Contract From America

" Social conservatives in many countries generally: favor the pro-life position in the abortion controversy and oppose public funding of embryonic stem cell research; oppose both Eugenics (inheritable genetic modification) and human enhancement (Transhumanism) while supporting Bioconservatism [1]; support a traditional definition of marriage as being one man and one woman; view the nuclear family model as society's foundational unit; oppose expansion of civil marriage and child adoption rights to couples in same-sex relationships; promote public morality and traditional family values; oppose secularism and privatization of religious belief; support the prohibition of drugs, prostitution, premarital sex, non-marital sex and euthanasia; and support the censorship of pornography and what they consider to be obscenity or indecency."

I took a guess and decided that you do not fit the above Wikipedia description.;-) Since I was answering Geo, I really don't know when I "labeled" you one way or the other. If I misjudged you though I apologize.

Gee - looks like I don't qualify either. In fact, there is only one item in this definition that I might get on board with. Who defines this crap anyway?

Gee - looks like I don't qualify either. In fact, there is only one item in this definition that I might get on board with. Who defines this crap anyway?

My point is that we have spent so much time arguing about these items that we let a bunch of politicians from both parties drive us to the brink of bankruptcy. Most of these things should not be federal issues anyways, the states should decide for themselves.
What I see from the majority of the tea party rank and file is a desire to concentrate on bringing our fiscal house in order. It seems to be the Democrats who want to argue about social items to deflect attention from the abject failure of their fiscal policies. Same goes for many establishment Republicans.

Can we just censor a few obscene politicians, then?

They want to ban non-marital sex? Isn't that adultery - which I think is technically already illegal in most states?

Gee - looks like I don't qualify either. In fact, there is only one item in this definition that I might get on board with. Who defines this crap anyway?

Is it Euthanasia? As I get older I get stronger and stronger on opposing that one and have fond memories of some of the others.

My point is that we have spent so much time arguing about these items that we let a bunch of politicians from both parties drive us to the brink of bankruptcy. Most of these things should not be federal issues anyways, the states should decide for themselves.
What I see from the majority of the tea party rank and file is a desire to concentrate on bringing our fiscal house in order. It seems to be the Democrats who want to argue about social items to deflect attention from the abject failure of their fiscal policies. Same goes for many establishment Republicans.

Dare I say that many of these should be personal decisions and no government would have to intervene!

They want to ban non-marital sex? Isn't that adultery - which I think is technically already illegal in most states?

No kidding! It's comical because I think pre-marital sex would qualify as non-marital sex.....but, I could be reading too much into the conservatism here. Sex outside of marriage, from the conservative perspective, is adultery, no?

Is it Euthanasia? As I get older I get stronger and stronger on opposing that one and have fond memories of some of the others.

Is that the same as Fantasia? Can you get a conservative to define this, please?

Is that the same as Fantasia? Can you get a conservative to define this, please?

If I get euthanized, I think watching Fantasia would be a good would way to go out.

Is that the same as Fantasia? Can you get a conservative to define this, please?

You may be onto something. As I get older, my reccollection is the girls get prettier, the beer colder and ....well, you get the picture.

[quoteProtect the Constitution
Reject Cap & Trade
Demand a Balanced Budget
Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government
End Runaway Government Spending
Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care
Pass an ?All-of-the-Above? Energy Policy
Stop the Pork
Stop the Tax Hikes[/quote]

I keep getting stuck on the "defund, repeal and replace government-run health care" part. Sounds like abolishing Medicare and Medicaid to me. Not being snarky. If that is not what they mean, they should consider a rewrite.
]

And the VA .... Definitely government run health care. They also pay more than Medicare does for at least a few things I am aware of.

[quoteProtect the Constitution
Reject Cap & Trade
Demand a Balanced Budget
Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government
End Runaway Government Spending
Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care
Pass an ?All-of-the-Above? Energy Policy
Stop the Pork
Stop the Tax Hikes

I keep getting stuck on the "defund, repeal and replace government-run health care" part. Sounds like abolishing Medicare and Medicaid to me. Not being snarky. If that is not what they mean, they should consider a rewrite.
][/QUOTE]


That is not snarky, it is a legitimate question. If you look at the explanation that Kurt posted above you will see under #7 that the point is to repeal teh "recently passed government-run health care" so neither medicare or medicaid are included.

Considering how $$ those programs are, I think reforming them should be part of their platform.

Oh I see. Couldn't read it on the iPad, thx.

The problem is that health care can never be a free market because you don't know ahead of time what treatment you may need, and unfortunately every insurance is going to cover different things. Because patients do not and often cannot shop for the actual treatment, only insurance, we won't ever see a true free market.

Nobody really wants to control costs. I read an article this week about a small issue (significant to those affected). It was about the cancer drug avastin and studies showing it is not as effective with stage four breast cancer compared to other advanced cancers. The FDA is considering removing it from the list of approved breast cancer drugs. Why? Because it is not that effective for most with the disease (but it appears to help some). Avastin is very very expensive. These are the really tough decisions to make. Critics are already screaming "death panels." Hard to blame the sick or feeling that way, but these are some of the things that have made costs uncontrollable.

Exactly scooty, but few people seem to want to hear it.

Considering how $$ those programs are, I think reforming them should be part of their platform.

I agree totally. The Medicare and VA are special cases in that those who depend on them have no way to go out and replace the benefits. And they were promised those benefits when they were younger/healthier and we must be sensitive to those promises.
I think a good start would be to look at a merger of the programs with veterans being able to get care at the vendor of their choosing and sell the VA infrastructure to the private sector. The adminstrative overhead should be much less running one program. Just a thought. I am sure there are many other good ideas floating around.

I don't want to start dictating people's medical care based on treatment costs, but with the prices of some medications and treatments so insane and reasonable alternatives readily available I think we DO have to draw the line somewhere.

Oh I see. Couldn't read it on the iPad, thx.

The problem is that health care can never be a free market because you don't know ahead of time what treatment you may need, and unfortunately every insurance is going to cover different things. Because patients do not and often cannot shop for the actual treatment, only insurance, we won't ever see a true free market.

Nobody really wants to control costs. I read an article this week about a small issue (significant to those affected). It was about the cancer drug avastin and studies showing it is not as effective with stage four breast cancer compared to other advanced cancers. The FDA is considering removing it from the list of approved breast cancer drugs. Why? Because it is not that effective for most with the disease (but it appears to help some). Avastin is very very expensive. These are the really tough decisions to make. Critics are already screaming "death panels." Hard to blame the sick or feeling that way, but these are some of the things that have made costs uncontrollable.

This example is why conservatives hate government run healthcare. These decisions are best made by the doctor and the patient. They best know what treatment will work and what price the patient can afford. No bureaucrat can do better.

I love the idea of reform.....for those Federal programs delivering medical care as well as reform in the private sector.

Reform is the healthy way to go!

I don't want to start dictating people's medical care based on treatment costs, but with the prices of some medications and treatments so insane and reasonable alternatives readily available I think we DO have to draw the line somewhere.

You are correct but I would rather the patient draw their own line instead of the government doing it. I personally know of people who have refused certain treatments due to the small odds of success and the exorbanant cost involved. That is a difficult decision but as you say someone must draw the line.

The patient rarely draws the line if they aren't footing the bill IMO.

And a lot of doctors don't realize how expensive most drugs are because they don't buy them and the pharmaceutical reps don't ever seem to mention it.

Yes, but by necessity, cancer treatment has certain protocols for certain types and stages, developed by studying many many patients. The FDA has to decide based on such research what uses to approve for all the various cancer drugs. Not that the FDA doesn't need imrovement or even reform - but we do need to have an FDA.

The FDA isn't government run health care. If they remove breast cancer from the list of uses approved for avastin, a doctor can still prescribe it. It would be for an off label use though and private insurance companies would be highly unlikely to volunteer to cover it. Emphasis on "private." So the FDA decision has ripple effects. No one is talking about FDA reform.

That was a response to idlewind ... Darn no quote feature on the iPad!

The patient rarely draws the line if they aren't footing the bill IMO.

And a lot of doctors don't realize how expensive most drugs are because they don't buy them and the pharmaceutical reps don't ever seem to mention it.

And that is the problem with "free" anything. If I am responsible for the bill I look at the options much closer. And I have found that a couple of questions to the doctor will usually lead to them prescribing a lower cost alternative.