the new health care?

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Monksdown

I am a disenfranchised fiscal conservative as well my friend. So i lean Republican, but god do they make some very crucial mistakes. We need a GNP(Grand New Party), with smart, charasmatic leaders that arent tied to the right so fastly. I'm sure you can imagine how difficult it is to be a pro-choice, fiscal conservative.

Bingo...I am not exactly pro-choice but I honestly give mostly a hoot about social issues. They seem to work themselves out on their own and I don't really want anyone legislating social mores anyways. Plus the social direction of this country means nothing if we spend it into oblivion and end up with no country someday.

"Hallelujah! Even though our nation has fallen to pieces and civil wars have ensued...we still don't let woman have abortions and the damn gays can't get married. We've won!!!!!"

Yeah you've won you dopes. You've won a Darwin award. Screw social conservatives in my opinion.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Bingo...I am not exactly pro-choice but I honestly give mostly a hoot about social issues. They seem to work themselves out on their own and I don't really want anyone legislating social mores anyways. Plus the social direction of this country means nothing if we spend it into oblivion and end up with no country someday.

"Hallelujah! Even though our nation has fallen to pieces and civil wars have ensued...we still don't let woman have abortions and the damn gays can't get married. We've won!!!!!"

Yeah you've won you dopes. You've won a Darwin award. Screw social conservatives in my opinion.

LOL. Great post.

[Trample the Elderly]

I'm happy to inform all of you that there is another option for disenfranchised Republicans and Moderates, it's called the Democratic party.

[Monksdown]

No thanks. If i wanted to be socialist, i'd hop to France.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

I'm happy to inform all of you that there is another option for disenfranchised Republicans and Moderates, it's called the Democratic party.

Nope. As demonstrated by the trillion dollar budget and trillion dollar health care plan, fiscal responsibility is not within their lexicon. It's 1970's liberalism all over.

[Trample the Elderly]

OK, if you can't stomach the Democrats but you still want to be a moderate, please stop voting in the Republican Primaries. None of the Conservatives ever get a chance because you guys want guys like Giuliani and McCain "Mister Moderate Maverick" to be President. Now we have a broke Medicaid system, a SS system that's going broke sooner than expected, and now national health care. Why be half-assed Democrats when you can go vote for one?

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

OK, if you can't stomach the Democrats but you still want to be a moderate, please stop voting in the Republican Primaries. None of the Conservatives ever get a chance because you guys want guys like Giuliani and McCain "Mister Moderate Maverick" to be President. Now we have a broke Medicaid system, a SS system that's going broke sooner than expected, and now national helath care. Why be half-assed Democrats when you can go vote for one.

You're being an idiot.

Sorry but it's the truth. A Fiscal Conservative is farther from a Democrat than you. Someone who wants to use the government to legislate about people's lives is no better than a liberal socialist. Plain and simple. The Republican party is rooted in small government and fiscal conservatism. Not in growing the government/increasing government intrusion by legislating how people live. I consider myself very far from moderate when it comes to the things I think are actually important for us to be concerned with on a political level. It only proves my point that the two-party size fits all is tragically flawed. You care about things I don't care about. Why should we have to vote together just because we probably agree on one sector of issues? There isn't only 2 ways to look at things but we only to get to vote for candidates representing 2 ways of thinking. We're never even presented any of the other options.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

You're being an idiot.

Sorry but it's the truth. A Fiscal Conservative is farther from a Democrat than you. Someone who wants to use the government to legislate about people's lives is no better than a liberal socialist. Plain and simple. The Republican party is rooted in small government and fiscal conservatism. Not in growing the government/increasing government intrusion by legislating how people live. I consider myself very far from moderate when it comes to the things I think are actually important for us to be concerned with on a political level. It only proves my point that the two-party size fits all is tragically flawed. You care about things I don't care about. Why should we have to vote together just because we probably agree on one sector of issues? There isn't only 2 ways to look at things but we only to get to vote for candidates representing 2 ways of thinking. We're never even presented any of the other options.

And what are those?

[Beemnseven]

Okay, people have been asking "what exactly should we do?" regarding a new health care plan. Here are some ideas, again from Rep. Ron Paul, who is a doctor and knows first-hand of the trouble with the current system.

