John Kerry is busy pushing <strike>socialized</strike> universal health care, and wants to fund it by raising taxes.
BOSTON - Sen. John Kerry on Monday proposed requiring all Americans to have health insurance by 2012, "with the federal government guaranteeing that they have the means to afford it."The Massachusetts Democrat, whose name is figuring prominently in 2008 White House speculation, repeated his 2004 presidential campaign call for expanding the federal Medicaid program to cover children. He also proposed creating a program to cover catastrophic cases so an employer providing insurance doesn't have to pass the cost to his other workers, and; offering Americans the ability to buy into the same insurance program used by federal workers such as members of Congress.
Kerry proposes to pay for the program by repealing tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration that benefit those earning over $200,000 annually. He did not immediately elaborate on how he would enact his insurance mandate, but one aid said he would do so with a requirement written into the legislation spelling out that the government covers anyone who is uninsured.
About what you'd expect from a true-blue liberal. Tax the most successful Americans while providing handouts to the poorest Americans instead of making them earn it for themselves, and if you don't like it you hate poor people. None of it is very surprising. New day, old crap.
Predictably, the RNC was quick to respond to Kerry's nonsense...but the response isn't the sort of think I expect or want from the Republicans.
The Republican National Committee, which typically responds to political criticism of the president, said Kerry's critique ignored the prescription drug program enacted by the Bush administration."It's unfortunate that John Kerry's bitterness over losing the election clouds his ability to recognize the president's prescription drug plan is providing millions of seniors with more affordable medicine," said RNC spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt.
Whatever his criticism, Kerry faces the reality that the governor of his home state — Republican Mitt Romney, himself a potential 2008 presidential candidate — has not only talked about but enacted a sweeping health care overhaul designed to bring universal coverage to Massachusetts. Last week, Michael Leavitt, secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human services, called the program "a model" for the nation.
Romney negotiated the plan with a Democratic Legislature, and in cooperation with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., Kerry's senior colleague.
Sigh...
Not only is the RNC chucking core conservative principles under the bus and meeting Kerry's statements with claims of "We spend more on health entitlements!", an actual member of the Bush Administration, Secretary Leavitt, is actively touting Mitt Romney's mandated health care debacle in Massachusetts. A debacle given the bless of Ted Kennedy, no less.
Where in the world have all the conservatives gone? What happened to personal responsibility? What happened to the idea that government entitlements were a bad thing as they discouraged people from being productive and earning things for themselves?
This nonsense, combined with the House Republicans passing a massive hike in the minimum wage, has got this conservative feeling depressed.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 11
Unsure as to where I stand on this issue myself, you must admit that some pretty influential people have been asking for the elimination of the estate tax for quite awhile.
I think most of them are lying at home on their death beds simply because they do NOT have or cannot afford healthcare insurance!!
This is disgusting. Imagine, a politican who has the audacity to propose something and actually offer a plan to pay for it, rather than to simply tack it onto the birth tax for future generations. What the hell is he thinking?
For those with functioning gray matter, universal healthcare would save this country massive amounts of cash, and would also mean that 18,000 people who die annually as a direct result of having no healthcare coverage, would live. Of course, this means nothing to the "culture of life" whackos, since these are living, breathing persons, and not unviable tissues masses or braindead women.
Every other industrialized nation on the planet has some form of nationalized, universal healthcare. Not coincidentally, they also have better healthcare ratings and pay far less per capita than we do.
Yet, the delusional crackpots on the right will continue to cling to their mythical fantasy that our system somehow works and should be maintained. True to GOP form, these people have never met a failed, corrupt, fraudulant, privatized government corporate welfare program that they couldn't help themselves from dumping endless boatloads of borrowed cash into.
God, these people are so myopic, it's actually painful to watch their failed policies collapse and see them invent new excuses for their own failures.
For example, conservative Republicans are the only force pushing for a meaningful bill to control illegal immigration and working to keep the Bush tax cuts in effect to maintain our fantastic economy.
