Rangel Wants the Draft

[Lawman]

[i]Empirical data proved Kerry wrong when he committed his faux-paux; now
Charlie Rangel wants to bring it up again under nearly identical pretense[/i].

From "My Girl"

I debated what to title this post. At first, I thought, "Draft Moonbats: Not a Bad Idea." Let me elaborate. My first reaction to Rangel's proposal is probably like yours--I didn't like it, and I still don't. But it's the reasoning I detest, not necessarily the ultimate idea. Rangel's argument is set as a cynical move not meant to promote public service and encourage appreciation for our military, a simple and predictable political ploy. His argument?

[i]Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 under a bill the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee says he will introduce next year.

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars. "There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," Rangel said.[/i]

[b]First of all, Rangel is using the Kerry theory about our military--it's a bunch of poor, stupid people who have no other choice in life[/b]. He, like Kerry, simply cannot grasp the fact that you have raised children who love this country, that we have young people who join up because they care about this nation and want to serve. That notion is so foreign to the Left Elite they don't even consider it. The first lesson to draw from this is Kerry's attitude about our troops does indeed reflect the Dem Elite attitude in general.

And I'm sure lefties in general didn't anticipate this sort of move. If there is a dearth of anyone in the military, I think it's safe to say it's lefty moonbats who tend to not join up to serve this nation. How do I know this? Remember, this is the same mentality [url="http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Nov15/0,4670,JuniorROTC,00.html"]that just banned JROTC from high schools [/url] in San Francisco. The same mentality that banned military recruitment from colleges. Obviously the idea here is to keep young people from serving at all, because service in general promotes patriotism, and reminds people that this nation has to be fought for. Imagine lefties working so hard to keep the military away from college students, and now their own moonbat leadership wants to force them to go into uniform. Could be one of those sweet laws of unintended consequences.

Generally, I like the idea of requiring service to one's country. Rangel's proposal affect those ages 18-26, and would require 15 months of compulsory service. The majority of those drafted would serve in the military, while a few others would serve in some other service capacity. [b]If we dismiss the cynical and insulting reason behind Rangel's proposal, I think it might actually not be a bad idea.[/b]

Michelle Malkin makes an excellent point that we already have numerous service-based organizations, but none of these require service. I see benefits Rangel isn't considering--we do have a generation of young people brainwashed by a public school system in the grip of leftists. Patriotism and an appreciation of this nation is on the decline specifically because leftists have worked overtime within media and education to make it so. How better to reverse the years of leftist conditioning by our school system (it starts in elementary school, folks, not college), by sending them to a few drill sergeants? Michelle also makes clear the hypocrisy of the Dems on this issue, as they tried to frighten people saying the Repubs wanted to bring back the draft.

Ultimately, we do need to fight the Dem agenda for the next 700 days, but let's not forget--these people are void of ideas, and when they do get one, it's usually steeped in hate and anger and meant to divide. They will miss how an idea like this, if embraced and crafted by conservatives, could actually do more for the American First agenda (our agenda), while reversing years of leftist conditioning of our young people.

[Hooky]

Funny, weren't the democrats trying to steer votes their way the last presidential election by saying that the Reps wanted to bring back the draft?

[|Bunghole|]

We don't need a draft. We need to quit overextending ourselves on questionable military courses of action.

[Guest ONYX]

Just in case there is a draft, I would like everyone to know that I am gay as hell.

I have on a pink sailor suit as I type this listening to that disco song "It's Raining Men"
on my ipod.


REMEMBER, IF THERE IS A DRAFT......

sneaky =

[Guest Coy Bacon]

This is why you don't look for answers in the Democratic Party. Both the dumbasss and the Democrats want to loot your paycheck and send your kids to slaughter and be slaughtered for nothing while blowing smoke up your asses having you believe that being their criminal henchmen is noble duty. They both want the common man riding their dicks greaseless while they slob their superiors' knobs, and it's the guys getting the blow-job from the politicians that everybody is afraid to think about. Whose side are these fuckers really on? I gaurantee, that unless you're something from the pit of hell, it's not yours.

[Guest Bengal_Smoov]

I lived in Rangel's congressional district for the past few years and let me tell you Rangel has does nothing for the people in that community. His biggest accomplishment is building a park on top of a landfill. The neighborhoods are drug infested, the schools are training grounds for prisons, 50% of the people who live in Rangel's district are unemployeed, basically shit is a mess...

Rangel's logic for the draft is flawed and he needs to help fix up his own community, but that's never going to happen. Rangel is like Al Sharpton with out the fake religion.

[Lawman]

[quote name='Bengal_Smoov' post='391555' date='Nov 21 2006, 10:27 AM']I lived in Rangel's congressional district for the past few years and let me tell you Rangel has does nothing for the people in that community. His biggest accomplishment is building a park on top of a landfill. The neighborhoods are drug infested, the schools are training grounds for prisons, 50% of the people who live in Rangel's district are unemployeed, basically shit is a mess...

Rangel's logic for the draft is flawed and he needs to help fix up his own community, but that's never going to happen. Rangel is like Al Sharpton with out the fake religion.[/quote]

Bengal Smoov that's sad to hear, self serving incompetent [i]socialist[/i].

Serious question, how does he keep getting elected

Never mind, I found it "blame whitey":

Rangel's has a long history of levying baseless charges of racism for political advantage. When the dumbass-led Congress pushed for tax relief in 1994, Rangel denounced the plan as a form of modern-day racism. "It's not 'spic' or 'nigger' anymore," Rangel raged. "They say, 'Let's cut taxes.'" Similarly, when dumbasss sought to reform a bloated and abused welfare system through budget cuts, Rangel remonstrated that the planned reforms were beneath even Nazi Germany. "Hitler wasn't even talking about doing these things," he insisted. Racism is likewise Rangel's chosen explanation for the disproportionate number of blacks arrested for breaking drug laws, which he has condemned as "racist" (Bertram, Eva. [i]Drug War Politics[/i], 1996).

