Obamacare's Silver Lining

demos killing America to their benefit.

vote a real American : Donald Trump !!!

"For six years now, we, along with most conservatives, have inveighed against Obamacare and all its works."

And yet, in all those six years (and almost 70 articles), like most conservatives, you (Scragged) have yet to offer a single, meaningful alternative that even ATTEMPTS to DIRECTLY and SIGNIFICANTLY address the issues and problems (unaffordable policies, junk policies not worth the paper they're printed on, millions of uninsured/underinsured, denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, etc.) in our health care system that Obamacare attempts to address.

You would think that such a "woefully inept" policy "abomination" as Obamacare, with so many "failings" would be one that would be easy to "repeal and replace" with an alternative that could be factually shown to improve on its "failings" by offering lower per-policy costs, higher quality coverage, and a higher rate-of-insured.

But no, even with the entire conservative "brain trust" feverishly working for the past six years to discredit, repeal, and presumably offer a better alternative, the best you have to show for it is what?

Vaporware and what basically amounts to the status-quo of the pre-Obamacare health system (crisis), with meaningless, tax-credit pittances tacked on.

Oh, and let us not forget the "definition-of-insanity", 60-plus House-votes to "repeal" Obamacare.

Obamacare is flawed of course, but it's obvious that its flaws result from the bastardization of the original public-option plan, through a forced Faustian bargain with the Healthcare insurance industry.

Flawed as it is, the bottom line is that if conservatives had an alternative to Obamacare which offered the same or better coverage to the same or greater number of people for the same or lower out-of-pocket costs to individuals, we would now be sick of Ryan's smarmy mug on TV touting it...But they DON'T.

The truth is that the level of intellectual dishonesty, insincerity and hypocrisy displayed by the right on this issue , is breathtaking by even "conservative" standards.

For all it's flaws, Obamacare at least sincerely attempts to meaningfully address the healthcare issues.

Which is something that cannot be even remotely said of conservatives

We've discussed health care at length many times, Tony, but I'm not surprised that you haven't realized that we have in fact proposed quite a few policies.

I think perhaps you didn't recognize them, though, because we operate from a completely different fundamental premise. You, like all liberals, are belaboring under the delusion that individuals "in need" have some moral authority to force other people to provide for their needs, whether that be food, housing, education, or medical care, and that it is the proper role of government to use its power to make that happen.

Simply put: they don't. So it is not the proper purview of the government to provide healthcare for anyone other than uniformed employees who are putting their lives at risk in the service of that same government. Anything else is no more than theft.

In asking for an "alternative to Obamacare," you are asking a fundamentally invalid question.

It IS the job of the government to promote free and open competition. In the healthcare industry, the government has instead moved heaven and earth to destroy and obscure competition, which is what's led to our insane healthcare costs. THAT, we definitely have policies to address, and sad to say, the Republican elites won't even talk about the issue, which is but one reason why we're so glad to see them taking a shellacking.

No, please reread my post. I didn't say you haven't proposed ANY policies.

What I SAID was that you (Scragged) haven't offered a MEANINGFUL alternative to Obamacare...There's a difference.

Petrarch, you state: "You, like all liberals, are belaboring under the delusion that individuals "in need" have some moral authority to force other people to provide for their needs"

Normally I'd chalk your statement up to just another in a long line of delusional conservative mischaracterizations of liberal positions, but I don't believe for a second that you actually believe such nonsense.

No, Liberals believe that a civilized government in return for being granted the authority to collect taxes, has a responsibility to the public good, and an obligation to not allow large numbers of its citizens to routinely go unclothed, hungry, homeless, and suffer and die in the street from easily preventable and treatable illnesses.

But of course, only to a conservative, could the expectation that a government of, by and for the people to exhibit humanity and caring for the welfare of said people, be twisted into "the poor 'forcing' others to provide for their needs."

"So it is not the proper purview of the government to provide healthcare for anyone other than uniformed employees who are putting their lives at risk in the service of that same government. Anything else is no more than theft."

And here is where the rubber meets the road.

You see, conservatives believe the government HAS no moral responsibility for the well-being of its citizens, while Liberals do.

Conservatives believe the government should just ignore the suffering and misery of the very citizenry it collects taxes from, under threat of fine and imprisonment.

And while we're speaking of "delusions", it is a conservative delusion that their positions on such matters, amount to anything but a callous, uncaring, mean-spirited, cold-hearted, amoral disregard for the well-being of their fellow citizens.

If I'm being honest. ;)

"In asking for an "alternative to Obamacare," you are asking a fundamentally invalid question. It IS the job of the government to promote free and open competition."

