The left won, in spite of themselves. Based on the economy, the war, the media, BO should have won in a huge landslide. Instead, he won in a moderate victory. If I were a leftie, I’d be cautiously optimistic about my political future. They have two years to prove their metal. BO’s soaring rhetoric has created tremendous expectations, which we all know can’t be satisfied. I see disenchantment, disappointment, frustration and anger in your future. Just as the Congress “lead” by Pelosi and Reid could do nothing approaching the roaring rhetoric they spread around in ’06, BO’s administration is bound for “failure”, as least in terms of expectations.

His job over the next several months will be to lower expectations, back pedal on a lot of the promises he made and try to get the electorate to see his BS as an eight year plan.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of the crew sold us (conservatives and the country) down the river. I share much of the frustrations liberals had with Bush. His administration morphed into something that no one wanted to claim.

A Conservative Party does not look anything like what we’ve seen the last eight years. Shrub and his crew, along with the far right wing, including certain religious groups, took control of the Republican Party and virtually destroyed it. Whether it can be revitalized with an infusion of genuine conservative leaders and members remains to be seen.

A true conservative philosophy would embrace:

Balanced budgets – spending what you have, not what the next several generations hope to have.

Low taxes – low rates but a broad base with few special interest loopholes.

Foreign Policy – non-intervention as a general rule. Strive for international consensus on issues. Stay out of other people’s business but don’t back down on issues of importance.

Domestic policies – self-help instead of handouts and transfer payments. Generally withdraw federal intervention from areas where they have crept over the decades since FDR. This would free up money to be used elsewhere or refunded.

SS & Medicare/Medicaid – Attack on several fronts: increase payroll taxes, cut benefits, eligibility requirements, and phase-out these programs in favor of state and local programs funded with tax cuts.

Health care – Damned if I know. Government control isn’t the answer. Provision of preventive care should be available. I’ll need some help with this one – based on conservative values.

A conservative philosophy would encourage self-reliance, less government involvement and intervention in every-day life and a refocus on the few things a central government should do.

Liberals have the reigns now and I hope they make decisions that will benefit the country and not just try and punish the opposition. Good luck. We’ll be watching.

"SS & Medicare/Medicaid – Attack on several fronts: increase payroll taxes, cut benefits, eligibility requirements, and phase-out these programs in favor of state and local programs funded with tax cuts."

If your party tries to 'phase out' Social Security, then it'll have no hope getting the White House as long as the baby boomers can still vote.

Try suggesting privatizing SS again, giving over that money to Wall St. like Bush wanted to...in light of Wall Street's recent meltdown that's become merely wishful thinking.

DirtyBird,

I'm a liberal/Centrist-leaning Democrat, and I like what you have to say. Although I identify with the Democrats, I'm also well aware of the good merits of your suggestions and believe that we should work towards implementing these.

I agree with most everything you state, save for Health Care. I think that the government should take a primary role and institute some sort of universal health coverage. Failing that, I think the government should step in and sort out the vested interests both HMOs and health care providers have in jacking up profit margins as high as they can get away with. I understand that both sides here are equally guilty, and failing universal health care, perhaps the government can at least sort out who does what, and then once the public understands the exact details of the pricing structure and rules of health care, (basically, get some transparency into how exactly prices are gauged and charged for our medical procedures), then maybe a common sense solution involving both the private and public sectors can be implemented.

This is just my opinion of course.

apropos1:

It's not my party, I thought I made that clear. Perhaps I should have used smaller words?

Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are all destined to drain the life-blood out of this country's economy. If you can do your cifers, you can look in the crystal ball and see where this is headed. These "entitlements" are socialist programs and their genesis - SS, was a temporary program for a temporary problem. Like most temporary government programs, it's more permanent than the Washington Monument.

I'm collecting SS and on Medicare. I'd be happy to give them both up if they give me my contributions with the average ROR the market has earned since I started. I had a perfectly fine health care plan for retired employees (my wife's employer) but I was forced to go on Medicare. It's doing fine as well, but I'm paying more now than I was before. Why should I and people like me, be forced into a government plan? Contrary to what liberals think, the government doesn't know best.

One of the worst "unintended consequences" of our current tax policy is shifting the tax burden onto fewer and fewer people. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that poor people should pay the same percentage as rich people. but that everyone should pay SOMETHING. The only evidence I ever needed to support that opinion was in my kids' eyes when they looked at their first paychecks and discovered the deductions for taxes. Suddenly Dad's bitching about taxes became real to them. When you're paying the freight, you want some value for your money.

Balanced budgets--yes, but it means removing large sections of the population from the feeding trough.

As for health care, I don't think there is a easy solution. Other countries ration care in ways that is acceptable to their societies--by age, income level, or just by using the "slow no" technique. In our egalitarian society, we would have a difficulty time saying that the 80 year old just gets minimal care, no cardiac surgery, thank you--or that Bill Gates can go to the Mayo Clinic but Joe the Plumber gets to go to the local government run hospital which is 2 steps worse than your local VA hospital. And people who are used to getting their burgers, fast and their way, won't be willing to wait 2 years for an MRI or a hip replacement. The government already cannot afford Medicare--it will go broke much faster than SS.

Conservatives would be a lot more compelling on healthcare if they did not keep up bringing strawman and bogeyman arguments against universal healthcare.

Dirtybird, most countries with universal healthcare also have private insurance systems and doctors who operate outside the system. The UK has lots of private doctors, clinics, and hospitals that are not part of NHS. Anybody who could afford their services are free to use them. They still have to pay for NHS but do not have to use it.

More on and more it is becoming apparent that the conservative/libertarian small government ideology is based on greed and sociopathy rather than any sort of sincere belief in small government and markets. Time and time again, universal healthcare as been shown to be better than the American system in terms of the amount of care provided and the economics of the system. When left with no other argument, the conservative and libertarians scream "Why should I have to pay" for another person's healthcare. Its the same as people who oppose public education because they do not have kids or their kids do not go to public school. It is short-sighted and greedy.

Lee,

You assume greed is the motivator here. I think of it in terms of equity, sound judgement and hard work. Individuals and families all make choices based on their priorities.

My family (extended now) lives a fiscally conservative life. They all own (with the bank) their own homes, save and pay cash for their (one to two years old) vehicles, don't carry credit card debt over from one month to another, don't buy designer clothes, take vactions that are not extravagent and all fund their pension opportunities to the max and have a regular savings plan. They all have employer or private health insurance.

Now please explain to me why they should have money taken from then to pay for health insurance for others who would rather spend their money on bling, etc., Can you tell me why their tax money should be taken and given to a$$holes who are too damn stupid to know how buy a house they can afford, a car they can afford, etc?

I don't thing greed is any part of this. I think it's living your life in a conservative manner and taking responsibility for yourself and your family and suffering the consequences of your own greed, stupidity and irresponsibility.

Maybe you can point out how I'm being greedy here?

Don't believe the rationing argument. Read this for a description of the French system:

<link>

In France, the sicker you are, the more coverage you get. For people with one of 30 long-term and expensive illnesses — such as diabetes, mental illness and cancer — the government picks up 100 percent of their health care costs, including surgeries, therapies and drugs.

France has made an unusual guarantee that every cancer patient can get any drug, including the most expensive and even experimental ones that are still being tested, says Dr. Fabian Calvo, deputy director of France's National Cancer Institute. This kind of access is why the French — unlike Americans — say they are highly satisfied with their health care system, he says.

The fact is that France has more doctors, and that they don't have to pay an arm an a leg for their studies. That means they have no justification to charge the extortionate fees that US doctors charge. The system is also much simpler to administer, leading to less overhead.

Here's an in-depth asssessment why the US healthcare system is so expensive, without being better:

<link>

Europeans use healthcare more often, not less. Europeans end up staying in a hospital more frequently and they stay longer than Americans would, even for comparable treatments (heart attacks, childbirth,...). They seem to take the same amount of prescription meds (according to studies quoted in the report - it's a hard thing to determine), they just don't use them as frequently in the first few years after they are released.

There are a few clear issues:

1. US medical personnel is highly paid. That reflects the fact that there are relatively few doctors in the US, and that they start their careers with high debts.

2. Administrative costs are twice as high in the US than in France, and four times that of the average in the OECD. This reflects the wasteful nature of the US healthcare insurance system.

3. Unhealthier environment and high risk lifestyle (drugs, obesity) are more prevalent in the US, leading to more cancer, AIDS and diabetes. On the other hand, the US population is younger than that of other OECD countries, which should lower costs.

But there is ZERO evidence that rationing is the reason why other OECD countries pay so much less for healthcare. If anything, they seem to use more of it, which makes sense since they cover a much higher percentage of the population.

DirtyBird, you're not greedy, you're selfish and shortsighted.

Endorendil: At this point, trying to argue with the opponents of universal healthcare is pointless. We point out the same things again and again, with support and they always bring out the same arguments.

1. Universal healthcare will always be inefficient compared to a private system like the US despite all evidence to the contrary.

2. It is wrong because individuals and families know best on how to spend. This ignores the point that if we had universal healthcare, individuals and families would actually have more options since every clinic, doctor, hospital, and pharmacy would be open to them with no more concerns about costs.

3. Last but not least, its unconstitutional.

They are not going to change. Not in my life and not in your life. To implement universal healthcare, we simply must move around them.

Cuba has Universal health care- but when el Maximo Jefe got sick - wouldn't you know, he had to import a doctor from Spain! Somehow he couldn't manage to locate a doctor in Cuba.

Spain has universal healthcare too, schmuck.

• endorendil

Your response had the viture of being short -but didn't respond to my points at all. Look at it again and tell us why we should be required to give up some of our income to support the stupid decisions others make?

Lee,

You folks are really good at lumping in one bag people who disagree with you. Tell me, how will UHC be funded? Will each of us pay accourding to our ability and receive according to our needs? Sounds familiar.

Will we pay according to how many kids we have? Our age?

How are you going to spread out the availability of services since we don't have enough doctors now to serve those who "in" the system?

You will pay doctors less and get more to go to med school for eight to 12 years?

Suppose you pay for their education? Who decides what that education should cost? The governement or the universities? Who will pay for that?

If I choose better and faster care than what's available under the Socialist plan, do I get to pay for that plan anyway, even though I'm not useing it?

You know there are lots of other countries where these kinds of plans are in actual practice. Why don't you guys go try them out? Then you can report back to us first hand on well it's working for you.

From my little bit of research I've found that they work pretty good for the simple stuff, but if you have cancer or major heart issues, brain problems, they seem to come here. Even from our friends in Canada. Our friends in the UK say that the basic system is a nightmare for getting things like hips or knees replaced and other such "elective" procedures like heart surgery where the condition isn't considered "life threatening" by some government clerk.

DirtyBird,

Interesting ideas, and very simple and succinct.

I would offer this on health care: local, community-based solutions. From the federal government, small amounts of money to help with administrative costs, but locally, health care rates negotiated with local doctors based on the cost of living in the area. From the federal government, large scale negotiations with pharmaceutical companies to get competitive rates, but at the local level, community involvement in determining the drug cost tiers and what is ultimately covered (e.g. do we want to cover Viagra and under what conditions?). Local governance of this issue would largely determine the quality of healthcare available in the area. Good doctors would move to areas where the local community has set good conditions for their practice, made it possible for them to practice without meeting arbitrary ratings and quotas set by insurers and make a decent living at the same time.

Growing up, my parents used an insurance offered by their church that met the criteria of their faith and personal beliefs, i.e., personal responsibility for the most part, and a willingness to help those who are truly in need. I think an option where communities get to determine where their values lie and how that drives medical care could work out well, provided it met the needs of the entire community and did not discriminate.