I'm not sure if these bills are still active, but the idea of allowing individuals and families to deduct the cost of health care off their income taxes has been an idea floating around for awhile. Sounds like a good idea to me.

HR 3075 provides truly comprehensive health care reform by allowing families to claim a tax credit for the rising cost of health insurance premiums. With many families now spending close to $1000 or even more for their monthly premiums, they need real tax relief-- including a dollar-for-dollar credit for every cent they spend on health care premiums-- to make medical care more affordable.

HR 3076 is specifically designed to address the medical malpractice crisis that threatens to drive thousands of American doctors- especially obstetricians- out of business. The bill provides a dollar-for-dollar tax credit that permits consumers to purchase "negative outcomes" insurance prior to undergoing surgery or other serious medical treatments. Negative outcomes insurance is a novel approach that guarantees those harmed receive fair compensation, while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. Patients receive this insurance payout without having to endure lengthy lawsuits, and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer. This also drastically reduces the costs imposed on physicians and hospitals by malpractice litigation. Under HR 3076, individuals can purchase negative outcomes insurance at essentially no cost.

HR 3077 makes it more affordable for parents to provide health care for their children. It creates a $500 per child tax credit for medical expenses and prescription drugs that are not reimbursed by insurance. It also creates a $3,000 tax credit for dependent children with terminal illnesses, cancer, or disabilities. Parents who are struggling to pay for their children's medical care, especially when those children have serious health problems or special needs, need every extra dollar.

HR 3078 is commonsense, compassionate legislation for those suffering from cancer or other terminal illnesses. The sad reality is that many patients battling serious illnesses will never collect Social Security benefits-- yet they continue to pay into the Social Security system. When facing a medical crisis, those patients need every extra dollar to pay for medical care, travel, and family matters. HR 3078 waives the employee portion of Social Security payroll taxes (or self-employment taxes) for individuals with documented serious illnesses or cancer. It also suspends Social Security taxes for primary caregivers with a sick spouse or child. There is no justification or excuse for collecting Social Security taxes from sick individuals who literally are fighting for their lives.

The bottom line is that health care costs seemed to get really out of control once the people stopped paying for the cost of a doctor visit up front, directly. Then the federal government started requiring employers to provide health care, and suddenly all the money was put into a huge pot with lots of people paying in and third parties began allocating those funds as they saw fit -- with doctors basically out of the decision making.

Today, the system is designed so that nobody could afford to pay for health care themselves. Get the insurance companies out, except for major, castostrophic illnesses or injuries, and let the free market dictate the price between the service provider (the doctor) and the customer (the patient).

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Today, the system is designed so that nobody could afford to pay for health care themselves. Get the insurance companies out, except for major, castostrophic illnesses or injuries, and let the free market dictate the price between the service provider (the doctor) and the customer (the patient).

i would be willing to give this a try. there is no way any insurance company should have the right to tell someone what they can, and cannot do

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

I'm happy to inform all of you that there is another option for disenfranchised Republicans and Moderates, it's called the Democratic party.

With whom I agree on almost nothing.

I get to choose from one group who I believe is totally and utterly wrong in both idea and application or another who cares more about things I don't care about at all but has the forethought to throw a few good sentences into their campaign speeches about the things I really do care about.

It's why the two-party system doesn't work for me...and most Americans. We're always stuck voting for people who are the best of two evils. And that accounts for about 60-70% of the electorate. Since this group is so hard to campaign to then the parties campaign to the bases and hope to pull in a few moderates and win. That's why even in this recent "landslide" election it was basically a 55-45 split. Both parties campaign from the outside->in and anyone with in-view(middle of rthe road) as defined by the party don't get the political party support they need to get traction.

VA is a great example. We have some good fiscal conservatives in this state. None ever get shots at the bigger jobs. Instead we put up dipwads like Mark Early, Jerry Kilgore, George Allen, Jim Gilmore. Why? Because they say the right stuff about gay people and abortions. Then they run through the standard stuff on national security and finally might throw a line or two in there about stopping spending. Then they get nominated and get trounced in a largely CONSERVATIVE state because no one believes them fiscally (history speaks the truth) and are scared of their social agenda.