Touchy subject, historically speaking. I don’t have any answers, “[f]or I am a bear of very little brain. . . .” However, I do sometimes enjoy pasting stuff on Internet bulletin boards, viz.:
. . . no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But. . . .
Ronald Reagan’s words, quoted above, are at about 15:17 in the clip below (I hope), along with some of their context:
No idea, but he’d be amazing.
It’s not The Donald. He’s the executive, he just follows the law. It’s all the legislative branch, they’re the ones who make or repeal laws. You’re trying to make him a dictator by suggesting he’s the one responsible for disentangling it all. He stepped in to help create a solution and help Ryan do his job, but really, the people voted for representatives to get rid of Obamacare, not to replace it. That’s the dynamic were dealing with. Government is finally having to listen to the people. Things have gotten so bad with Obamacare, leaves a bad taste in your mouth, people aren’t interested in saving it, reforming it.
[quote=“Charlie_Jack, post:21, topic:159046, full:true”]
Touchy subject, historically speaking. I don’t have any answers, “[f]or I am a bear of very little brain. . . .” However, I do sometimes enjoy pasting stuff on Internet bulletin boards, viz.:
. . . no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But. . . .
Ronald Reagan’s words, quoted above, are at about 15:17 in the clip below (I hope), along with some of their context:[/quote]
Well why not provide the critical context that would obviously clear up the obfuscation you created by quoting this out of context. Did you even listen to all the speech? Or did you get this from some leftist website trying to twist the Gippers words? I can’t imagine average people, whether smart or dumb, who could be so off the mark at misquoting someone unless they were really trying. Here is the proper context:
A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary – his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he’s 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can’t put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they’re due – that the cupboard isn’t bare?
Barry Goldwater thinks we can.
At the same time, can’t we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years? Should we not allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn’t you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under this program, which we cannot do? I think we’re for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we’re against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as was announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program is now bankrupt. They’ve come to the end of the road.
The buck’s got to stop somewhere. Either he planned this badly, or he threw this on purpose as part of some larger scheme.
Parsing his comments, I’m guessing he’s using this to get rid of his enemies come midterms. Let the country hit bottom now so some real change can happen down the road a few years.
But oh, the collateral damage.
He knew repeal was not on the table, Republicans dont have the 3/5 majority required in the senate for that.
Unless you wish to argue he is a moron, what do do you think his game was?
It is absolutely absurd to have so many morons representing the US citizens in Congress. Useless!
The game was get elected!
After that…play golf.
He doesn’t have the intelligence, staying power or smarts to handle the hard stuff.
You can’t just ‘big up’ yourself through the congress or through tough long standing problems.
The guy has never even read a book for fuck sake.and doesn’t use a computer. He doesn’t even do his own deals.
What France built after its previous system went bankrupt in the 1960s is pretty impressive. But make no mistake about it, the locals here don`t consider it socialized. It is actually more privatized than Canadian models and other state run systems.
I can’t find the right emoji for this.
Charlie_Jack:
Touchy subject, historically speaking. I don’t have any answers, “[f]or I am a bear of very little brain. . . .” However, I do sometimes enjoy pasting stuff on Internet bulletin boards, viz.:
. . . no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But. . . .
Ronald Reagan’s words, quoted above, are at about 15:17 in the clip below (I hope), along with some of their context:
jotham:
Well why not provide the critical context that would obviously clear up the obfuscation you created by quoting this out of context.
I thought that saying you could get the context by going to 15 minutes and 17 seconds in the video was providing you with the context.
jotham:
Did you even listen to all the speech?
No, I didn’t listen to all of it. I spent a pretty good while looking for that quote and for the other materials. The rest of it wasn’t part of my point, which I was hoping could be understood by the phrase “historically speaking.”
jotham:
Or did you get this from some leftist website trying to twist the Gippers words?
I read that quote years ago, so long ago that I don’t remember where I read it, and I don’t recall it being in any context but its own. This is the gist of what I recall reading:
. . . no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. . . .
I don’t even recall reading “but” in what I read. I remember being amazed at it, and putting in the same compartment of my mind that contains Governor Franklin Roosevelt’s warning about people becoming dependent on relief payments–in other words, in the political “man bites dog” category, so to speak.
jotham:
I can’t imagine average people, whether smart or dumb, who could be so off the mark at misquoting someone unless they were really trying. Here is the proper context. . . .
Mighty noble and diligent of you, to go to my suggested 15 minutes and 17 seconds and expose my e-ville deception.
In a sense, I was sort of defending Trump, which I now deeply regret. Everybody was saying what a miserable failure it was for Trump, so I showed three different time frames covering the health care debate over the course of more than half a century: Reagan saying people shouldn’t be without health care coverage (the added “but” was symbolic of the idea that there’s always a drawback), Rostenkowski being chased down the street by elderly folks who didn’t want to pay extra for catastrophic coverage, and Bill Clinton failing to get his health care plan approved by the Congress.
But I didn’t defend Trump in the proper way? I doubt it matters to you, but in my book, you scored an own goal on that one.
There are some things I don’t admire about Reagan, but that quote is not one of them. I admire what he said.
But I didn’t admire him correctly? That’s your second own goal.
Dang, I remember years ago vowing to stay out of the Irrational Parlor Tricks Forum. I don’t know how I wound up in here this time, but it’s time to renew that vow.
I know what you mean.
There’s a Clintonism for it: don’t inhale the parlor tricks. 
Well, he seemed to have a good plan, with phase 2 and 3 to bring in much talked-about conservative reforms in the past to reality, and he hammeredd it out and changed the minds of many doubtful congressman (see video below).
But you can only twist arms to far. Congressmen in the house have elections every 2 years, they are piquantly aware of their constituents wrath, they don’t want to suffer the same shellacking that the Democrats got. The buck stops at the people, they’re the ones in charge here.
The President, as good a deal-maker he is, as good a plan as he’s got, can’t go over Congress in this and can’t go over the people. He tried to make something work, and maybe couple years down the road it will come up again. Or maybe Congress will keep trying, Rand Paul who led against this bill, wants two separate bills – a repeal bill first to get rid of it, and then a replacement bill. But not in the same bill, because you never know what the end result will be when you vote it at first. I can understand their doubts.
It is a shame, because there are lot of good Republican ideas for healthcare that have always been talked about and never implemented. But because Obamacare was such a mess, they may never now.
Well, during phase 1, you don’t need to have a 60 votes in the Senate because it can be done through reconciliation. That’s why there were splitting it up into 3 phases in the first place. So this issue didn’t really come into play in this first vote.
But you are right, it’s because the Democrats won’t vote for it no matter how good an idea it might be, that they can’t get the 60 votes for a straight, clean, honest bill, which is causing it to go through such a contorted process and ultimately fail.
Charlie Jack. Here is why the quote isn’t what you think it is. Reagan said, “We’re for telling seniors that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds.”
He doesn’t mean an individual’s lack of funds. He’s talking about the government running out because the existing, faltering program becomes too bloated, and is only limited in the context of Medicare, Medicaid programs, for seniors. That is far from saying he is for universal health coverage like Obama did, or even what Trump and Congress is doing now. Totally different ballpark.
He is saying that in the context of touting conservative reforms that incorporate the free market, but in the limited sphere of Medicare, which already existed, to reform it. Trump and Republicans, on the other hand, were recently trying to implement some of those ideas, except this is universal coverage to replace Obamacare.
Your quote is misleading because it suggests that Reagan is for universal healthcare. He may or may not be if he were alive today. But that quote doesn’t convey that. About the only thing you can accomplish with that quote is say he wasn’t necessarily for canceling Medicare, Medicaid. But few are. There’s really nothing astounding about that quote, unless you misunderstand it. Yes, you are right, if I misconstrued the quote as you did, it is quite astounding.
But I’m sure you didn’t misconstrue it yourself, like I said, it’s hard to do that on your own. You were helped by Democrat sources you were reading who put it out of context for you to make it sound like even Reagan would have wanted Clintoncare or Obamacare; you were led by the nose. And we all can be if not careful and use our brain.
From Hitler to moron. Scott Adams has a comment on that. Next step: from moron to Machiavelli.
Using the Dems as a club to beat the Liberty Caucus with:
It seems to be a pattern with him. Playing groups against each other to get his way or to punish those who don’t give him what he wants.
But it can be interpreted as him being humble and cooperative - with and by people who interpret that as being weak. I think they’ll be in for a shock.
Anyway, the Trump-as-Hitler narrative is on its deathbed, and all those loons who shrieked that are going to pay a price in credibility. It’s being replaced by the Trump-as-chump narrative, which was already badly weakened by his unexpected election victory - but they go to politics with the smears they’ve got to smear with.
Player, played… or both? Any way you look at it, he’s in the game.
Oh please, the Hitler stuff is so February. Have you heard the latest? Don Jr. is the new Teddy R (and will save the environment), says NYT. 
From people who saw it coming (if only a few weeks beforehand)…
Portraying Trump as Hitler was essential to rationalize all sorts of thuggery. Now those people beating up Trump supporters can be thrown in jail where they belong and everyone will be fine with it. Now he can be the one calling people Nazis and thugs, and he can make it stick. He just has to point out the things they actually do.
Opposition to most of his policies was sustainable only by this sort of hyperbole and the hysteria it gave birth to. With that gone, everything he wants to do will be easier.
Even if it doesn’t look easier.