Thursday, October 31, 2013

Marco Rubio: Thinking Inside the Box

I’m going to have to put a shield of Plexiglas around my TV to protect it from the onslaught of household objects that I routinely hurl at it these days, so maddening is it to watch the nonstop parade of politicians who are either lying or putting up a hopelessly inept fight against the lies.  In an interview with Marco Rubio last night Greta Van Susteren talked about the latest demon slithering out from the Pandora’s Box known as Obamacare:   people being dropped from health insurance plans deemed “substandard” by the elitists running our government.  Gee, what a surprise.  Playing devil’s advocate, Greta asked Rubio what should be done about people who have plans that don’t cover basic insurance needs like hospitalization:  “…if someone gets hit be a car,” she asked, “and then ends up in the emergency room, it somehow becomes an expense for the rest of us, no?” 

The correct answer is “No,” followed by something like this:

"The false premise that the rest of MUST pay for those who fail to plan for their own medical needs is the foundation that the entire Obamacare scheme is built upon.   Who says the rest of us have to pay their bills?  WHO wrote that law? 

"What’s happened here is a classic example of liberals insulating people from the laws of natural consequences and subjecting the rest of us to the laws of unintended consequences.   We see this over and over again, whether it’s the rest of us paying for welfare babies, someone else’s college expenses or a mortgage that someone walked out on.  If you’re an adult who fails to plan for yourself or your child and you wind up in the emergency room, you should be prepared to face the consequences and pay that bill even if you have to do it on a long-term payment plan.  Ironically, simply letting things work the way they should have would have been the best way to naturally entice people to buy insurance on their own.  So why did we stop doing it that way?  My guess is that if you follow the liberal policy trail you’ll find the real problems started with the increases in out-of-wedlock births and illegal immigration, two groups that have pushed the limits of the system and made collection particularly difficult.  So if you really want to solve this problem, the first order of business is to get liberals or progressives or whatever the heck you want to call them out of the business of running our government." 

Here’s Rubio’s response:

 “…that needs to be up to the individual to choose what kind of insurance plan they have.”

Huh?   As you can see, he not only missed a prime opportunity to explain how liberal policy led us to the debacle of Obamacare (assuming he’s ever bothered to think about it), he didn’t even answer the question that was asked, exposing him and all republicans to the charge that we have no answer to Greta’s question.  

We are doomed.

˜CW


20 comments:

  1. If Rubio ever got the GOP nom for potus, you'd be 1st in line to vote for him...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hahahaha. Says the anarchist who voted for the constitutionalist. Hypocrite be thy name.

      Delete
  2. Conservatives--led by Newt--were pushing Obamacare back in the early 1990's…put up Mitt "UHC" Romney in 2012…and also put a conservative judge on the scotus who agreed ACA was const…

    You have no credibility left...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So the anarchist who voted for Ron Paul and seems willing to sacrifice anything for a little weed is telling me that I have no credibility because of what Newt Gingrich did? Okie Dokie.

      Delete
    2. Says the 'constitutional conservative' who--along w/10's of MILLIONS of other ConCons--decided McCain and Romney were the best representations of 'real' constitutionalism…

      Along w/the leader (Gingrich) of the 1994 'conservative revolution' who wanted ACA all the way back then…'real' cons also nominated the architect of Massachusetts version of ACA (which served as a blue-print for Obama's version)…

      I'm beginning to see a pattern here…'real' cons oppose ACA when its done by Democrats, but…support ACA when Republicans do it...

      Delete
    3. You are a pathetic representation of libertarianism but certainly typical of the few I’ve had the pleasure of dealing with. Regardless of the reality you are determined to set up the straw-man argument that real conservatives who voted for McCain or Romney see them as some ideal of conservatism. That’s the argument you NEED to have in order to win this fight, and it’s no more legitimate than Commodus’s brief victory over Maximus when he tried to assure his own advantage by stabbing the restrained gladiator. I’ll never understand why anyone would take any sort of satisfaction in winning that type of phony victory, but there are always people like you who are apparently desperate for that kind of false validation. Since you apparently have no other objective here I see no reason to put up with you any longer.

      Delete
  3. BTW, libertarians were right AGAIN, that cons would fold on de-funding ACA…you've been folding since Reagan was elected and always will…

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Libertarian Bill Maher defends Obamacare and the lies that helped it pass.
      Libertarian Mark Cuban says, “I hate big government but I think it will work for healthcare.”
      Libertarian Clint Eastwood shilled for Mitt Romney.
      Libertarian Tommy Chong says Obama is the key to decriminalizing marijuana (Hmmmm. I think I’m beginning to understand the strategy here!)

      Tell me again what it means to be a libertarian?

      Delete
    2. You voted for Bush/McCain/Romney…you consider yourself a 'real conservative'…therefore YOU think Bush/McCain/Romney are also 'real conservatives'…this is what the evidence suggests.

      When I vote for Maher, Cuban, Eastwood, or Chong, you can then call them 'libertarians'!

      I wonder how many of the Republicans/Conservatives who FOLDED against ACA and BHO will be RE-elected? I'm guessing at least 90%, LOL...

      Delete
  4. >>”You voted for Bush/McCain/Romney…you consider yourself a 'real conservative'…therefore YOU think Bush/McCain/Romney are also 'real conservatives'…this is what the evidence suggests.”

    Or maybe it suggests that a “real conservative” was either not on the ticket or couldn’t muster enough additional support to have a chance in Hell of winning. Duh.

    BTW, since you voted for Ron Paul does this mean the evidence proves you’re a republican?


    >>”When I vote for Maher, Cuban, Eastwood, or Chong, you can then call them 'libertarians'!”

    Sorry but you seem to have forgotten the rules of your own game. If I am assumed to share the values and ideas of anyone who calls himself a conservative, then it works the same for you and any Bozo-brain who calls himself a libertarian.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You and 99% of your fellow 'conservatives' voted Bush/McCain/Romney…and an overwhelmingly large majority OPPOSED Ron Paul in the 2008/12 Primaries…indicating that RP's version of limited-govt. and 'constitutionalism' were in direct conflict w/those of most 'conservatives'.

      Them's the facts, ma'am…

      I know collectivists like yourself refuse to take responsibility for your actions, but facts is facts…


      Delete
  5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The one and only thing I ever had against Congressman and perennial-prexy-candidate Ron Paul was that in the aggregate his supporters were the most-obnoxious people on Planet Earth. Seems that, even in retirement, nothing has changed.

    As to why we pick up the emergency-room tab, see EMTLA of 1989.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  9. “Obnoxious” doesn’t even begin to describe the brand of so-called libertarian I’ve been dealing with, Drpete.

    Thanks for the tip on the EMTALA. People can debate the requirement, under the EMTALA, for emergency rooms to treat people regardless of their ability to pay; but what I will never understand is why the law did not include ANY requirement for payment after service was provided. It makes no sense, and shame on Reagan and other republicans for their remarkable lapse in judgment and forethought. I don’t know the entire history but I’ll go out on a limb and say that by this act they planted the seed s for socialized medicine in this country.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  10. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete