View Full Version : Repubs For Competition Before They Were Against It

Gayle in MD
03-20-2010, 09:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For Competition Before They Were Against It

Posted on Mar 12, 2009
By David Sirota

Despite the shock and awe of Democrats’ melodramatic press releases, nobody was genuinely bewildered or surprised by the recent McClatchy newspaper headline screaming that “GOP lawmakers tout projects in the stimulus bill they opposed.” We all know that politicians love to brag about bringing home the bacon—even the bacon they vote against.
<span style='font-size: 20pt'>
Far more baffling are those same politicians contradicting their entire foundational philosophy. When that starts happening, as it is in the debate over health care, things can become authentically confusing.

Anyone who remembers the 1993-94 health care fights knows that Republicans have long asserted that private insurance is more efficacious and more adored by patients than government-run programs like Medicare. To solve the health care crisis, those on the right say we must foster more price-cutting, efficiency-producing competition. “The American people know that innovation, choice, and competition work,” wrote GOP Sen. Tom Coburn (Okla.) in an archetypal Op-Ed entitled “Competition Solves Health Care.”

Give conservatives credit here: At minimum, this argument had a logic to it, however flawed. Sure, it is belied by data—The Urban Institute reports that private insurers spend up to 30 percent of their revenues on administrative costs (read: salaries, paperwork, etc.) while government programs spend just 5 percent, and polls show Medicare recipients are far more satisfied with their health care than patients in the private system. But, in nonetheless claiming that the private sector will always outperform the government, Republicans at least presented an ideologically coherent (if fantastically inaccurate) hypothesis.</span>
That all changed, though, when Democrats this week began pushing to let citizens buy into a government-sponsored health plan similar to the one federal lawmakers enjoy.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>The allegedly competition-loving GOP immediately stated its strong opposition on the grounds that the initiative would begin “forcing free market plans to compete with government-run programs,” as congressional Republicans lamented. While Republican Rep. Roy Blunt (Mo.) insisted that the GOP remains “committed to common-sense solutions that promote competition,” he said his party is “concerned that if the government” is permitted to compete, “it will eventually push out the private health care plans.”</span>
Hold on a second.

Don’t Republicans insist that “competition solves health care”? Yes, ad nauseam.

Haven’t they been telling us that government programs are obviously worse than private health insurance? Yes again.

Then, don’t they welcome a private-versus-public competition, believing that the former will easily trump the latter? Well ... uh ... no.

As I said, this is truly perplexing.

In one breath, GOP Jekylls say government medical plans will be inefficient, inferior to private insurance and thus hated by Americans. In another breath, Republican Hydes effectively admit that government programs would be so efficient, superior to private insurance and loved by Americans that they would attract most consumers and dominate a health care competition.

Of the two assertions, of course, the latter is closer to the truth—and the GOP knows it.

Republican lawmakers received the new Commonwealth Fund report showing that a public system would save consumers $2 trillion through reduced premiums and lower administrative costs. They see surveys showing the country overwhelmingly wants the government to create a public health program—and they know that many Americans, if given a choice, will opt into that program rather than swim with the private insurance sharks.
<span style='font-size: 20pt'>
Republicans can’t simply acknowledge these truisms, however, because doing so would undermine the insurance industry that’s filling their campaign coffers. So instead, we get pro-competition, government-is-ineffective “conservatives” working to thwart competition and implicitly admitting they believe government would be too effective. </span>
<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Yes, when it comes to competition, Republicans were for it before they were against it. And this time, a confounding flip-flop doesn’t merely threaten a bumbling presidential candidate, it imperils a health care revolution.</span>
David Sirota is the best-selling author of the books “Hostile Takeover” (2006) and “The Uprising” (2008). He is a fellow at the Campaign for America’s Future. Find his blog at OpenLeft.com or e-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com.


<span style="color: #000066">Just one big contradiction after another, and it all boils down to they want to get re-elected, and don't give a damn about getting ANYTHING done about the health care crises that Bush IGNORED for eight damn years, until it reached critical levels.

G. </span>

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090312_for_competition_before_they_were_against_ it/

Gayle in MD
03-20-2010, 09:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Right Wing Gone Wild

Posted on Mar 17, 2010

Flickr / Gage Skidmore

By Joe Conason

Demagogues often prosper under the rules of democracy, intimidating the moderate and preying on the weak-minded. But in a healthy society, such figures cannot cross a final threshold of decency without jeopardizing their own status—and today’s right-wing nihilists seem to be on the verge of doing just that.

When Elizabeth Cheney, a daughter of the former vice president, questions the loyalty of anyone who stands up for the human rights of prisoners in the “war on terror,” she is treading very close to that line.

