Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

GOP: Brilliant cuts kill two birds with one stone

Letter by Dia Calhoun, Tacoma on April 19, 2011 at 11:33 am with 18 Comments »
April 19, 2011 2:11 pm

I never expected such brilliance from the Republicans. Their proposed cuts to Medicare will solve the Social Security solvency problem, too.

With more limited access to health care, senior citizens will die sooner. This will lead to a lower demand for Social Security payments.

How brilliant, how visionary, how good for America.

Leave a comment Comments → 18
  1. I agree! That’s great planning. I’m surprised that the demokrats didn’t think of it first. Now instead of waiting for some bureaucrat to determine when I’m going to die under Obama’s plan, I can decide for myself. That’s probably the only case of self-determination produced by this administration.

  2. alindasue says:

    frosty,
    You seem to have missed the point. By decreasing citizens’ access to health care we have taken their ability to “decide when [they are] going to die” away from them. This poses more of a threat to seniors than any of the supposed “death panels” under Pres. Obamas plan ever could have.

  3. ItalianSpring says:

    It is not government’s job to pay for people’s health care or to provide social security. It’s called the Constitution. Read it.

  4. Hey ItalianSpring, I like your comment; however, you make the assumption that Liberals can read!

  5. spring+cha = total nonsense. The troubling part is that they believe what they write.

  6. Hey Publico, that’s the first correct comment you ever made, except the words
    “spring+cha=total nonsense,” and “troubling.” No trouble here, Bub!

  7. We need to reduce the United States to a third world country where the elders die on the street.

    That way, we will oblige the Constitution, according to the TEA Bag Supporters

  8. I guess Sarah Palin was right about death panels. She just had the wrong party and the wrong methodology.

  9. “frosty says:
    April 19, 2011 at 2:38 pm
    I agree! That’s great planning. I’m surprised that the demokrats didn’t think of it first. Now instead of waiting for some bureaucrat to determine when I’m going to die under Obama’s plan, I can decide for myself.”

    Nope, the Republicans oppose that also.

    If you’re lucky, you’ll die quickly. Otherwise you’ll die a slow miserable death without access to care that could minimize your suffering.

  10. LarryFine says:

    What a stupid pathetic letter.

  11. alindasue says:

    uscha and ItalianSpring,
    Seeing as you and the Tea Party crowd have been throwing “The Constitution” randomly into your arguements, I decided to do something I haven’t done in a few years. I went back and re-read the constitution.

    It was interesting. Did you know that it took 203 years for the 27th amendment to be ratified? If I am understanding the rather vague wording of it correctly, that amendment says that congress members may vote to change their pay, but it can’t take effect until the next congress convenes. I wonder how many times since 1789 they debated that!

    I also found it interesting that alcohol prohibition was established and repealed as constitutional amendments. I also noted that “no test of religion” was to be done in establishing a president. That means he or she could be any religion or none – not even supposed to ask.

    What I didn’t find was anything at all, one way or the other, related to providing health care or Social Security to American people. The closest thing I could find remotely related was the words “promote the general Welfare” in the preamble.

    The point is, they are not Constitutional issues. They are issues that were presented and voted on by our legislators over the years, but not every issue in this country is directly related to the Constitution. The Constitution mainly just lays down the ground rules and outlines the basic rights that should not ever be violated. After that, I suppose, our forefathers figured we could pretty much handle everything else ourselves. Otherwise, why would we even need congress?

  12. Alindasue. Another Liberal searching thru the web to find talking points. I would
    gather that alindasue retrieved those points from the “Machiavelli Doctrine.” That document has been the Liberals Bible since Prince Machiavell put the Doctrine into garbage, which the Liberals probably refer to as “the truth.”

  13. When a government force you to particiapate in a service and/or force you to purchase a product… it is Constitutional.

    “…but not every issue in this country is directly related to the Constitution.”

    That is what is becoming the issue, the government was suppose to be limited to perform a certain function and is now creeping into all walks of our lives.

  14. Hey KARDNOS, don’t you get it yet. “Under Liberal control, America has already been reduced to a third-world country.” Love the Tea Party!

  15. BlaineCGarver says:

    A: They are not touching Social Security, except, hopfully, to kick off people that have never worked and paid into it.

    B: Medicare would be replaced with vouchers. I’m not sure I’m thrilled with that, but if they don’t default on it, it would empower people to shop wisely for services rendered, and eliminate a middle step of direct payment that costs the gubment nearly as much at the benefit does.

  16. “…it would empower people to shop wisely for services rendered, …”

    Bingo – when in a conversation with people about the cost for hospitalization, etc. i am amazed at how little they know about what services were provided to them, in what form and the cost for those service… What killed me was that it was on the bill. The typical response was “I don’t know I am not paying for it insurance is”

    That mindset is one of a few reasons why medical cost are skyrocketing… because the consumer is not holding them accoutable for cost because someone else is paying for it.

  17. alindasue says:

    uscha,

    I am “liberal” on some issues and “conservative” on others. Generally, I am a moderate who refuses to join any political party or vote along any party lines. However, if caring for my fellow man is a “liberal” quality, then I guess on that issue I am a liberal.

    I don’t know anything about the “Machiavelli Doctrine” other than the name. Maybe I’ll google it some time. Maybe not.

    My “talking points” come from reading a transcription of the Constitution. It probably won’t hurt you to read it again yourself. If you still stand by the Tea Party doctrines after reading it, so be it. At least your choice will be informed. Personally, my perception after reading it is that the members of the Tea Party and their supporters, such as Sarah Palin, could also do well to re-read the Constitution. Actually, we all could.

    Here’s the link I found for the transcript:
    http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html

  18. When a government forces you to particiapate in a service and/or force you to purchase a product… it is unconstitutional.

    “…but not every issue in this country is directly related to the Constitution.”

    That is what is the issue, (and has been for quite some time) the government was suppose to perform certain limited functions and is now creeping into all walks of our lives.

    (correcting the initial post, needed a little nap today)

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0