Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine

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.

 

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.

 

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."

 

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:

 

The OP is a clip from 61. I thought we were being nostalgic...

 

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.

 

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

 

OK. Let the states provide medical care for those who can't afford it. Do you support that or would you let them die?

 

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.

 

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.

 

To many scholars and judiciary have disprove this theory long ago. Joseph Story for one. This was not intended for a blank check.

 

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

 

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?

 

So who is against people getting health care?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.