[b]Frivolous assertions of racism have been Rangel's preferred weapons against white politicians.[/b] In 2001, while campaigning for Democratic mayoral candidate Fernando Ferrer, Rangel unsubtly suggested that racism would be to blame were the Hispanic Ferrer to lose to his white rivals in the party primary. Speaking before a Democratic audience, Rangel asked, "How do you feel our hurt when you go to apply for a job and you see three whites there and you know before the interview that you're not going to get it?"

dumbasss are a more common target. When President Bush announced a plan to partially privatize Social Security, Rangel trotted out the charge that dumbasss had it in mind to shortchange "African American workers" by providing them with reduced benefits "based on their race." Following the much-criticized federal response to Hurricane Katrina, a powerful storm that ravaged the Gulf coast in August of 2005, Rangel once again reprised the charge of racism. Attributing the delayed response to anti-black sentiment within the federal government, Rangel declared that the recovery effort illustrated that "if you're black in this country, and you're poor in this country, it's not an inconvenience - it's a death sentence." In the course of addressing the Congressional Black Caucus in September of 2005, Rangel, still exploiting the aftermath of Katrina, likened President Bush to Bull Connor, the Alabama police commissioner notorious for his racist opposition to the civil rights movement. "George Bush is our Bull Connor," Rangel said.

Notably, Democratic presidents have been spared similar calumny. Indeed, when President Bill Clinton was facing impeachment proceedings, Rangel insisted that "Black communities around the country want us to protect this president." Terrorists, too, have found favor with Rangel. In February of 2005, Rangel proclaimed that it was discriminatory to label groups like Hezbollah "Islamic terrorists." "To call it Islamic terror is discriminating, it's bigoted, it is not the right thing to say," Rangel said.

Rangel is also an indefatigable apologist for Communist Cuba and an avowed admirer of Fidel Castro. In April 1993, Rangel introduced legislation to repeal the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992, which called for repeal of assistance to the Castro government and promotion of democratization, and to lift the embargo against Cuba. When Castro toured Harlem in October of 1995, Rangel greeted him with a bear hug and joined in a prolonged standing ovation for the visiting dictator. During a March 2000 television interview, Rangel lamented that "Cuba is unfortunately treated differently," and chastised Cuban-Americans for supporting an embargo against Cuba. Most recently, Rangel joined six New York Democrats in opposing a House resolution of support for pro-democracy advocates and dissidents in Cuba. Rangel angrily dismissed the activists as "insurgents," condemned a policy of "dealing with dissidents," and complained that American legislators "refuse to give the [Cuban] government the respect that it deserves." Despite his restless record of pro-Castro apologetics, Rangel claims that he has challenged the dictator about the prevalent discrimination against blacks in Cuba.

[i]So in other words, a vote for Rangel is a voice against "whitey" and that's it, nothing else for his constituents[/i]

[Guest fredtoast]

[quote name='Lawman' post='391119' date='Nov 20 2006, 04:38 PM']He, like Kerry, simply cannot grasp the fact that you have raised children who love this country, that we have young people who join up because they care about this nation and want to serve. That notion is so foreign to the Left Elite they don't even consider it.[/quote]

Well isn't amazing that not a single member of congress raised their children this way, and neither did Bush's parents, or Cheney's, or Rumsfeld's. Rangel's point is that there are very, very few children of the rich in the military. Since most wars are fought for the benefit of the rich then more of their children should be involved.

[Lawman]

[quote name='fredtoast' post='391611' date='Nov 21 2006, 12:07 PM']Well isn't amazing that not a single member of congress raised their children this way, and neither did Bush's parents, or Cheney's, or Rumsfeld's. Rangel's point is that there are very, very few children of the rich in the military. Since most wars are fought for the benefit of the rich then more of their children should be involved.[/quote]

We get his point.

Who are the rich (as defined) and what % of the population do they represent?

Duncan Hunter R-Cal son, Duncan Duane Hunter, a First Lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps, was deployed to Iraq in 2003

You must take in all of the what Charlie Rangel has said in the past that the military is disproportionaly represented by poor, uneducated minorities with no other choices.

The evidence of data has proven differently and Charlie Rangel is WRONG!!!. The true MIA are from the Academia's as presented statistically a few week's back. If you classify this group as your "rich" category, then you would have a valid point.

fredtoast, some including myself, think obligatory service of some form is a good thing, however I ould not go as far as to prescribe to making it mandatory.

[Homer_Rice]

On a Horowitz binge, fer crissakes? You crack me up.

Here's a question for you: How many years does it take a competent professional who works in the media industry to learn how to edit copy and provide proper attribution?

Rangel a socialist? Har-dee-har-har. If he were, he get more good done.

[Guest fredtoast]

[i]"They tell you that the military is voluntary, but that concept for blacks and poor whites is like a rat being dropped in a maze," said Ronald Walters, a University of Maryland political science professor. "The playing field outside the military is not level. Life structures you into certain choices, and you wind up in the military."

Walters and other observers note that 38 percent of the military's 1.1 million enlistees are ethnic minorities, while they make up only 29 percent of the general population. In the largest branch, the Army, the percentage of minorities approaches half of all enlistees, at 45 percent.

African Americans alone account for nearly 30 percent of Army enlistees, according to Defense Department statistics compiled in 2000. Latinos represent 9 percent of the Army and 12 percent of the population. Black women comprise nearly half the Army's enlisted women.

Black soldiers also reenlist in far greater numbers than white troops, according to a 1997 Department of Defense survey. Activists say that is because minorities face more obstacles to employment in a society where corporations discriminate against them.

