• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Thomas Sowell: Republican Voters' Choices

Help Support Ranchers.net:

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
No one seems to be really happy with this year's field of Republican candidates for that party's presidential nomination — except perhaps the Democrats.

The sudden rise, and equally sudden fall, of a succession of Republican front-runners is just one sign of the dissatisfaction of the Republican voters with this field of candidates.

In this, as in many other aspects of life, we can only make our choice among the options actually available. So Republican voters who want to be realistic need to understand that they are going to end up with qualms and nagging doubts about whomever they pick this time.

Not all voters want to be realistic, of course. Some voters, whether Democrats, Republicans or independents, treat elections as occasions to vent their emotions, rather than as a process to pick someone into whose hands to place the fate of the nation.

People who think this way tend to vote for someone they just happen to like, whether for personal or ideological reasons, and regardless of whether that candidate has any realistic chance of being elected.

The surprising support in the polls for Congressman Ron Paul seems to be of this sort. But does anyone seriously want to put the fate of this nation in the hands of a man who can casually brush aside the danger of nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran, the world's leading sponsor of international terrorism?

Barring some astonishing surprise, the contest for the Republican nomination for president boils down to Mitt Romney versus Newt Gingrich. It is doubtful whether either of them is anyone's idea of an ideal candidate or a model of consistency.

The fact that each of the short-lived front-runners in the Republican field gained that position by presenting themselves as staunch conservatives suggests that Republican voters may have been trying to avoid having to accept Mitt Romney, whose record as governor of Massachusetts produced nothing that would be regarded as a serious conservative achievement.

Romney's own talking point that he has been a successful businessman is no reason to put him into a political office, however much it may be a reason for him to become a successful businessman again.

Perhaps the strongest reason for some voters to support Governor Romney is that the smart money says he is more "electable" than the other candidates in general and Newt Gingrich in particular. But there was a time when even some conservative smart money types were saying that Ronald Reagan was too old to run for president, and that he should step aside for someone younger.

Washington Post editor Meg Greenfield said that the people in the Carter White House were "ecstatic" when the Republicans nominated Reagan, because they were convinced that they could clobber him.

Today, it is said that the Obama administration fears Romney, but would relish the opportunity to clobber Gingrich because of his "baggage." CNN has already started digging into Gingrich's most recent divorce.

Much depends on whether you think the voting public is going to be more interested in Newt Gingrich's personal past than in the country's future. Most of the things for which Gingrich has been criticized are things he did either in his personal life or when he was out of office. But, if we are serious, we are more concerned with his ability to perform when in office.

Even some of those who believe that Gingrich would devastate Obama in head-to-head debates on substantive issues nevertheless claim that all Obama has to do is come back with questions about Newt's work for failed mortgage finance giant Freddie Mac.

But, even at the personal, point-scoring level, Barack Obama can open up a can of worms by going that route, since Freddie Mac at least never planted bombs in public places, like some of Obama's political allies.

There are no guarantees, no matter whom the Republicans vote for in the primaries. Why not vote for the candidate who has shown the best track record of accomplishments, both in office and in the debates? That is Newt Gingrich. With all his shortcomings, his record shows that he knows how to get the job done in Washington.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www.tsowell.com. To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

http://www.creators.com/print/conservative/thomas-sowell/republican-voters-choices.html
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern Montana
so we can all see that Ron Paul stands alone from the crowd-

What sets any of the others apart? What is the fundemental diffrence between any of the rest of them? What is the fundemental diffrence between any of the rest of them and obama?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Lonecowboy said:
so we can all see that Ron Paul stands alone from the crowd-

What sets any of the others apart? What is the fundemental diffrence between any of the rest of them? What is the fundemental diffrence between any of the rest of them and obama?

NONE of them are Marxists.....
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern Montana
hypocritexposer said:
Lonecowboy said:
so we can all see that Ron Paul stands alone from the crowd-

What sets any of the others apart? What is the fundemental diffrence between any of the rest of them? What is the fundemental diffrence between any of the rest of them and obama?

NONE of them are Marxists.....

arent they? it seems romney and newt both favor government run healthcare and the individual mandate. does that head us toward marxism or Individual Liberty? :shock: it looks to me like they agree with obama at the destination of our government- the only disagreement might be the speed at which we get there.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Lonecowboy said:
hypocritexposer said:
Lonecowboy said:
so we can all see that Ron Paul stands alone from the crowd-

What sets any of the others apart? What is the fundemental diffrence between any of the rest of them? What is the fundemental diffrence between any of the rest of them and obama?

NONE of them are Marxists.....

arent they? it seems romney and newt both favor government run healthcare and the individual mandate. does that head us toward marxism or Individual Liberty? :shock: it looks to me like they agree with obama at the destination of our government- the only disagreement might be the speed at which we get there.


LC, the Healthcare that Newt and Romney were referring to were state run, correct?


