All "progressives"....or anybody else...

[MattyT]

, what else is there to say? I honestly believed that this little hook would go by the wayside. Nope, looks like it caught it's intended target. I don't know what is worse Molson, that you are are that gullible, or that the people who have obviously brainwashed you are that sinister. I did not do this to harm you. I don't do that kind of thing. Rather, I simply wanted to point something out to you: you are in serious trouble in the "thinking for yourself" department. So much so that you can't even see an obvious setup coming. Dude - you have to open up your mind to ALL the info you can get your hands on and START THINKING for yourself. Otherwise, you are gonna spend the rest of your life getting played as easily as I have here, and with much worse consequences than simply looking silly for a few days. Of course you can choose to interpret this differently and call me names again, but that would make you look even more silly now, wouldn't it? All I ask is that you think about it.

You set a trap, waited patiently, and look what you caught.....a lemming.

[molson_golden2002]

, what else is there to say? I honestly believed that this little hook would go by the wayside. Nope, looks like it caught it's intended target. I don't know what is worse Molson, that you are are that gullible, or that the people who have obviously brainwashed you are that sinister. I did not do this to harm you. I don't do that kind of thing. Rather, I simply wanted to point something out to you: you are in serious trouble in the "thinking for yourself" department. So much so that you can't even see an obvious setup coming. Dude - you have to open up your mind to ALL the info you can get your hands on and START THINKING for yourself. Otherwise, you are gonna spend the rest of your life getting played as easily as I have here, and with much worse consequences than simply looking silly for a few days. Of course you can choose to interpret this differently and call me names again, but that would make you look even more silly now, wouldn't it? All I ask is that you think about it.

 

As far as response to the others here: progressive is a word. WORDS MEAN THINGS. And yes, the meaning of words can be found in lots of places, including the dictionary. If a word does not accurately represent what you are/think, why the hell do you use it to describe yourself? More importantly, isn't it true that the reason people of a certain mindset chose to use the word "progressive" is because of what it means? Specifically, to improve? Isn't it also true that the reason they chose this word is so that they could represent their mindset to others as one of "improvement"; thereby superior to "staying the same".

 

If these things are true, then why do they not judge the results of their policies in terms of real improvement? I think it would be a great idea to be a "true progressive" - meaning that every policy I supported would have to include measurable performance indicators and the minute that the policy either satisfied either:

 

1. resolution of the existing issues, or,

2. proved that it could not satisfy them,

 

it would be discontinued. Things like traffic guards are a perfect example. Every day there is a problem: kids need to get to school safely. Every day we solve that problem by paying someone to make sure that happens.

 

Fine.

 

Here's what's not fine: Medicaid was established to pay for kids and poor people - not bums, but people who got hurt at work, etc. - and now 93% of it pays for the elderly(read: we need new things, and NEW TAXES, to pay for kids and the poor). FDR had no plan for this - none at all. They never did the actuarial studies to see what would happen to this "progressive" policy if a spike in population occurred. WHY? Because Medicaid was designed to solve the IMMEDIATE problems that were in our face as a result of the Great Depression. So, once the Great Depression was over, why didn't Medicaid go away? Simple, because "phony progressive" politicians saw it as an opportunity to make a living handing out free schit in trade for votes. Now please tell me, HOW IS THAT DEFINED AS PROGRESS?

Oh please, I feel so played! Give me a break. You typed out some nonsense and I tossed out a quick response, i.e., that "progressives" by which I thought you meant liberals have been playing defense for the past ten years or so. Grover Norquist's comments of shriking Federal Government down to the size where it can be drown in a bath tube comes to mind. I made a mistake responding to a know knothing like you, I admit that now. Believe me pal, I think for myself, for instance, I happen to know, unlike you, that FDR didn't create Medicare or medicade. You think it was created during Great Depression You have only proved you know knowing about why this program was put in place or why it continues, who needs health care and who does not. Unless you think the Great Depression was in the 1960's? You might be that ignorant, I do not know.

 

Here is a history lesson for you little boy:

 

http://www.kff.org/medicaid/40years.cfm

[RkFast]

Why? Because he defined "progressive" incorrectly?

 

I just enjoy red meat, thats all. I admit it.

 

Hey, even bad steak is still steak.

[Chef Jim]

Oh please, I feel so played! Give me a break. You typed out some nonsense and I tossed out a quick response, i.e., that "progressives" by which I thought you meant liberals have been playing defense for the past ten years or so. Grover Norquist's comments of shriking Federal Government down to the size where it can be drown in a bath tube comes to mind. I made a mistake responding to a know knothing like you, I admit that now. Believe me pal, I think for myself, for instance, I happen to know, unlike you, that FDR didn't create Medicare or medicade. You think it was created during Great Depression You have only proved you know knowing about why this program was put in place or why it continues, who needs health care and who does not. Unless you think the Great Depression was in the 1960's? You might be that ignorant, I do not know.