During the Persian Gulf War, 23 percent of troops deployed were black, as were 17 percent of combat deaths. White troops accounted for 71 percent of those deployed, and 76 percent of those killed. Latinos made up 4 percent of troops and 4 percent of deaths.

The proportion of black troops deployed in the Persian Gulf War, said Walters, the Maryland professor, was nearly double the percentage of African Americans in the general population. "You can't wipe away the disproportion," he said. [/i]

BTW Lawman, Rangel is a Korean War Veteran. I can't believe you support the position of all the draft dodgers like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and all those other chickenshit cowards and TRASH THE NAME OF AN ACTUAL MILITARY VETERAN.

You should be ashamed of yourself!

[Lawman]

[quote]On a Horowitz binge, fer crissakes? You crack me up.[/quote]

To whom Homer is in reference too:

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz_(conservative_writer)"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowit...rvative_writer)[/url]

Former insider:

David Joel Horowitz (born January 10, 1939) is an American conservative writer and activist. [b]A prominent supporter of Marxism and a member of the New Left in the 1960s, Horowitz later rejected Leftism and now identifies with the right wing of the political spectrum.[/b] He is a founder of the David Horowitz Freedom Center (formerly the Center for the Study of Popular Culture), a writer for the conservative magazine NewsMax, and the editor of the popular conservative website FrontPageMag.com. He foudned the activist group {[Students for Academic Freedom]] and is affiliated with Campus Watch, and frequently appears on the Fox News Channel as an analyst.

[quote]Homer_Rice
Rangel a socialist? Har-dee-har-har. If he were, he get more good done[/quote]

Homer,
It's funny how you poke your head out when I have something disparaging to say about a [i]socialist.[/i]

One of 50 Members of the House ( including an executive committee chaired by Nancy Pelosi) that belong to the Progressive Caucus until 1999 worked in open partnership with Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). After the press reported on this link, the connections suddenly vanished from both organizations' websites.

DSA seeks to increase its political influence not by establishing its own party, but rather by working closely with the Democratic Party to promote leftist agendas. "Like our friends and allies in the feminist, labor, civil rights, religious, and community organizing movements, many of us have been active in the Democratic Party," says DSA. "We work with those movements to strengthen the party's left wing, represented by the Congressional Progressive Caucus. ... Maybe sometime in the future ... an alternative national party will be viable. For now, we will continue to support progressives who have a real chance at winning elections, which usually means left-wing Democrats."


The Progressive Caucus "Progressive Promise" document, which advocates [b]socialized[/b] medicine; radical environmentalism; [b]the redistribution of wealth;[/b] the [b]elimination of numerous provisions [/b] of the Patriot Act; dramatic reductions in the government's intelligence-gathering capabilities, debt relief for poor countries; and the quick withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. These measures, says the Progressive Caucus, would help "re-build U.S. alliances around the world, restore international respect for American power and influence, and reaffirm our nation's constructive engagement in the United Nations and other multilateral organizations."

[b]Rangel is also an indefatigable apologist for Communist Cuba and an avowed admirer of Fidel Castro[/b]

[b]In April 1993, Rangel introduced legislation to repeal the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992, which called for [u]repeal [/u] of assistance to the Castro government and [u]promotion of democratization[/u][/b]

[Guest fredtoast]

[quote name='Lawman' post='391732' date='Nov 21 2006, 02:17 PM']The Progressive Caucus "Progressive Promise" document, which advocates [b]socialized[/b] medicine; radical environmentalism; [b]the redistribution of wealth;[/b] the [b]elimination of numerous provisions [/b] of the Patriot Act; dramatic reductions in the government's intelligence-gathering capabilities, debt relief for poor countries; and the quick withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. These measures, says the Progressive Caucus, would help "re-build U.S. alliances around the world, restore international respect for American power and influence, and reaffirm our nation's constructive engagement in the United Nations and other multilateral organizations."[/quote]

[Lawman]

[quote name='fredtoast' post='391775' date='Nov 21 2006, 03:37 PM'] [/quote]

[i]Socialist[/i]


j/k

Nobile causes that look good on paper but do not work as advertised in real world conditions.

Additionally, there are underlying issues that are rarely addressed.

[Guest Coy Bacon]

[quote name='Lawman' post='391781' date='Nov 21 2006, 03:59 PM'][i]Socialist[/i]
j/k

Nobile causes that look good on paper but do not work as advertised in real world conditions.

Additionally, there are underlying issues that are rarely addressed.[/quote]


Being an admirer of Castro is probably no worse than being an admirer of Barry Goldwater, and probably better.

There is precious little of control to evaluate the two separately, but so far history suggests that Socialism is no less likely to produce desirable results than Capitalism - probably more so. The nightmare's produced by the Stalinist states had as much to do with their emulating robber-baron activities on a concentrated and accelerated scale as anything else, and they weren't socialist states. Most socialist experiments in the third world have been subject to either the concerted efforts of the US to undermine and destroy them, or the vagaries of having to make themselves satellites of the Stalinist states to emerge from their colonial existence. If you took away the partial socialism of most capitalist economies, especially the US, you'd either end up with revolution or an even more accelerated regression to feudalism than we have now.




Capitalism doesn't really work, and Socialism may not either in the long run.

In any case, Rangel is a political whore.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='Lawman' post='391732' date='Nov 21 2006, 02:17 PM']It's funny how you poke your head out when I have something disparaging to say about a socialist.[/quote]

My goodness! If it makes you feel better to think I'm a socialist, then that's okay with me. I measure folks by the quality of their judgement, so I tend to poke my head out when abettors of murderous policies start to feel comfortable in the public arena. The sort of policies you advocate lead directly to the death of people. That makes you complicit, not in a court of law, of course, but it does morally.