Operating behind a front group called Keep America Safe, Cheney and her associate, the journalist William Kristol, say there is a shadowy group of lawyers within the Justice Department that supposedly served the cause of “jihad” by representing detainees.

According to them, those attorneys and any others who represent detained suspects are “aiding and abetting America’s enemies” by filing lawsuits, thus transforming our courthouses into yet another theater of terrorist attack. Through those legal actions, the lawyers are undermining the moral authority of the war on terror and creating obstacles for the military and intelligence officials charged with defending us, says Keep America Safe. And by accusing the U.S. authorities of violating the prisoners’ human rights, they are “echoing the propaganda” of the jihadists.

The clear implication of these arguments is that these attorneys are guilty of treason.

But if arguing for the rights of prisoners is traitorous—indeed, if merely representing a Gitmo detainee is disloyalty—then the roster of perfidy extends far beyond the seven lawyers at the Justice Department who were the immediate targets of Cheney, Kristol and their gang. The list would have to encompass dozens of military and retired military leaders, starting with Gen. Colin Powell and then including dozens of flag officers, military judges and legislators who have served in battle.

That list of subversives and sellouts would also have to include dozens of upstanding Republicans such as Rudolph Giuliani whose law firms have performed pro bono work on behalf of terrorist suspects. Worse still, the list must include the United States Supreme Court, which has upheld the rights of detainees under both the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions. It is hard to imagine a greater victory for enemy propaganda than a ruling in the nation’s highest court.

When Glenn Beck vilifies “social justice” as a “perversion of the Gospel” and slanders churches and pastors as “Nazis” for pursuing it, he too is trespassing a bright line. The Fox News personality—who rants and weeps like the late Joseph McCarthy, a fellow alcoholic—urges his listeners to run away from any congregation where social justice is preached. He instructs them to denounce any pastor who even mentions the term. He even held up pictures of a swastika and a hammer and sickle to somehow demonstrate that “social justice” is a code phrase whose hidden meaning is identical to Nazism and communism.

Poor Beck evidently does not realize that his own Mormon church is deeply committed to the social justice teachings of the Gospels—or that the Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and adherents of other faiths in this country all share similar values on that question. By attacking them, in his megalomania and ignorance, he has ripped into an ethical tradition that unites our country.

The best historical parallel to these extremist trespasses can be found back in the 1950s, when McCarthy, the John Birch Society and other elements of the far right were riding high. What brought them down were their excesses: in McCarthy’s case, when he and his staff sought to implicate the United States Army in the communist conspiracy; and in the case of the Birchers, when they proclaimed that President Dwight Eisenhower and the Supreme Court, among other august persons and institutions, were wittingly aiding the communists.

Our current crop of crazies is approaching that point of no return—and if we are fortunate, they will keep going.

Joe Conason writes for The New York Observer.


<span style="color: #000066">Sums up the nutty right quite reasonably! </span>

03-20-2010, 12:46 PM
Why do you cling to such disproved nonsense?


03-20-2010, 12:55 PM
I find it very telling that someone who spent 8 years crying about the constitution being "trampled", sees absolutely nothing wrong with what is happening in Washington these days. Seems they are content to continue the partisan BS, rather than consider the actual issues that are tearing this country down.

Obama said he wanted to fundamentally change our country, seeming because he hated it all his life, and the left just wants to villify the right, rather than admit that they made a horrible mistake putting Obama in the white house.



03-20-2010, 01:05 PM
The COTUS is nothing but a stage prop to the O-cult.



03-22-2010, 11:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Far more baffling are those same politicians contradicting their entire foundational philosophy</div></div>LOL, sounds like the author is referring to Obama. Hope and change, transparent congress, no tax on poor. Jeesh, he missed on each one.


Gayle in MD
03-22-2010, 01:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Far more baffling are those same politicians contradicting their entire foundational philosophy</div></div>LOL, sounds like the author is referring to Obama. Hope and change, transparent congress, no tax on poor. Jeesh, he missed on each one.

eg8r </div></div>

I think there are lots of people with added hope, and who like the cnages they will be getting. I do, and ,amy other cancer victims, who know now that they can't be dropped...

thanks to the work of the president, and the Democratics...

You assume way too much. We don't all work for the Department of defense, or, ah hem, pretend we're working, everyday, Ed, see, some of us really had to work at REAL jobs, most of our lives...I suppose that's why you're third down of the top posters, WASTE through Government Contracting.... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

We're paying your salary, while you're cheating your employers and hanging on here insulting us, biting the hands that feed you..... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Talk about a person with their head in the sand /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif