- Home
- Conservative
- Are Conservatives Greedy, Heartless, Hypocrites?
Are Conservatives Greedy, Heartless, Hypocrites?
- By Roger Haley
- News - Articles Published 01/22/2010
- Conservative
- Unrated
Roger Haley
Roger Haley retired from the US Navy with a degree in Aviation Management. He is a columnist and author, with two books to his credit.
Learn more about him at http://www.rogerhaley.com/
Purchase his book, "Money Smart Moves" for many more tips and financial help at: http://www.moneyhelper.net
http://www.rogerhaley.com
Are Conservatives Greedy, Heartless, Hypocrites?
It seems, since Brown's win in Massachusetts, the Dem's health care bill may be dead.
Seeing, finally, the people's determination, moderate Dems are backing carefully away from Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid. Backing? Running may be more appropriate.
In a recent letter-to-the-editor, I read the lamentations of an uber-liberal who insisted conservatives are just greedy, heartless, hypocrites who don't care about the 45,000 Americans who perish each year due to lack of healthcare.
Let's look at that figure. Several studies, dating back to 1993, have been done on this issue. Results varied based on age groups, risk factors, and whether the lack of insurance was voluntary or not. (Factcheck.org)
There is no doubt that lack of insurance factors into longevity, but the 45,000 number is the very highest ever reported, so progressives always use it in their argument. There is also no doubt that a large majority of conservatives want some form of basic and preventive care available for those with none.
As for being hypocrites who, "Just don't care about their fellow Americans." that type of statement comes straight from the progressive playbook- if you can't win the debate on merit, attack and discredit your opponent.
Sorry, Saul Alinsky, but that only works for so long, and if the majority of the people don't know the game. Americans are getting smarter about this verbiage, and are starting to recognize and dismiss it.
Progressives believe that they can misdirect and distract us from the core issue if they can label us uncaring, racist, sexist, greedy, and etc. If they just throw out the labels, they hope to effectively silence opponents who fear being labeled.
I don't think it works much anymore; it has been overused to the point of being irrelevant and irksome.
These hypocrites, he pointed out, just because they "earned" their benefits, should be ashamed for not wanting to just toss them out and 'give' the same benefits to those who have not earned them.
He also bemoaned the fate of the 50 million uninsured. Let us now look at that number, also.
The latest available census bureau statistics put that number at 45.7 million, not 50. That's still a lot, but 21 percent of those are recent or illegal immigrants. (Kaiser Family Foundation)
Another 26 percent are already eligible for some form of public coverage, i.e. CHIPS or Medicare, but don't make use of it. (National Institute for Health Care Management)
20 percent have family incomes of over $75,000, and presumably could afford coverage if their lifestyle permitted. (Census Bureau) Now, that leaves us with a rounded figure of 15 million.
Looked at logically, instead of through the prism of ideology, that number, while a lot of people, is manageable. It just doesn't make sense to virtually scrap our entire healthcare system to provide for less than 5 percent of the population.
There are other ways to take care of those people. More government funded free clinics and medicines would be a start. Throw in some Republican ideas on tort reform and interstate competition, and we might have a winner, at far less cost.
If conservative Americans chose to accept the progressive agenda, they might choose the following articles to be added to our bill of rights.
Article 40: Citizens... have the right to work. (That is, to guaranteed employment and pay in accordance with the quality and the quantity of their work, and not below the state established minimum.)
Article 41: Citizens... have the right to rest and leisure
Article 42: Citizens... have the right to health protection.
Sound good to you liberals? I'm sure we can borrow them; they came directly from the discarded documents of a failed state. I just removed the words "of the USSR" where the dots are.
Seeing, finally, the people's determination, moderate Dems are backing carefully away from Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid. Backing? Running may be more appropriate.
In a recent letter-to-the-editor, I read the lamentations of an uber-liberal who insisted conservatives are just greedy, heartless, hypocrites who don't care about the 45,000 Americans who perish each year due to lack of healthcare.
Let's look at that figure. Several studies, dating back to 1993, have been done on this issue. Results varied based on age groups, risk factors, and whether the lack of insurance was voluntary or not. (Factcheck.org)
There is no doubt that lack of insurance factors into longevity, but the 45,000 number is the very highest ever reported, so progressives always use it in their argument. There is also no doubt that a large majority of conservatives want some form of basic and preventive care available for those with none.
As for being hypocrites who, "Just don't care about their fellow Americans." that type of statement comes straight from the progressive playbook- if you can't win the debate on merit, attack and discredit your opponent.
Sorry, Saul Alinsky, but that only works for so long, and if the majority of the people don't know the game. Americans are getting smarter about this verbiage, and are starting to recognize and dismiss it.
Progressives believe that they can misdirect and distract us from the core issue if they can label us uncaring, racist, sexist, greedy, and etc. If they just throw out the labels, they hope to effectively silence opponents who fear being labeled.
I don't think it works much anymore; it has been overused to the point of being irrelevant and irksome.
These hypocrites, he pointed out, just because they "earned" their benefits, should be ashamed for not wanting to just toss them out and 'give' the same benefits to those who have not earned them.
He also bemoaned the fate of the 50 million uninsured. Let us now look at that number, also.
The latest available census bureau statistics put that number at 45.7 million, not 50. That's still a lot, but 21 percent of those are recent or illegal immigrants. (Kaiser Family Foundation)
Another 26 percent are already eligible for some form of public coverage, i.e. CHIPS or Medicare, but don't make use of it. (National Institute for Health Care Management)
20 percent have family incomes of over $75,000, and presumably could afford coverage if their lifestyle permitted. (Census Bureau) Now, that leaves us with a rounded figure of 15 million.
Looked at logically, instead of through the prism of ideology, that number, while a lot of people, is manageable. It just doesn't make sense to virtually scrap our entire healthcare system to provide for less than 5 percent of the population.
There are other ways to take care of those people. More government funded free clinics and medicines would be a start. Throw in some Republican ideas on tort reform and interstate competition, and we might have a winner, at far less cost.
If conservative Americans chose to accept the progressive agenda, they might choose the following articles to be added to our bill of rights.
Article 40: Citizens... have the right to work. (That is, to guaranteed employment and pay in accordance with the quality and the quantity of their work, and not below the state established minimum.)
Article 41: Citizens... have the right to rest and leisure
Article 42: Citizens... have the right to health protection.
Sound good to you liberals? I'm sure we can borrow them; they came directly from the discarded documents of a failed state. I just removed the words "of the USSR" where the dots are.
