This study will explain how the health policy changes President Obama and Congressional Democrats support would cause millions of Americans to lose their choice of doctors and insurance coverage, require that access to care be strictly rationed, and cause the quality of care to deteriorate. Despite all this sacrifice, nationalizing health insurance in America would require major tax increases, slow economic growth, and increase the national debt.
Read the full report here.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
Since you seemingly agree with this report. It's probably a pretty safe bet to assume that it originated with a group who's political views are somewhat to the right of the political mainstream.
Perhaps you want me to quote or source your list of favorite left wing sites. We have ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, NYT, WSJ, LAT and all the left wing think tanks, college tenured professors and bloggers for your views. It's a good report, but you'll need to read it and make up your own mind. It's impossible for conservatives to not be exposed to the administration's view; you need a bit of help seeing the alternative, which is why you come here.
Let's see if I got this right. Should a person feel the political opposition is lying about or misrepresenting facts in order to further a cause. That, of course, would be all the justification needed, for that person to start their own campaign of lying and fact misrepresentation. Kind of makes the old adage Two wrongs don't make right ring hollow, don't you think?
This Heartland Institute your link directs us to, sure has an enlightened outlook on tobacco use
The author of this report served as a senior staff member in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Ronald
Reagan and as associate deputy attorney general under President George H.W. Bush. He is a
graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School and has practiced law with firms on Wall
Street and in Washington, DC. He wrote the first book for the Cato Institute providing a comprehensive intellectual foundation for a personal account option for Social Security, Social
Security: The Inherent Contradiction (1980), and has continued to write on that concept in further books, studies, and articles for Cato, The Heritage Foundation, National Center for Policy Analysis, Family Research Council, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and a wide range of other
institutions and publications.
And you are--the brave Anonymous authority on all conservative blogs.
Yeah, I read all about the author on page 36 of the report you linked to in your original article. It's probably the same place you got what you just posted. I'm sure it will come as no surprise to you, when I tell you that my opinion of the man differs a little from yours.
When you add everything you just listed, to his own admission that he was paid by convicted felon Jack Abramoff to engage in a little Pundit Payola and write op-eds promoting the lobbyist's clients. His actions, instead of demonstrating a credible individual, portray a person with a history of promoting anything if the price is right.
I feel safe in saying...that I'm as much an authority on conservatives as you are on liberals.
I doubt that. How many years did you vote Republican?
Not that one's voting record is pertinent to the question above. But on the National Level, I voted Republican from Nixon (1968) through the first term of George H.W. Bush. But I've since tried to make up for my previous lapses in judgement.
Me too. Only I voted Democrat from Kennedy through Clinton. There are many things about the Republican party I don't like--like their spines of spaghetti--Democrats tend to stick with the most bizarre and ridiculous candidates and elected officials no matter what. But it's the philosophy of the Democrats that now is distasteful.
It's truly strange how people can view the same circumstances so differently. But, I do find myself agreeing, at least somewhat, with your appraisal of the political parties. "There are many things about the Republican party I don't like--like their spines of spaghetti--Democrats tend to stick with the most bizarre and ridiculous candidates and elected officials no matter what. But it's the philosophy of the Democrats that now is distasteful" In many ways, it mirors my own views.
Of course in my version, we would just swap the party names.
Post a Comment