Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General Where have all the conservatives gone?

When I said "If Medicare for all is implemented then our government would be the only provider of healthcare." he claimed that was saying it would be identical the British healthcare system. Since I don't know much about the British system I cannot say that ours would be identical to theirs. That is where Jeffery was wrong. I did not make any comparison of Medicare for all with the British system. When our government funds something, be it Medicare or anything else, it makes the rules. Governors do have some leeway in the implementation of those rules but our federal government still writes them.

As long as they use reason, logic, and facts to write the regulations and they fall under Constitutional guidelines I'm not sure I see a problem with this. You trust them to be the world's police force but not enough for them to do much of anything else. Why don't we privatize the world's police force and save the US Gov a lot of money?

It was a group of Republicans, led by Sen. Goldwater, who told Nixon that his support on Capitol Hill was gone. Nixon realized that that he would be impeached and so he decided to resign. The infection was checked and did not spread. The low opinion of the Republican Party, thanks to Nixon, kept it in check. Regan worship was very bipartisan. A President doesn't win 49 of the 50 states when he is reelected if he is not very popular with both Republicans and Democrats.


No, in the Democratic Party it was more widespread. Most of the political machines that have existed in our country were run by Democrats. I agree, as Lord Acton said power corrupts and it doesn't what what political party you are a member of.

(Should I be nervous? Twice on Friday the 13th NW Ponderer and I have agreed on something.)

The "conservatism" NW is referring to was not limited to the Republican Party. Racism and xenophobia have unfortunately a long bipartisan history in America. Creative destruction creates jobs and prosperity. A thriving growing economy will always be one in turmoil. The "discussion of economic and political theorems" is when our government is given more control over our economy. No government can do that as well or as productively as the private sector can. If the breadwinner of a family is convicted of crime should they be let free just because their family will suffer? If that happens then anyone who is the "breadwinner" of a family has just been given a get out of jail free card and the safety of society ceases to exist. When a person is not identified by the color of their skin, but rather as Martin Luther King, Jr, said "by the content of their character" then discrimination is removed from society.

It is NW's views that would create an epidemic of inhumanity not conservatism.

Protecting our country is one of the reasons why we have a government. Providing for anyone's healthcare is not one of the reasons we have a government. Therefore, while they might use reason, logic, and facts to write the rules for healthcare they do not have the Constitutional authority to write them. Show where in our Constitution it specifically mentions healthcare.

Thank you for that clarification. Now, I think, I can fill in some blanks.

Not speaking specifically for Jeff, but I and other "liberals" are used to the word "socialism" being bandied about loosely by so-called "conservatives" for any policy that smacks of human consideration or government support, generally. As a result, I think we have been habituated to "going there" whenever some issues, like Medicare, are raised and criticized broadly.

The UK, somewhat uniquely, has a National Health Service, doctors employed by the government in government-operated hospitals and clinics. It is true "socialized medicine". In the United States we only have a few such services - e.g. military hospitals, the Veterans hospitals and the Indian Health Services - where the "means of production" are actually government-owned and operated.

Other countries, like Canada, have single-payer health insurance systems. That is vastly different. Medical decisions are made independently of government, but payments are made directly or of government funds. While government may influence the system, it does not control it.

The United States has an amalgamation of "systems" (which is why it is so broken). Some services, as noted above, are government provided. Some are provided by private medical services. Some are paid by government agencies (e.g., Medicaid, FEBP), or third parties (e.g., business, unions, insurance systems), who make coverage decisions. Medicare is actually a hybrid system. Some is paid directly by the government; some by the government, but through private insurance providers; some directly by third party insurance providers.

There are several versions of "Medicare for all" being proposed, so it is pretty hard to make definitive arguments about what it means. Mostly it is about "universal coverage" as a goal.

A lot to unpack here:I'm afraid that kinda missed my point, actually. Goldwater and the others weren't "cured" - they were carriers. The infection did spread, and, like herpes, erupts occasionally, as it did with Reagan. Reagan was a vector, spreading the infection with false nostrums about "welfare queens" and "lifting boats", while pursuing really inhumane policies. We now know he shared the same racist beliefs Nixon did.