Be careful not to listen to the MSM too much......they are trying to "divide and conquer"


I can say I agree that 100% should have Health Insurance, without it meaning that I agree with a Federally mandated Health insurance plan, that requires you buy insurance or be fined.....

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/romney-mirrors-gingrich-people-can-opt-out-buying-health-insurance-provided-they-can

(CNSNews.com) – Although GOP contender Rick Perry was incorrect in saying that Mitt Romney’s support for an individual mandate to buy health insurance was edited out of the paperback edition of Romney’s book, No Apology, the book does state that Romney believes Americans can opt out of buying health insurance provided they have enough money to pay their own health care bills.

That view is essentially the same view explained by Newt Gingrich in May of this year, a position that the former House Speaker described as “a variation” of the individual mandate and which he supports.

During Saturday’s ABC News/Yahoo News-sponsored debate among the Republican contenders for the GOP presidential nomination, when it came to health care, Perry said to Romney, “I read your first book and it said in there that your mandate in Massachusetts should be the model for the country. And I know it came out of the reprint of the book. But, you know, I'm just sayin’, you were for individual mandates, my friend."

Romney’s No Apology book was published in hardbound in March 2010; the paperback edition was released in February 2011.

In the hardbound edition, Romney discusses the health care plan he crafted for Massachusetts, which included a mandate to buy insurance by Bay Staters. The book also specifically rejects Obamacare because it would create a federal health-insurance business and lead to a single-payer, government-run system. At the end of a major paragraph on the topic, Romney wrote: "We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country, and it can be done without letting government take over health care."

In the 2011 paperback edition, that sentence was changed to read: "And it was done without government taking over health care."
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
1
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
I honestly do not see a difference between a state mandated healthcare and a federal mandated healthcare..

and in that aspect, Newt, Hillery, Obama and Romney are all wrong...


if I am healthy and can walk to work, should I be forced to buy a car just in case I am to tired to walk some day?

or like a Massachusetts state plan ,, should I have to have a bus pass just in case?

why can't I make my own decisions?

the mandate is wrong. open up opportunity, get the economy going and more will be insured..
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
I honestly do not see a difference between a state mandated healthcare and a federal mandated healthcare..

and in that aspect, Newt, Hillery, Obama and Romney are all wrong...


if I am healthy and can walk to work, should I be forced to buy a car just in case I am to tired to walk some day?

or like a Massachusetts state plan ,, should I have to have a bus pass just in case?

why can't I make my own decisions?

the mandate is wrong. open up opportunity, get the economy going and more will be insured..

Sounds great- as long as you sign a contract that if you are not a responsible person that has purchased insurance- and that if because of injury or illness need major medical care- and you don't have insurance or the cash to pay for it--- they can treat you like an old cow or horse thats treatment is too expensive and take you out in the back 40 and shoot you !!! :wink:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Oldtimer said:
Steve said:
I honestly do not see a difference between a state mandated healthcare and a federal mandated healthcare..

and in that aspect, Newt, Hillery, Obama and Romney are all wrong...


if I am healthy and can walk to work, should I be forced to buy a car just in case I am to tired to walk some day?

or like a Massachusetts state plan ,, should I have to have a bus pass just in case?

why can't I make my own decisions?

the mandate is wrong. open up opportunity, get the economy going and more will be insured..

Sounds great- as long as you sign a contract that if you are not a responsible person that has purchased insurance- and that if because of injury or illness need major medical care- and you don't have insurance or the cash to pay for it--- they can treat you like an old cow or horse thats treatment is too expensive and take you out in the back 40 and shoot you !!! :wink:


Is that how they deal with those that don't have insurance at present?
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
1
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Oldtimer said:
Steve said:
I honestly do not see a difference between a state mandated healthcare and a federal mandated healthcare..

and in that aspect, Newt, Hillery, Obama and Romney are all wrong...


if I am healthy and can walk to work, should I be forced to buy a car just in case I am to tired to walk some day?

or like a Massachusetts state plan ,, should I have to have a bus pass just in case?

why can't I make my own decisions?

the mandate is wrong. open up opportunity, get the economy going and more will be insured..

Sounds great- as long as you sign a contract that if you are not a responsible person that has purchased insurance- and that if because of injury or illness need major medical care- and you don't have insurance or the cash to pay for it--- they can treat you like an old cow or horse thats treatment is too expensive and take you out in the back 40 and shoot you !!! :wink:

I have insurance, I made a choice to have it, and have been covered since my 17 birthday.. I doubt many could say the same..

with that said.. I do not feel it is right to force a person to have it.. and economically the cost will increase if the government forces compliance..

businesses love a captive customer.. they only thing left for them to compete on is how to divide up the profits..

as for the rest, if the government stopped wasting money on Planned parenthood, and a slew of other 'healthcare' boondoggles and actually funded development of urgent care centers the cost of the uninsured would go down, driving overall costs lower..

our local hospital started an urgent care center.. other then being forced to not have it at the hospital because of stupid federal guidelines the center has dropped emergency room visits by 70% and uninsured cost by 50%, the urgent care center runs at a profit and we now have four in the county.. three are privately run..


cost of a visit to urgent care.. $50 to $80
cost of a taxpayer funded planned parenthood "visit" $110
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
Steve said:
I honestly do not see a difference between a state mandated healthcare and a federal mandated healthcare..

and in that aspect, Newt, Hillery, Obama and Romney are all wrong...


if I am healthy and can walk to work, should I be forced to buy a car just in case I am to tired to walk some day?

or like a Massachusetts state plan ,, should I have to have a bus pass just in case?

why can't I make my own decisions?

the mandate is wrong. open up opportunity, get the economy going and more will be insured..

Sounds great- as long as you sign a contract that if you are not a responsible person that has purchased insurance- and that if because of injury or illness need major medical care- and you don't have insurance or the cash to pay for it--- they can treat you like an old cow or horse thats treatment is too expensive and take you out in the back 40 and shoot you !!! :wink:


Is that how they deal with those that don't have insurance at present?

Nope the responsible folks that have insurance pay the costs for those that don't have insurance by paying increased insurance rates and increased hospital charges...

And opposite to what Steve says-- the insurance industry says that if all are required to be covered- so you have a much bigger pool- the price of insurance coverage will actually lower...
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
6,060
Reaction score
0
Location
The Dark Side
The only thing the insurance industry has ever been right about is premiums increasing. Your premiums will never decrease. They will figure out a way to see to that, regardless.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
Sounds great- as long as you sign a contract that if you are not a responsible person that has purchased insurance- and that if because of injury or illness need major medical care- and you don't have insurance or the cash to pay for it--- they can treat you like an old cow or horse thats treatment is too expensive and take you out in the back 40 and shoot you !!! :wink:


Is that how they deal with those that don't have insurance at present?

Nope the responsible folks that have insurance pay the costs for those that don't have insurance by paying increased insurance rates and increased hospital charges...

And opposite to what Steve says-- the insurance industry says that if all are required to be covered- so you have a much bigger pool- the price of insurance coverage will actually lower...

Fact #1: the Insurance Companies can't refuse anyone with a pre-exsisting condition
Fact #2: the fine for not buying insurance is less than the insurance premium
So Oldtimer how many healthy people are going to actually buy insurance until they NEED IT?

My bet is the bigger pool with insurance is going to be people NEEDING insurance and fewer not needing it. Because people will be banking the money saved until an injury or illness forces them to buy insurance, the larger pool of sick people with insurance will bankrupt Insurance companies. What will happen then will be Obama and the Dems taking the next step and forcing one payer, that they really want, on everyone. You think rationing won't happen, you wait and see just what will happen to one of the best healthcare systems in the world if the government is in charge of paying for everything.
 

okfarmer

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
Location
Oklahoma
The pre-existing condition business is worded correctly, in that they no longer can refuse to pay for pre-existing condition. However, in reality and practice they still don't pay for "conditions that existed previously". They call it something else now.

My wife, who has had insurance her entire adult life, last year switched jobs and between paid for her own insurance up until August of this year. She had blue cross and blue shields. They told her that they would not pay for anything associated with a illness that had developed in the early part of 2010.

So not only are we paying more for premiums (over 40% more), you still don't get the benefits they say you get.

There needs to be a balance. If you chose to take a gamble by not having insurance and something happens, you should be responsible. Stablizing care should be provided, but the person should then be responsible. If your not dying, there should not be services without payment due- meaning if you have a cold, you need to have the money to pay for the exam. Promise you that if you have to pay out of pocket, you aren't going to go the ER and overload it.

If you chose to have insurance continuously, those people should receive the benefit of having paid into the system.

I think you could protect the insurance coorporations by allowing a predetermined amount of time (like 6 months) to not be responsible for conditions that develope to decrease fraud.

I also think that to protect the buyer that keeps continuous insurance but must change due to reasonable circumstances, should be covered fully for illnesses that develop after coverage initiated. I wonder if a system like unemployment would work. Like when an individual is awarded unemployment, all previous employers are responsible based on the percentage of time the employee worked there. So if you are insured by company A and you pay company A premiums for 4 yrs and company B premiums for 6 yrs- Company A woud be reponsible for 40% of the costs and company B for 60%.

Our system is not perfect and no system will be. But government run health care is scary. I really don't like the idea of anyone deciding who should get what procedure, other than the doctor and the patient.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
1
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
the pre-existing condition problem could be fixed.. and at the state level where most insurance is regulated,

if an insurance company takes your money.. it must provide coverage for all covered conditions..

you don't get a new car with warranty exclusions just because you trashed your last one..
 

Latest posts

Top