper ways to cross them and the laws are not being enforced. That's why people are upset. Friends of mine of all political persuasions agree on this issue. It doesn't have anything to do with being conservative.

A conservative, by the way, is one who prefers a smaller, less intrusive, lower-taxing government. Simple as that.

[lenahan]

Conservatives believe in small gov't, low taxes, fiscal respnsibility, the free market, the bill of rights, strong nat'l defense, and the constitution.

Dems believe in HUGE gov't, high taxes, wasteful spending on pointless, and usually harmful social programs, light nat'l defense (never on the offense against our enemies), gov't regulation of speech, gun rights (both totally illegal), etc................. And I know more elitist libs than conservatives.

[nohil-billy]

Corvair, I can answer your question as to when (I believe) progressives became a substitute for liberal. The first time I heard the term was during the 2004 general elections when John Kerry used it while being interviewed by Bill O'Reilly on the Factor. But it wasn't John Kerry who main streamed it. Bill O'Reilly must have liked the term and used it from then on instead of the term liberal when describing the Democrats or their agenda. So even though I like Bill, he was the one most responsible for main streaming the term.

[Corvair]

Originally Posted by nohil-billy

Corvair, I can answer your question as to when (I believe) progressive became a substitute for liberal. The first time I heard the term was during the 2004 general elections when John Kerry used it while being interviewed by Bill O'Reilly...

Well, it figures that it was a pantload like John Kerry who would have used the word that way. No doubt he didn't intend the irony, but good grief. Liberal policies don't normally result in progress.

I'm disappointed in O'Reilly if he's responsible for popularizing the term.