Reagan-worship was not, and is not, bipartisan. Nixon also won reelection overwhelmingly... shortly before impeachment proceedings began.
Now interlineations and asides will not suffice. I disagree. A thriving, growing economy will be disruptive and dynamic, but does not inevitably require turmoil. If approached intelligently, disruptions can be minimized, not exacerbated, and dynamism harnessed and directed. But, that requires consideration of "externalities" - something that definitely exists, but is assiduously ignored and denied by capitalists of a certain ilk.

Um, no. (Actually kind of a non sequitur.) Often, and most destructively, precisely no. Laissez faire policies are born of economic theorems, and not practical intelligence. They assiduously avoid dealing with realities in favor of preferred expectations.
Now we're into rote recitation of party-line nostrums. Evidence? SUPPORT? Or is the statement intended to be a tautology? I can provide a direct contradiction to the Statement: China. China Used More Concrete In 3 Years Than The U.S. Used In The Entire 20th Century. Indeed, if we don't accept the lesson of, and adapt to, China's aggressive economic posture, China will absolutely eat our lunch.

Again, evidence? SUPPORT? What is your "theory of justice"? What is the purpose of the penal system? Do the issues of compassion, causality or reformation/rehabilitation have any bearing?

In an ideal, or just world, I agree. That, unfortunately, is not (as Dr.King was stressing in that quote) the world in which we currently live, but aspire to.
What utter nonsense. An epidemic of inhumanity is what we have under the current rubric of "conservatism".

On what do you base this assertion? (I acknowledge up front that this is a trap.)

Over the last 20-30 years it seems our election campaigns have become name calling and mud slinging. No room for new ideas, possible solutions to our problems or visions on where the candidates want to take our country. It's negative personal attack after negative personal attack.

I sick and tired of Republicans automatically opposing anything put forward by Democrats and vice versa, Democrat automatically opposing anything suggested by Republicans. The merits of the proposals or legislation are never considered anymore, just who proposed them.

This era of polarization and ultra high partisanship very well could be the beginning of our downfall. I've been interested in politics since watching the Democratic and Republican conventions on TV way back in 1956. I never seen the likes or the hateful politics of today before.

I think it could very well be the European Union if it wanted to fill the position. It doesn't and won't as long as the good old USA does it.

If you mean racism you are wrong! If you are talking about a “criminal mindset” that too is wrong. Yes, Nixon was a crook but his "criminal mindset" did not spread into the Republican Party any more than it did into entire American population. To think that “welfare queens” is racist is not true. The percentage of welfare recipients is 39.8% white and 38.8% blacks. That means the “welfare queens” are white women. The saying “A rising tide lifts all boats.” was first said by Pres. Kennedy. Was JFK a racist?
Apparently you have forgotten about the REAGAN DEMOCRATS.
If the Democrat’s political machines are ancient history why are 45 out of 50 wards in Chicago predominately Democrat?
A disruption of someone’s life can throw it into turmoil. To minimize, harness, and direct a thriving and growing economy means government intervention. Most, but not all, government interventions stop economic growth. While economic growth can be painful the market can and does control them better than government does.
Laissez faire is an economic theorem. A theorem that rejects government interventions because the preferred expectations of government interventions cannot achieved in realty.

That is a false analogy. When the US was using all of the concrete it did from 1901 – 2000 the decision of how and for what it was used was made mostly by the private sector. The decision of how and for what it the concrete is used for in China in the last three years was made by its government. Governments build large dams, like the Three Gorges Dam, the private sector doesn’t. Should China ever become a Capitalist country it probably will eat our lunch. But dictatorships rarely disappear quietly.

I asked a rhetorical question which I answered. I did read the Cliff Notes of Les Miserable. As for my theory of justice it is that ours can be improved and I welcome a vigorous discussion how it can be done.
Thomas Jefferson’s statement all men are created equal is an ideal that we haven’t lived up to and Dr. King reminded us of that in his excellent, moving, and sadly very necessary I HAVE A DREAM speech.
It is because that is how you want to see conservatism in order to justify your being a liberal. Like the saying “There none more pious than a reformed sinner.” you see conservatism as sinful and liberalism as redemption.