So, call me pinko, red, whatever color you want. I call you Brownshirt because You Kill People and then justify it as a matter of policy. I think you're evil.

How many years does it take a competent professional who works in the media industry to learn how to edit copy and provide proper attribution?

[quote]Nobile causes that look good on paper but do not work as advertised in real world conditions.[/quote]

Gee it seems to me that you already work under these "socialist" policies. You get socialized medicine in the military. You get equitable pay considered in terms of the ratio between the top of the scale and the bottom of the scale (O-10 to E-1). So, why do you want to deprive the rest of the "real world" from some fundamentals of social, political, and economic security?

I think it is because you are a lackey, in, as BZ so eloquently referenced once, Shakespeare's sense of the term.

[Lawman]

[quote]BTW Lawman, Rangel is a Korean War Veteran. I can't believe you support the position of all the draft dodgers like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and all those other chickenshit cowards and TRASH THE NAME OF AN ACTUAL MILITARY VETERAN.

You should be ashamed of yourself[/quote]

Wait a minute, I said worse about Kerry, Rangel is disengious with why he does this.

Thank you, thank you, thank you..... again we see that position of the liberal left as in the case of Michael J. Fox, a victim of a terrible disease, whose position is not allowed to be questioned or disagreed with.

[Lawman]

[quote]Coy Bacon,
In any case, Rangel is a political whore[/quote]

Thank you. How has he kept his seat in congress for 35 years? The truth!!! By promoting hate!!!

[Lawman]

[quote][b]African Americans alone account for nearly 30 percent of Army enlistees, according to Defense Department statistics compiled in 2000[/b]. Latinos represent 9 percent of the Army and 12 percent of the population. Black women comprise nearly half the Army's enlisted women.

[b]Black soldiers also reenlist in far greater numbers than white troops, according to a 1997 Department of Defense survey.[/b] Activists say that is because minorities face more obstacles to employment in a society where corporations discriminate against them.

During the Persian Gulf War, 23 percent of troops deployed were black, as were 17 percent of combat deaths. White troops accounted for 71 percent of those deployed, and 76 percent of those killed. Latinos made up 4 percent of troops and 4 percent of deaths.[/quote]

Let me bring you update:

[url="http://www.armyg1.army.mil/hr/demographics.asp"]http://www.armyg1.army.mil/hr/demographics.asp[/url]

African americans comprised [b]22%[/b] of Army enlistees in 2000; only off by 8%, but I guess this is close enough
for [i]nearly[/i].

It may of been true in 1997, that blacks reenlisted in far greater numbers than whites (empirical data withstanding); but from 2000 to 2005 shows a decline of this demographic group represented in the Army:

2000 - 22.0%
2001 - 22.4%
2002 - 17.8%
2003 - 15.9%
2004 - 14.9%
2005 - 13.5%

[Lawman]

[quote]Gee it seems to me that you already work under these "socialist" policies. You get socialized medicine in the military. You get equitable pay considered in terms of the ratio between the top of the scale and the bottom of the scale (O-10 to E-1). So, why do you want to deprive the rest of the "real world" from some fundamentals of social, political, and economic security?[/quote]

Homer,

I can't believe you are using this anaology.

First, I am in a binding contract as what all enlistments truly are. As a benefit of this contract, there is health
care coverage available. Why your statement is wrong is due to the fact that I have "Choices" that are left up
me. I have chosen Tri-Care Prime even though Tri-Care Extra and Tri-Care Standard are availible; each present their own options of service. Additionally, I can choose my own Primary Care Manager which at any time after a one year period I can exercise the option to change. The keyword is "Choice".

I have been saving this post for the ample oppourtunity.

[b]A post by Maynard[/b] from "My Girl"

Health Savings Accounts: Something the dumbasss Got Right!


It's not very often that the government does something that really impresses me, so I just want to put in a word for the HSA ("Health Savings Account") program implemented a couple years ago by the dumbasss. If you don't know what an HSA is, you should! And if you can get one, you probably should!

There's a fundamental tension in the national health care situation. On one hand, we want health care to be accessible to those who need it. On the other hand, "free" health care inevitably leads to shortages and rationing, which merely shifts the personal cost from money to time. If expensive health care kills poor people, "free" health care kills people who can't wait two years for their operation. (This is what is happening in Canada; check out this exposé video, [url="http://onthefencefilms.com/video/deadmeat/"]Dead Meat[/url].) If the health care system is going to work, there must be incentive for people to use it only when truly needed.

[i]Dead Meat is a 25 minute short film which shows the reality of health care under Canada's [u]socialized medical system[/u]: Canadians wait ... and wait ... and wait. ... And sometimes they die while waiting for free government health care.
The filmmakers are currently in production on a feature-length film addressing health care in the U.S. and Canada slated for release in late 2006[/i].

The HSA program manages to encourage thrift and at the same time assure adequate and affordable medical coverage. Insurance is supplied by a private carrier; meanwhile the individual is building up a personal savings account in a private financial institution. Oh, and there's also a tax break and retirement benefits. The plans can be offered by employers or purchased by individuals. Wow, this does everything, and the government has done nothing but specify a framework! Here's how it works:

It starts with an HSA-compatible insurance plan available from any of the big insurers. The noteworthy attribute of these plans is the high deductible; maybe $3500. This insurance will protect you from a disaster, but the benefits are minimal for routine medical service. Since the high deductible means there won't be many claims, the premium is relatively low.

For small medical expenses, you get an HSA account at any of various financial institutions. The HSA account is something like an IRA or 401k. You or your employer can deposit up to $2700 of pre-tax money into it every year. You can only withdraw this money to pay for medical expenses. If you don't spend it, it accumulates in an investment vehicle, and ultimately becomes part of your retirement fund.