 

Here is a history lesson for you little boy:

 

http://www.kff.org/medicaid/40years.cfm

 

Wow you are brilliant. Now show us where OCiP mentioned that FDR created medicaid. You're making chit up again.

[molson_golden2002]

Wow you are brilliant. Now show us where OCiP mentioned that FDR created medicaid. You're making chit up again.

Because Medicaid was designed to solve the IMMEDIATE problems that were in our face as a result of the Great Depression. So, once the Great Depression was over, why didn't Medicaid go away?

 

FDR was President during the Great Depression.

[Chef Jim]

FDR was President during the Great Depression.

 

So was Hoover.

[Albany,n.y.]

IMO people use the term "progressive" because over the last few decades, conservatives have very successfully campaigned to make the word "liberal" into a negative connotation, and now when people hear the word they think something other than it means or was intended to mean or represent.

 

Go ahead, say "it is a negative connotation", hardy har har.

The word liberal, as used on this board, is defined by those who use it as: a person who has a different opinion than me on this particular issue I'm posting about. That's because if you took all the issues that have been called liberal on this board, lumped them all together and tried to find one person on this planet who agrees with every position, you would never find one. Add up the posts with the word liberal used negatively and these people lose credibility-even if they are right in that particular post, they are usually wrong when they attribute the opposite opinion to liberals. As used on this board, there's no such thing as a liberal in the real world.

[OCinBuffalo]

You have only proved you know knowing about why this program was put in place or why it continues, who needs health care and who does not. Unless you think the Great Depression was in the 1960's? You might be that ignorant, I do not know.

 

Here is a history lesson for you little boy:

 

http://www.kff.org/medicaid/40years.cfm

Fact:

Dude I told you(and everyone else) that you would blame someone else, not the policies/programs, for the lack of progress and sure as hell you walked right into it. You can't help yourself.

Fact:

You have not defended the "progressive" government programs that "progressives" supposedly support (what does that tell us?)

Fact:

You have yet to argue on the substance of one point I have made, ever!

 

You can't be serious - medicaid programs were firmly in place since FDR. I don't think they were created to deal with the Great Depression - I KNOW THEY WERE.

 

Once again, you don't know history. LBJ worked for FDR in the National Youth Association - which is why Medicaid was supposed to be used for KIDS(LBJ's influence from this time). FDR created smaller and/or program-specific "medicaid" throughout the New Deal, Second Deal, and into WWII! So you want to play word games and not address the substance of my post which says the following:

 

."..now 93% of it pays for the elderly(read: we need new things, and NEW TAXES, to pay for kids and the poor). FDR had no plan for this - none at all( I AM ADDING THIS HERE - NEITHER DID LBJ! Anybody who knows anything about this time period knows that LBJ = FDR2. So it's no surprise that the same flawed thinking is shared by both). They never did the actuarial studies to see what would happen to this "progressive" policy if a spike in population occurred. "

 

All these disparate little programs, or programs that were part of something else, were organized into a massive program(what a shocker!) and it was formally named Medicaid by LBJ in 1965. What does that prove? Nothing. And, as usual, you haven't addressed any of my points of why we still need it today IN ITS CURRENT INCARNATION, since it really hasn't fixed all that much, and definitely since providers cannot afford to treat Medicaid patients and stay financially viable. But again, you haven't addressed that. You have simply said: I am not gonna talk with you because you are stupid, etc. That my friend, is why no one really trusts liberals - you don't want to put your real ideas out for others to scrutinize( a la "I voted for it before I voted against it, etc.").

 

Oh and by the way, genius, here's a quick history lesson for you:

 

This comes from Democratic Underground(I had to make sure that you didn't give me source hassles): link

 

"Franklin Delano Roosevelt first began speaking about our country’s need for economic and social rights to compliment the political rights granted to us in our original Bill of Rights during his first campaign for President, in 1932. "

....

 The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.

....

Nonetheless, the concept of economic and social rights did not gain much traction in the United States until the election of a President (FDR) who fervently believed in them coincided with circumstances (The Great Depression) that made their need glaringly apparent to a large proportion of American citizens.

 

Not good enough? Try this:

From National Reviewlink

 

"Most Americans receive their health insurance from their employer. Few pause, however, to contemplate why. As part of the war effort, the FDR administration imposed wage and price controls. Employers, seeking a way to provide workers with competitive salaries without violating the law, began offering health benefits. On October 26, 1943, the IRS legitimized the practice, ruling that health benefits would remain tax free."

 

How about this:

Form Kaiser Permanente( the first health insurance company - FDR and Kaiser worked this out so that the Liberty ships could keep getting built) which, by the way, is where your link comes from

 

"But at Kaiser's request, President Franklin D. Roosevelt released Dr. Garfield from his military obligation specifically so he could organize and run a prepaid group practice for the workers at the Richmond shipyards. And so, Dr. Garfield and his innovative health care delivery system came to the San Francisco Bay Area, and formed the association with Kaiser that would imbed itself in the organization and continue until the present day."

 

No one on this planet was influenced by FDR more than LBJ. And, again, the Medicaid program(or some version of it) has been with us since FDR, like it or not. But how like you to the ignore facts, no matter how true they are. Not a surprise but this is getting old.

 

Dude I feel sorry for you. You have no idea what you are talking about. You just know how to use Google. Any number of azzholes can use Google. Sure I suppose you can use a gun to open a can, but that doesn't make it a good f'ing idea. You can get your understanding of history from Google as well, but that doesn't make it a good f'ing idea either. Unfortunately for you: I know how to use Google too. The fact is these programs have been with us, in one incarnation or another, for over 60 years and they do not address now(93% elderly) what they were created for then(kids and disabled workers). And I have no doubt that you will still not address that.

[molson_golden2002]

So was Hoover.

Dude, stop digging when you are stuck in a hole. You made a mistake, do not compound it.

[molson_golden2002]

Fact:

Dude I told you(and everyone else) that you would blame someone else, not the policies/programs, for the lack of progress and sure as hell you walked right into it. You can't help yourself.

Fact:

You have not defended the "progressive" government programs that "progressives" supposedly support (what does that tell us?)

Fact:

You have yet to argue on the substance of one point I have made, ever!

 

You can't be serious - medicaid programs were firmly in place since FDR. I don't think they were created to deal with the Great Depression - I KNOW THEY WERE.

 

Once again, you don't know history. LBJ worked for FDR in the National Youth Association - which is why Medicaid was supposed to be used for KIDS(LBJ's influence from this time). FDR created smaller and/or program-specific "medicaid" throughout the New Deal, Second Deal, and into WWII! So you want to play word games and not address the substance of my post which says the following:

 

."..now 93% of it pays for the elderly(read: we need new things, and NEW TAXES, to pay for kids and the poor). FDR had no plan for this - none at all( I AM ADDING THIS HERE - NEITHER DID LBJ! Anybody who knows anything about this time period knows that LBJ = FDR2. So it's no surprise that the same flawed thinking is shared by both). They never did the actuarial studies to see what would happen to this "progressive" policy if a spike in population occurred. "

 

All these disparate little programs, or programs that were part of something else, were organized into a massive program(what a shocker!) and it was formally named Medicaid by LBJ in 1965. What does that prove? Nothing. And, as usual, you haven't addressed any of my points of why we still need it today IN ITS CURRENT INCARNATION, since it really hasn't fixed all that much, and definitely since providers cannot afford to treat Medicaid patients and stay financially viable. But again, you haven't addressed that. You have simply said: I am not gonna talk with you because you are stupid, etc. That my friend, is why no one really trusts liberals - you don't want to put your real ideas out for others to scrutinize( a la "I voted for it before I voted against it, etc.").

 

Oh and by the way, genius, here's a quick history lesson for you:

 

This comes from Democratic Underground(I had to make sure that you didn't give me source hassles): link

 

"Franklin Delano Roosevelt first began speaking about our country’s need for economic and social rights to compliment the political rights granted to us in our original Bill of Rights during his first campaign for President, in 1932. "

....

 The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.

....

Nonetheless, the concept of economic and social rights did not gain much traction in the United States until the election of a President (FDR) who fervently believed in them coincided with circumstances (The Great Depression) that made their need glaringly apparent to a large proportion of American citizens.

 

Not good enough? Try this:

From National Reviewlink

 

"Most Americans receive their health insurance from their employer. Few pause, however, to contemplate why. As part of the war effort, the FDR administration imposed wage and price controls. Employers, seeking a way to provide workers with competitive salaries without violating the law, began offering health benefits. On October 26, 1943, the IRS legitimized the practice, ruling that health benefits would remain tax free."