I can see how the Gather gang can get you down. Clark Kent's mythical analysis of a universal healthcare program that would save "massive amounts of cash" (like Medicare is doing, right Clark) is certainly depressing. And, his charge that conservatives "have never met a failed, corrupt, fraudulant (sic), privatized government corporate welfare program that they couldn't help themselves from dumping endless boatloads of borrowed cash into" is typical liberal mudslinging without facts to back it up. It kind of makes a person want to look elsewhere for intelligent discussion (like Rush and the EIB Network).
Keep the faith.
"About what you'd expect from a true-blue liberal. Tax the most successful Americans while providing handouts to the poorest Americans instead of making them earn it for themselves, and if you don't like it you hate poor people. None of it is very surprising. New day, old crap.
I want Rob to provide a budget for a person, even two persons living together married or not with a child or two.
Said adult persons, 1 alone or 2 with children, are each making minimum wage.
Please Rob, show me a budget that will pay rent/utilities/groceries/health insurance/transportation expenses, to get to and from work, personal/household care items.
Just the necessary basics.
Show us the way to do it right Rob.
Interesting catch slogan for a hypocritical drug addict. Have you offered it to him?
"Clark Kent's mythical analysis of a universal healthcare program that would save "massive amounts of cash""
Sorry, no myth there. It is a fact. We spend more per capita for healthcare than any other industrialized nation, we leave 1/5 of the population uncovered, 18,000 people die each year as a result, and our system ranks far from the top. It's a complete failure, it's devouring nearly 20% of our GDP, and it's time to fix it.
Look at it this way, we can either fix it now and reap the benefits of slashing costs and reducing unnecessary deaths, or we can wait until it collapses and tears down our entire economy, and THEN fix it. Progressives are just being pragmatic, that's all. Sorry that it doesn't fit into your ideological hole.
" (like Medicare is doing, right Clark) "
Funny you should mention that. I take it that you listen to a lot of Limbaugh and watch a lot of Fox, so you're a tad ill prepared to speak on the subject. Like Social Security and the publicly regulated portion of the military (not the privatized pentagon, which is a disaster), Medicare is also another shining example of how proper public stewardship trumps corrupt capitalism. Medicare costs about 2% to administer. Privatized healthcare costs 15-17% to administer. So much for you argument there, eh? Live and learn.
"have never met a failed, corrupt, fraudulant (sic), privatized government corporate welfare program that they couldn't help themselves from dumping endless boatloads of borrowed cash into" is typical liberal mudslinging without facts to back it up."
Please. Anyone who's been paying attention for the past 10 years knows this. Why don't you? Oh yeah...Limbaugh and Fox. Never mind.
"It kind of makes a person want to look elsewhere for intelligent discussion (like Rush and the EIB Network)."
And O'Reilly, and Savage, and Coulter, and Hannity, and Liddy, and Scarborough, and Russert, and Buchannen, and Matthews, and Kristol, and Hume, and Gibson, and all of the other "rational" voices in the "liberal media." Lordy, you people are a riot.
So wrong on so many levels.
Suppose Rob Port tells us how his hero, George W. Bush, became successful? Was it from hard work and creativity? Or was it because his grandaddy was a millionaire and his dad inherited a boatload of money and was President?
By all accounts, every business touched by Bush failed.
And the fact is many wealthy people are wealthy not because they worked hard--but because they inherited it. Should we continue to reward people, not on the basis of merit, but because their ancestors may have created a fortune?
Let's face facts: many poor people aren't poor because they don't work hard enough. In fact, most of the least desirable and dirty and dangerous jobs also pay the least.
Also, I'd be willing to bet that most successful people received opportunities based on familial connections.
I don't believe it's gonna happen. I think Rob is incapable of espousing and defending his own views, which is why he only posts other people's opinions, and then never appears to comment on his own afterwards.
I do believe he is the preverbial "wingnut with no ability to carry on critical thought process." He, like so many other "conservatives," simply cannot carry on their own discussions, because they do nothing without marching orders from their precious talking heads (Limbaugh, etc.). They're basically non-surgically labotomized. Sad, isn't it?
Great article. I am a conservative and I was happy when the republicans took the house. However, it turned out they were just as corrupt as the Democrats when it came to pork barrel spending.
Ralph Nader was right when he said there is no difference between the Republican and Democratic party. The only way to stop this massive spending is to have one party control the house and the other control executive branch. We need grid lock.