So the bottom line is you're insured against big medical expenses, and you've got tax-free money set aside for small medical expenses. You've got incentive to take care of yourself because your personal HSA account is growing, so you won't spend indiscriminately. But if a disaster comes, you're protected.

Somebody in Washington is a genius!

[Chris Henrys Dealer]

You should email your girl to tell her that Canada has a virtual two tier health program alreadyin place. Part 1 is free for all Canadians, but corporations and individuals can also pay in to receive private treatment if so desired.

From the Deadmeat website:

[i]Certainly there are pockets of excellence in the Canadian health care system - and not everyone waits. If a person is in the process of having a heart attack, they get immediate treatment. However, any treatment deemed 'elective' - meaning that possible death is not imminent - often entails a wait. Cancer biopsies, MRI scans, heart bypasses, cataract operations, and hip replacements all involve lengthy waits for many Canadians.[/i]

And that's where the two tier system comes in. Corporations or individuals can pay in or purchase medical insurance and using private clinics. Same as the States.

I did my knee in playing squash last year...luckily turned out only to be a sprain. I got an MRI the next day, through the medical insurance I have at work.

So overall, I don't mind paying some of my income to ensure everyone gets free healthcare. I'm lucky I guess that I can get additional coverage through my employer.

The capped drug prices in Canada are also a bonus, I think the number of elderly tourists we see from the States coming here just to stock up in indicative of that.

The US medical system is a great one no doubt, but the expenses in it, make it prohibitive to so many, that I think the overall benefits are reduced somewhat. I thought this article from USA Today in October described it well:

[url="http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2006-10-15-health-concern-usat_x.htm"]http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/h...cern-usat_x.htm[/url]

[quote]The U.S. health care system — touted as providing the best medical care in the world — is becoming more precarious to most Americans, who are rattled by rising costs, questions about quality and fears about the future.

"[b]If you can afford it, it's the best health care system in the world, but, increasingly, people aren't able to afford it," says Clyde Bishop, a retired research scientist in Wilmington, Del.[/b][/quote]

But I don't think this conversation is really about healthcare, probably more applying labels to stuff, so no point discussing further.

[Lawman]

[quote]My goodness! If it makes you feel better to think I'm a socialist, then that's okay with me. I measure folks by the quality of their judgement, so I tend to poke my head out when abettors of murderous policies start to feel comfortable in the public arena. The sort of policies you advocate lead directly to the death of people. That makes you complicit, not in a court of law, of course, but it does morally.[/quote]

Since you are vague in your descript, I can only comment that yes I support policies that have prevented attacks on this country as to date, unlike the previous administration whose policies obstructed efforts (see Jamie Gorelick) which resulted in the death of more than 3,000 Americans on 9/11

[quote]So, call me pinko, red, whatever color you want. I call you Brownshirt because You Kill People and then justify it as a matter of policy. I think you're evil.[/quote]

I will not stoop to your level, I'll leave the name-calling to yourself. I am attacking the socialist political idealogue. Yes I have read the piece by Paul Craig Roberts: Brownshirting of America

[url="http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts75.html"]http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts75.html[/url]

I would like to see a discussion between Roberts and Hilmar Von Campe

The Real Threat To America

By Hilmar von Campe 07/07/04

There is a great deal of confusion regarding the nature of the Nazi movement. Most if not all people who are familiar with the events of those years agree that its leaders were criminals. But quite a number of them, [u]especially in the media, call Nazis fascists[/u]. Even though the bloody years of their rule ended 60 years ago, the definition of who they were is of great importance for today. Without it we would be blind to reality.

[u]As a German WWII veteran who grew up under the Nazis who has studied about everything, which has anything to do with their ideology [/u] it is not difficult to define their reality. The principle theme of my 180 radio interviews in America has always been the comparison of the moral and ideological basis of the German Nazi society of that time and the American society of today. That theme also enters my books and articles. Nazi society was based on lies, and lies are in the process of taking over America. I try to clarify for the American people that the ideological attack on America is part of the global attempt to eliminate God everywhere, replace Him with arbitrary rule of (left) man and destroy freedom. Godlessness is America's and freedom's number one enemy.

[b]Nazi is an abbreviation of National Socialist. [u]Nazis are Socialists[/u][/b]. [b]That means they are radical left wing[/b]. [u]Fascists on the other hand have to be placed on the right[/u]. [u]To put the label of Fascism on National Socialism is an invention by the Soviet and East-German Communist leaderships after the war. [/u] [b]VICTORS WRITE HISTORY [/b] It was meant to eliminate in the public mind the embarrassing link between the Nazi movement and Socialism and hide the deadly threat to free society, which the latter represents. They launched their antifascist movement in East Germany, and with the help of the left media around the world made the label of Fascism stick. They also invented the word Nacism, a ridiculous word creation also used in the US, for the same reason: to replace the correct definition National Socialism.

The implication of what I am saying is far-reaching. Fascism, an authoritarian form of government with ugly features, is not an international conspiracy and a global threat to the United States. [b]Socialism, especially in its marxist/leninist form - and even more so in the form of the Frankfurt School - is[/b]. There are innumerable different socialist parties and movements. They are all fruits of the same rotten tree and lead inevitably to a totalitarian system. All Socialist functionaries use national concepts and language in their different countries but you can't argue rationally with them because they have a hidden different purpose, which is different from the purpose of their non-socialist opponents. [b]They are committed to transform the world into a socialist system with them at the top[/b]. They are in America and they are no patriots, they are traitors to their country, to the words and spirit of the constitution, and to the mission of freedom, given by our creator to this nation at her birth. The 'politically correct' is the American equivalent of the 'party line' of the Nazis and the Communists.

The May issue of the magazine 'Whistleblower' has the title 'The Party of Treason' It refers to the Democratic Party. [b]In it Bob Just describes the reality of this, [u]his own party[/u][/b]. "Hatred and corruption," he writes, "are on the march in America as they have never been before, and leading this march is the Democratic Party." And the United Nations I add. Just points out that there seems to be a loyalty to "something other than the American people", and refers very often to the Nazis. "If I am right about the fanatical direction my party is taking, then America has never faced a danger like this, [b]and real Democrats who stand by and watch will be guilty before history as the actual leaders of this corruption movement…[/b]Carried to its extreme, this corruption movement will destroy us all." He confirms that the Democratic Party is 'the party of treason'. Not many people understand that totalitarian Socialism grows out of moral corruption.

Liberals in reality are Socialists, they are not true Americans as far as I am concerned. They may not necessarily be a conscious part of the conspiracy, but they are part of their immorality, their concepts and lust for power, which are expressions of hard-core Socialism. But the appeaser of treason is no better than the traitor, both are liars who covet other people's money and property and sponsor all and every immoral cause hostile to our creator.

Socialist philosophy is rooted in the concepts of Jean-Jacques Rousseau: that man is good but exposed to the corruption of society, and that it is the corruption of the political and social environment that is responsible for the evil in society. Therefore justification for their policies is the pretense that they are out for justice and want to change the social and political structures to free mankind. That of course is a lie because evil is within every person and the political praxis is reduced to the brutal fight for power by all means playing up, lying to and enlisting the underdog. Only the means are different for the various socialist branches but the principle is the same for all: the end justifies the means. Joseph Goebbels, propaganda minister of Hitler, is quoted in Germany with the statement "...it is not for nothing that we have chosen the name National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP), because at heart we are Communists." Briefing his generals before the invasion of the Soviet Union in June of 1941 Hitler told them, that he wanted to bring them 'real Socialism.' His declared intention was to destroy the Christian churches after victory.

[b]American Socialists are closer to Adolf Hitler than to their founding fathers and our constitution[/b]. Remember, the Holocaust is only the consequence of a godless concept of the liars, and so is the philosophy of these Socialists, which led to the abortion mass-murder. Four times as many unborn human beings have been killed in abortions than people in Nazi camps, among them six million Jews and six million Germans. I might add those millions who were killed in the Socialist Soviet concentration camps, [b]in one of which also my father perished[/b]. I have not heard Gorbachev or Putin apologize to anybody [b]VICTORS WRITE HISTORY[/b]

Finally, it is also important to realize that terrorism is only a religious subdivision in the battle for global power The military war has to be fought, as it is being done, but the need for an ideological/moral answer to the vacuum created has to be recognized. Terrorism is based on hatred and class (say religious) warfare and allows murder for power like Marxist/Leninist and National Socialism. It is therefore not a real religion. Sincere Muslims are as naive toward the Islamic murderous political ideology as were we Germans toward the Nazi ideology. They will have to apply absolute truth to their religious teachings and praxis as I had to do to everything German. [b]The Baath Party in Iraq is a Socialist Party and the Soviet Politbureau is responsible for the creation of many of the Middle East intelligence services and terrorist organizations[/b]. It also needs to be stated that unchanged Soviet ideology uses military strength only for reasons of blackmail but advances its agenda through subversion.

The majority of the members of the German government including chancellor Schroeder himself refused to refer to God in their oath of office. French President Chirac fought a minority of countries and prevailed in leaving God out in the new European Constitution. The homosexual mayor of Berlin, Wolwereit, led the gay parade in the German capital and demanded more rights for homosexuals and lesbians. One of it the is right of gay people to adopt children, which is being debated now in the Bundestag (Parliament)

Is there a way out of the mess? Yes there is. God is still waiting for America to change and apply His commandments to all sections of society. That implies that Congress makes it impossible for socialist judges to change the Constitution to their very limited godless conceptions. American society can and should work out solutions, which are valid for the whole of the world. God, not vague religious concepts, is the answer to godlessness.

[Jamie_B]

Just to touch on the whole "soclilized health care in the military" point. It's not all it used to be or is cracked up to be. I was working at walter reed when tricare was introduced and I can specificly remember all the soliders complaining about it. Keep in mind I post this with a father who has worked in military healthcare for all of his adult life. (And as someone who for his childhood benifited from socilized health care)

[url="http://www.senate.gov/~hutchison/speech36.htm"]http://www.senate.gov/~hutchison/speech36.htm[/url]

[quote]SOLDIERS', SAILORS', AIRMEN'S AND MARINES' BILL OF RIGHTS
ACT OF 1999 -- MILITARY HEALTH CARE
MRS. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am going to offer an amendment later today which I hope can become a part of the bill and will be acceptable to the managers. I have been trying to work with everyone who is concerned about the military health care issue, and I look forward to having it be a part of this bill.

Today, I, along with one of my cosponsors, Senator Edwards from North Carolina, will talk about what is in this very important amendment. Both Senator Hagel and Senator Helms are also cosponsors of this amendment.

I have just finished touring every single base in Texas--Army, Navy, Air Force--and I have talked to young enlisted people, young noncommissioned officers, recruits. I went to Lackland and I talked to people who are in their first month in the Air Force. I talked to these young people, as well as people all the way up and down the line, about their concerns. Of course, we know that we are having the biggest retention problem that we have had in the military for a long time. In fact, for every pilot we keep in the Air Force, we lose two. We are also looking at tough recruiting.

We are looking for ways to say to our military personnel, we want you to come and be a part of our armed services because we are proud of the job that our armed services do; and we are saying to the experienced people in our military, we want you to stay because we need our experienced pilots and sailors and those who are on the ground. We need every one of you to stay in.

I talked about why they aren't staying in. First and foremost is pay. We are addressing that in the military bill of rights. Second to pay is health care. Health care is part of the package that we promised to our military personnel. It is part of the package that we say we are going to give to the military, to their families and to retirees. We say we will provide for your health care now and we will provide for it when you retire. That is part of the incentive for signing up for the military.

I became very concerned and started looking at the different military health care options. It differs around the country. [b]TRICARE, which has been adopted by much of the military, is the system that really needs fixing. TRICARE says to community doctors, we will reimburse you to serve our military personnel. In fact, we have cut back on military health care facilities in the Base Closing Commission. There are fewer health care facilities, so we reached out into the community.

The problem is the bureaucracy. Getting a claim is causing the doctors to say, `I don't need this, I can't deal with it. It is much worse than Medicare or any other government program with which we have worked.' Doctors are saying, `I'm not going to serve our military personnel.'[/b]

If you are in the town of Abilene and you can't get a pediatrician for the children of the military personnel, this is a problem.

I, along with Senators Edwards, Hagel and Helms, have introduced a bill called the Military Health Care Improvement Act of 1999. This is the amendment that we are offering today. Basically, what the amendment does is require that benefits be portable across the regions established in the current system so that once you have a TRICARE coverage and you move--which we know our military personnel do every 2 or 3 years--you will be able to keep that coverage as you cross regions. That will make it much easier for our personnel to know exactly the kind of care they are getting. [b]We would ensure that military coverage is comparable to the average coverage available to civilian Government employees, many of whom work side by side with our military personnel. We think it should be comparable.[/b]

[b]Third, we minimize the bureaucratic red tape and streamline the claims processing. This is one of the big problems. It will not cost money to fix--and probably will save money.[/b] [color="#FF0000"](Shit can we do this for most of the goverment? I've been screaming that is a better way than raising taxes for years)[/color] If we could streamline the claims processing, it will be easier for the Department of Defense, and certainly easier for the person who is getting this health care. It would increase reimbursement levels to attract and retain qualified health care providers. Now, this is an option with the Department of Defense, where they need to be able to increase the coverage. It would allow the Department of Defense to say, all right, as an incentive to get this coverage for our personnel in this area, we will increase the reimbursement levels.

Fifth, it would increase the revenues to military treatment facilities by permitting reimbursement at Medicare rates from third party payers.

Now, this is something that will be very important to our military hospitals, where they can get reimbursed at the Medicare level, or they can be reimbursed by Medicare through subvention. We want them to be able to do that. That will, in fact, help our Department of Defense get the same level of reimbursement into the military hospitals that anyone going to a civilian hospital would be entitled to.

So we are very hopeful that this amendment will just be accepted by the sponsors of the bill, because you can't have a military bill of rights that says we are going to deal with the biggest issues of recruiting and retention that we have in the military without addressing health care.

I want to commend the chairman and the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services Committee for getting this bill up and out as the very first piece of major legislation we are going to pass in this session. They are increasing the pay, and that is the key issue for most people in our military. And they are bringing the pension up to the 50-percent level. I applaud them for that.

I want to add a third element of the problems that our military are facing, [b]and that is quality health care.[/b] We have more military families than we have ever had in the military before. Back in the old days, many of our people in the military, the personnel, were single. That is not the case today. Now most of them are married and most of them have families. So we must deal with that reality and make the military family-friendly if we are going to keep the good people of our country who want to be married and have families, which is the normal thing that we would like for people to have the option to do.

So that is the crux of our amendment. I think it is a good amendment. I believe the Department of Defense will have a lot of latitude to work with this issue. But it must be addressed. We cannot have shoddy health care coverage that differs in different regions of the country, depending on what the military health care facilities are. If you don't have a military hospital in a city that has a military base, you have to provide for that health care. We want it to be good quality health care.

I will never forget when I was over in Saudi Arabia visiting an Air Force base with our personnel. We were talking to these fliers and asked, `What is your biggest problem?' One flier said, `Senator, my biggest problem is that I called home yesterday and my wife was in tears because we have a sick baby and not a doctor in the city will serve our baby. That is the biggest problem I have.' And I said, `Wait a minute, that is a problem we can fix.'

That is what the amendment that I and Senator Edwards and Senator Hagel and Senator Helms are offering today. We don't want one pilot in our military in Saudi Arabia or in Turkey or in Bosnia or in Italy or anywhere else to tell us that their biggest problem is that they called home last night and their wife is in tears with a sick baby who cannot get a pediatrician to see that baby.

So that is what our amendment will do. I appreciate the distinguished chairman of the committee allowing me to talk about this amendment. I really hope that he is going to accept this amendment because this could be the third part of the improvement that he is seeking, by increasing the pay, by increasing the pensions, and health care. I hope that we can do this so that we can say truthfully to everyone that comes into a recruiting office that we are going to give you the health care, the pay, and the pension that will make this a great job, because we want you to serve our country and protect our freedom.

Thank you.


Later in the debate:

MRS. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to announce the cosponsors for whom I am offering this amendment. The cosponsors are Mr. Edwards, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Helms, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Santorum.

Mr. President, this is an amendment that I think goes very well in the bill before us. This is a military Bill of Rights. This bill is going to try to help alleviate a very bad situation that we have with our military. Right now we are having a hard time recruiting. We have had the worst recruiting year in the Army for the United States since 1979. We are having a hard time retaining our best people. For every two pilots that we lose, we are only gaining one to replace those pilots. So you can see, if we are losing two pilots and gaining one, pretty soon we are going to have a pilot shortage in the Air Force, and the time has come.

It is also going to add to the expense of training the pilots in the Air Force. The Navy has had to lower its educational standards to recruit. This is not good. So many of us in Congress on a bipartisan basis said, What can we do? What can we do to make sure we are giving quality of life to those who are giving their lives to protect our freedom? What can we do to make it worthwhile for them?

The basic things we have heard that are a problem that cause us to lose personnel are pay, health care, and pension benefits. This bill, with our amendment, will address all three. The bill before us today is a pay raise. It does increase pension benefits. But what it hasn't addressed until our amendment is health care. And when I go across my State or when I visit a base in Saudi Arabia, or Tuzla, Bosnia, I hear that people are worried about health care. They are worried that their families back home are not able to get the quality health care they need.

So the amendment that Senator Edwards and I are proposing today, along with all of our cosponsors, would reform the TRICARE system. It would require that benefits be portable across the regions that are established in the current system.

We all know that military personnel have to move every 2 to 3 years. We want them to be able to take the benefits of their TRICARE system with them when they go to another base. That costs nothing, but it certainly does help ease the transition for the military family.

We would ensure military coverage as comparable to the average coverage available to civilian Government employees. Many times on our bases we have civilian Federal employees working side by side with military personnel. We want them to have comparable health care. So within the bounds that the Department of Defense can produce, we want to try to make that comparable and equal if we can get it there. We want to minimize the bureaucratic red tape and streamline the claims processing.

One of the big complaints of the doctors who serve our military personnel from the community is that there is so much bureaucratic red tape that they can't get their claim, and it is not worth the hassle. So what happens? The doctor says, `I'm not going to serve military families.'

Well, we want to stop that right now. We would increase the reimbursement levels to attract and retain quality health care providers. Where a base city does not have the capability to attract pediatricians or OB-GYN or key areas of specialty to serve the military families, we want to authorize the Department of Defense to reimburse at greater levels in order to attract that service for our military families. That is what the amendment does.

We also allow our military treatment facilities, our military hospitals, to be reimbursed at Medicare rates from third party givers. This is not adding a cost. In fact, it will help these military hospitals to be reimbursed at a better rate so that they will be able to give better care to our military participants.

So that is what our amendment does. We think it is a good amendment, that the Department of Defense will be able to do some of the things they have said they want to be able to do to get better health care in the TRICARE system, and our amendment will allow them to do it.

So I appreciate very much that the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee are supporting this amendment. I think it is essential to make a true improvement in the quality of life for our military to improve their health care benefits at the same time that we are giving them pay raises.


Still later in the debate:

MRS. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I really appreciate the one-on-one experiences that Senator Edwards has mentioned because that really brings it home, when that poor child started with a small rash and by the time she could get an appointment with a doctor the rash had covered her body. That is a terrible story, and I have heard stories like that as well. It is why I became interested in trying to fix a problem that was really hurting the military families and our ability to retain those military families.

Just last week I toured Lackland Air Force Base. That is the basic training base for all Air Force personnel. A young drill instructor came up to me and said, `Senator, keep up the good work and fix TRICARE.' I told him that we would. Certainly, this is the answer to that drill instructor, because he clearly was having a hard time getting care for his family.

In a letter that was written to me recently, a retired veteran explained the difficulties he was experiencing with TRICARE. But, he said, `Senator, please don't concentrate your efforts on my individual problems--this is a systemic problem . . .'

It is a problem. We are losing access to care because of the nightmare associated with claims processing and the dismal rate of reimbursement for services. In fact, if you go to a smaller community that has a base, often you cannot see a heart surgeon because they just will not see a military person because they know the rate of reimbursement is so low. We cannot allow that to be the case for our military personnel.

General Dennis Reimer is the Chief of Staff of the Army. He recently said, `This is about readiness and this is about quality of life linked together. We must ensure that we provide those young men and women who sacrifice and serve our country so well . . . the quality medical care that is the top priority for them . . .' General Reimer said, `We must help them or else we're not going to be able to recruit this high quality force.'

When we are talking about readiness, we are talking about the high quality people that make up our Armed Forces and we are talking about keeping them. The last thing we want is a lot of great equipment but not people to run that equipment.

We have to realize that times have changed in the military. No longer are most of our military personnel unmarried. They are now married and they have families. They expect to have health care for those families and housing and good pay. That is what they expect, and that is what they deserve. We need to give it to them.

That is why our amendment is so important, to be part of adding to the quality of life of our military. We cannot allow the retention problems to continue to erode the powerful military that we have. Our military strength is based on people, good people, quality people, people who are dedicated, people who care about this country and want to protect it. They want to protect our freedom. If they are going to give their lives to protect our freedom, I think in return they deserve a quality of life for themselves and for their families that would make us all proud.

That is why Senator Edwards and I, Senator Hagel, Senator Helms, Senator Fitzgerald, Senator Coverdell, Senator Johnson, Senator Santorum, Senator Kennedy, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Sessions have come together on this amendment to try to add quality health care and improvements to the TRICARE system to the military pay raise and the pension improvements that are already in this bill.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.[/quote]

[Lawman]

[quote]Just to touch on the whole "soclilized health care in the military" point. It's not all it used to be or is cracked up to be. I was working at walter reed when tricare was introduced and I can specificly remember all the soliders complaining about it. Keep in mind I post this with a father who has worked in military healthcare for all of his adult life. (And as someone who for his childhood benifited from socilized health care)[/quote]

Thanks Jamie_B,

This also illustrates my point. The healthcare is actually not free. Additionally, as you know, I pay a monthly fee ( of my choosen) into a comprehensive Family Dental plan.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Lawman' post='392166' date='Nov 22 2006, 12:28 PM']Thanks Jamie_B,

This also illustrates my point. The healthcare is actually not free. Additionally, as you know, I pay a monthly fee ( of my choosen) into a comprehensive Family Dental plan.[/quote]


Delta Dental?

Actually my father and I talk about this stuff on occasion, as he is doing his doctorate and has to look at stuff like this for papers and such. He recently did a research paper on the new prescription drug plan for our senior citizens. He said the plan is pretty complicated and many seniors will or do need help to understand it but so far anyway it saves 12 additional dollars per person than they thought it was going to because of market compition.