Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Ps104_33, Jan 31, 2009.

  1. Ps104_33

    Ps104_33
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,005
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. swaimj

    swaimj
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/swaimj.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    0
    I heard an excerpt from this speech on a conservative talk radio show last night (not sure which show). It was a tremendous presentation. Conservatives lack a clear spokesman who can speak effectively to these issues as Reagan could.
     
  3. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can believe it, if I remember right Reagan was the president who focused on kicking the old, sick and lame off Medicaid/Medicare. I don't think he cared if that poor unfortunate child who was just born to a low income family received proper medical attention so they can have a fair chance at a healthy life.
     
  4. dragonfly

    dragonfly
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,594
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, if Reagan was against nationalized health care it, it is probably a good idea to implement it as soon as possible. I certainly don't consider him to be a "compassionate conservative."
     
  5. just-want-peace

    just-want-peace
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    5,503
    Likes Received:
    40
    LB, please get your current "Talking Points" issue; the one you're using is at 20+ years old. (Just proves that one shouldn't hoard these things so much - one can get confused as to what's current.):smilewinkgrin:
     
  6. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    The OP is a clip from 61. I thought we were being nostalgic...
     
  7. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,109
    Likes Received:
    219
    THE FEDERAL GOVT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE MEDICAID/MEDICARE!!! (see 10th amendment) It is unconstitutional!!!
    If the individual States or Commonwealth wish to do so - thats another story.
     
  8. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    We are a democracy, the constitution can be amended to represent our changing values. Nothing can be unconstitutional if the majority agree except that fact that something is unconstitutional.

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
     
  9. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,303
    Likes Received:
    784

    So when was the 10th amendment amended or dissolved? And no we are not a democracy.
     
  10. JustChristian

    JustChristian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK. Let the states provide medical care for those who can't afford it. Do you support that or would you let them die?
     
  11. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,303
    Likes Received:
    784
    Yes! Let us not work to find a more efficient way to handle this problem Only the government can save us from our selves. But at least that would be constitutional.
     
  12. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    Same day we limited the powers of Congress...

    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being

    Now let's not leave out article 5 which says if the constitution doesn't cover the legislation congress is passing they can just change the constitution so it does. The point is we are not bound or limited to the original document, provision were made to make the constitution a document that changes with the needs of the citizens it covers.

     
  13. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,303
    Likes Received:
    784
    To many scholars and judiciary have disprove this theory long ago. Joseph Story for one. This was not intended for a blank check.
     
  14. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,109
    Likes Received:
    219
    You are partially right, The constitution can be amended - but a simply majority is not sufficent. It takes both house of Congress and 3/4 of the States or Commonwealths. Note: 3/4 is much more than a majority.
    But for the time being medicaid is unconstituional - for the FEDERAL GOVT, though a State or Commonwealth has the legal authority to provide such care. A big problem I have is the requiremtns the Feds put on the States or Commonwealths.

    The other problem I have is the over use/abuse. Just the other day, I picked up a medicad patient at the dentist. The Cab ride cost some 30 dollars. But there was a community health center within walking distance of her home. So $30 x 2 = $60 for a round trip. And that is not the most expensisve tirp I have done
     
  15. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,303
    Likes Received:
    784

    So when was the amendment which requires a majority and ratification by the states?
     
  16. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    And there are some who agree with the theory. No it's not a blank check but it does say we can do what's necessary.

    How can you be pro-life yet against health care for the masses? Isn't that picking and choosing which life to be pro for?
     
  17. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,303
    Likes Received:
    784

    So who is against people getting health care?
     
  18. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    If they are not able to afford health care themselves and their children, who will provide it if Gov doesn't? If you have another solution I'd love to hear it.
     
  19. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,303
    Likes Received:
    784

    Well we cannot ignore the constitution. So that cancels it out legally. But aside from that it is the most inefficient way to do it. How about looking for means to help them be self sufficient. Why do people want the government telling them what kind of medical care they will receive? Even the poor?

    If libs would personally give more it may not be a problem. You all blame the church for a lack of giving but stats show it is the lack of libs giving.

    Add to that government could never meet all the needs out there. Ever.
     
  20. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    You don't remember right. Your above statement is a lie.

    Civics 101. We are not a democracy. The Founding Fathers recoiled at that idea. We are a constitutional republic.
     

Share This Page

Loading...