 

How about this:

Form Kaiser Permanente( the first health insurance company - FDR and Kaiser worked this out so that the Liberty ships could keep getting built) which, by the way, is where your link comes from

 

"But at Kaiser's request, President Franklin D. Roosevelt released Dr. Garfield from his military obligation specifically so he could organize and run a prepaid group practice for the workers at the Richmond shipyards. And so, Dr. Garfield and his innovative health care delivery system came to the San Francisco Bay Area, and formed the association with Kaiser that would imbed itself in the organization and continue until the present day."

 

No one on this planet was influenced by FDR more than LBJ. And, again, the Medicaid program(or some version of it) has been with us since FDR, like it or not. But how like you to the ignore facts, no matter how true they are. Not a surprise but this is getting old.

 

Dude I feel sorry for you. You have no idea what you are talking about. You just know how to use Google. Any number of azzholes can use Google. Sure I suppose you can use a gun to open a can, but that doesn't make it a good f'ing idea. You can get your understanding of history from Google as well, but that doesn't make it a good f'ing idea either. Unfortunately for you: I know how to use Google too. The fact is these programs have been with us, in one incarnation or another, for over 60 years and they do not address now(93% elderly) what they were created for then(kids and disabled workers). And I have no doubt that you will still not address that.

Interesting tactics. You are caught making a big mistake so you flood the post with garbage. Ok, here is what you did. You tried to trap me with a word game. Fair enough, I thought you were making a serious post and I fell for your childish game. Then you tried to demonstrate to me "thinking." That is where you made your mistake. You said Medicare was created in Great Depression, it wasn't. Then you actually tried to draw conclusions from that false premise that were also false. I called you on it and you posted a bunch on stuff that said LBJ was influenced by New Deal. I agree, but that does not make Medicare a New Deal program. Why would it end with Great Depression if it had not even been in existenace then, as you did state?

 

And BTW, I do not need Google to learn history, I'm very well versed in it. But let me ask you, should the government have never gotten involved in helping people with health care? Is that what you think?

[Wacka]

Dude, stop digging when you are stuck in a hole. You made a mistake, do not compound it.

 

Hey goldfish,

Hoover was Pres from March 1929- March 1933. The Stock Market crashed in September or October 1929.

D'oh!

[/dev/null]

FDR was President during the Great Depression.

Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead

[OCinBuffalo]

And BTW, I do not need Google to learn history, I'm very well versed in it. But let me ask you, should the government have never gotten involved in helping people with health care? Is that what you think?

Finally, something that resembles a rational thought and not more name calling. Hell, I'll even forgive the answering my questions with a question. As far as the other stuff goes: Do you really think that LBJ came up with Medicaid on his own? Nope - not smart enough. He is quoted as saying he was simply continuing FDR's policies - it's just that Truman and Kennedy(conservative Dems) and Eisenhower(Rep) got in the way. Since FDR had to deal with immediate problems (the Great Depression), NONE of the social programs he implemented were long-term oriented. What I am referring to here is a "progressive" mindset that has ALL it's roots in FDR's policies. I DON'T CARE when or how much of a policy was implemented. THAT'S NOT THE POINT. The point is that the mindset of making HUGE government programs to solve perceived IMMEDIATE needs is where Social Securtiy, Medicare, Medicaid, comes from.

 

On to your question. As far as I am concerned, and by the way three democratic political consultant buddies of mine agree, COMPANIES should have never gotten involved with providing Health Care. By the way, if you ask any of them whose policy Medicaid represents, all three of them will tell you FDR - and that LBJ was a wanna-be(it's my guess they do this to spin away from LBJ's Vietnam mess). Anyway, I take it a step further and say the NO ONE should have gotten involved in providing health care because here's what that does:

 

1. If a guy can go to the doctor anytime because it's somebody else's responsibility to pay - regardless of whether he actually need to or not - he takes it for granted. Read: waste of resources and NO CONSEQUENCES

2. Since he knows that all of his health care will be covered no matter what, it allows him to be an **** with his body, he can do drugs, not exercise, eat crappy food, etc. and somebody else has to pay for it. Read: waste of resources and NO CONSEQUENCES

3. It that guy's kids are covered as well, then he doesn't have to worry about what they eat, if they have had their proper shots, etc., and when they get REALLY

sick, somebody else has to pay for it. Read: waste of resources and NO CONSEQUENCES

 

I am not saying that the government doesn't have a place in health care. I am saying that the place they currently hold is the PRIMARY reason health care costs continue to rise, because their policies(of NO CONSEQUENCES) allow the insurance companies to implement the same policies(of NO CONSEQUENCES) so there is no market pressure at all to cut cost - through improved effectiveness. Every time someone says the word "cut" everyone starts screaming. But why? It's not because those who want to cut are heartless, poor-haters that want to kill little kids. It is because without some sort of market pressure to improve the delivery of care( and some economic CONSEQUENCES of the consumers of care) there will be NO END to how high health care costs rise. So here's my question back to you: Do you condone the government's poorly thought out policies, which is the very reason WAL-MART DOESN'T GIVE out medical benefits, and therefore think that they should never be reformed because they were originally "progressive" ideas? How about this which gets back to my original point: IF a "progressive" policy is NOT GETTING RESULTS is there EVER a time to kill it? Or, will a "progressive" ever vote/support to kill anything, no matter how bad it is, as long as it involves handing out free schit to people?

[Chef Jim]

But let me ask you, should the government have never gotten involved in helping people with health care? Is that what you think?

 

Oh absolutely, because they've done such a wonderful job with it.

[Chilly]

Do you really think that LBJ came up with Medicaid on his own? Nope - not smart enough.

 

The man was elected Vice President of the United States, and your argument is that he wasn't smart enough to think up Medicaid?

 

Think about that one for a bit.

[OCinBuffalo]

The man was elected Vice President of the United States, and your argument is that he wasn't smart enough to think up Medicaid?

 

Think about that one for a bit.

I don't have to - anyone who has any sense - knows this guy was a good time charlie that regurgitated real thinkers, like FDR's, ideas. All you need to do is see how well he did with Vietnam - what a great example of LBJ's "genius".

 

Oh yeah I almost forgot - are u saying that Dan Quayle is now elevated to genius status cause he got elected VP too.

[Chilly]

I don't have to - anyone who has any sense - knows this guy was a good time charlie that regurgitated real thinkers, like FDR's, ideas. All you need to do is see how well he did with Vietnam - what a great example of LBJ's "genius".

 

Oh yeah I almost forgot - are u saying that Dan Quayle is now elevated to genius status cause he got elected VP too.

 

"Genius"? Where, exactly, did I say that? You are putting words in my mouth.

 

Anyone who gets that high in politics is smart enough to think up something such as Medicaid. The argument that LBJ is too stupid to think up Medicaid by himself lacks complete substance.

 

LBJ's Great Society was based in part on both FDR and Kennedy's programs. Bill Moyers and Richard M. Goodwin, two of LBJ's assistants, and their committees had a great effect on LBJ's programs.

 

However, Medicaid/Medicare in and of itself was not something FDR did nor LBJ did do it by himself.

 

The Social Security Act of 1965 actually had more of its origins with Truman's administration. Truman was the president who approached Congress about starting a national health care program. There were debates about various proposals through the following years in Congress, the Social Security Administration, and the Medical Industry. In 1965 a bill was passed and then signed by LBJ's administration.

[OCinBuffalo]

"Genius"? Where, exactly, did I say that? You are putting words in my mouth.

 

Anyone who gets that high in politics is smart enough to think up something such as Medicaid. The argument that LBJ is too stupid to think up Medicaid by himself lacks complete substance.

 

LBJ's Great Society was based in part on both FDR and Kennedy's programs. Bill Moyers and Richard M. Goodwin, two of LBJ's assistants, and their committees had a great effect on LBJ's programs.

 

However, Medicaid/Medicare in and of itself was not something FDR did nor LBJ did do it by himself.

 

The Social Security Act of 1965 actually had more of its origins with Truman's administration. Truman was the president who approached Congress about starting a national health care program. There were debates about various proposals through the following years in Congress, the Social Security Administration, and the Medical Industry. In 1965 a bill was passed and then signed by LBJ's administration.

Fine. Nothing like making an irrelevant point. None of this is relevant to my point which was, is, and will continue to be: FDR introduced/made the concept of sweeping massive government programs in this country(there we plenty of intellectual type to suggest it before him - but frankly that is merely talk - FDR actually did something). FDR is the architect of the CONCEPT of all of these "progressive" programs. Everybody else, from Truman to "No Child Left Behind" is simply a variation on one theme - FDR'S.

 

The issue is, was, and I guess will continue to be: How is something "progressive" if it fails miserably, or is no longer relevant?

[Chilly]

Fine. Nothing like making an irrelevant point.

 

I don't have the energy to correct everything thats wrong in your posts. That one I thought was especially off, though, which is why I jumped on it.

[OCinBuffalo]

I don't have the energy to correct everything thats wrong in your posts. That one I thought was especially off, though, which is why I jumped on it.

Nothing like deflecting the issue at hand - great job. Not being able to answer a simple question IN MY LAST must be exhausting.