Ha! If the conservatives weren't the biggest co-conspirators with big "healthcare" in limiting competition, and, enabling bad behavior of big business in general, you'd have a point. But we all know it's the reps/con(ervative)s who primarily enable the excesses of big business, and their insidious corruption of government. E.g. Citizens United v. FEC

So don't shed crocodile tears now, because a Democrat President finally decided to step in, and attempt to rectify the mess perpetuated and exacerbated by the "deregulation" mindset. Where was this "hue and cry" for competition before Obamacare? Huh?

It's obvious that the continued lack of competition in the health care system is wholly beneficial to the healthcare industry. Well, it is in fact YOUR guys who refuse to act on various CLEAN bills to revoke the antitrust exemption enjoyed by health insurance providers, that has significantly contributed to the perpetuation of the situation in which health care insurers enjoy virtual monopolies in various states.

But yet you want to tar Democrats alike with the same silly canard of being "anti-competition", and blame "government" in general for a mess perpetuated primarily by republicans/conservatives, and in the process, justify millions of citizens suffering the ill effects?

Yeah, no surprises here, as such a view perfectly aligns with the typical conservative tactic of causing government to become completely dysfunctional/ineffectual through obstinate obstruction, inaction, under-funding, and willful sabotage, and then point and say "See, told you government is incompetent/evil/insert other childish conservative falsehood".

Please.

As I said, the hypocrisy, and intellectual dishonesty from your side knows no bounds.

Tony, you said:

"an obligation to not allow large numbers of its citizens to routinely go unclothed, hungry, homeless, and suffer and die in the street from easily preventable and treatable illnesses"

1) When, specifically in the past 250 years of American history, were large numbers of people dying in the streets? There are more people under the poverty line now then when the Great Society began in the '60s. A hundred years ago, there weren't "hungry, homeless unclothed" groups wondering around. In fact, there are more today then there were the.

2) Your use of the word "not allow" is interesting. How does the government "not allow" three hundred million people to never be unclothed, hungry, homeless or suffer? You believe that creating social programs will guarantee the elimination of those things?

lfon,

1) When, specifically in the past 250 years of American history, were large numbers of people dying in the streets?

An article in the Harvard Gazette
(http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/),

cites a 2009 American Journal of Public Health study, which concluded that "Lack of health insurance is associated with at as many as 44789 deaths per year in the United States".
(http://www.pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-insurance-and-mortality-in-US-adults.pdf)

Now, my definition of "large numbers" is significantly smaller than 45000, but I think we can all agree that 45000 preventable deaths is a large number by any measure.

2) Your use of the word "not allow" is interesting. How does the government "not allow" three hundred million people to never be unclothed, hungry, homeless or suffer?

lfon, nice try, but you're taking my wording out of context. The actual quote is: "... to not allow large numbers of its citizens to routinely go unclothed, hungry, homeless, and suffer".

It would be absurd to expect the government to prevent each and every unfortunate circumstance or preventable death among it's people; it would be impossible. However, the government DOES has a moral obligation, to enact policies which TRY to prevent such needless suffering, deprivation and death from becoming a ROUTINE life experience for a large part of it's citizenry.

I believe that while creating social programs will not "guarantee" that "needless suffering, deprivation and death" won't occur, if properly designed, and funded, they will substantially decrease the instances of such occurrences.

Tony, I agree with your goals. Scragged has pointed out that Confucius, 500 years BC or so, said that government had an obligation to look out for the people. We all agree with that, the devil is in the details.

To name only one issue, consider that at the time the Great Society welfare system was put in place 50 years ago +/-, very few kids grew up in single-parent homes. A woman who wanted a home and children had to get a husband.

Now that all they need to get is pregnant to get a home, roughly 50% of our kids are growing up fatherless. We know that fatherlessness is associated with poverty, crime, and other societally disastrous outcomes. Fatherless welfare mobs burnt down Detroit and Baltimore, and shoot each other in Chicago.

Thomas Sowell points out that black families were making economic progress until affirmative action, then their progress stalled.

If governmetn programs actually helped people, I'd support them, but they hurt instead. If you doubt this, consider the Indians on reservations. They have been looked after by the governmetn for 150 years, and they have the worse instances of drunkenness, child abuse, domestic violence and unemployment of any group.

This is what Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, author of The Gulag Archipelago, meant when he warned Harvard graduates of:

"an atmosphere of moral mediocrity, paralyzing man's noblest impulses" and a "tilt of freedom in the direction of evil ... evidently born primarily out of a humanistic and benevolent concept according to which there is no evil inherent in human nature."

He also said, "In order for men to commit great evil, they must first be convinced that they are doing good."

Do you seriously believe that government programs actually benefit people?

Tony, one reason why I am glad to have you as a commenter, is how effective you are at highlighting the difference between conservatism and leftism.

You stated, "Liberals believe that a civilized government in return for being granted the authority to collect taxes, has a responsibility to the public good, and an obligation to not allow large numbers of its citizens to routinely go unclothed, hungry, homeless, and suffer and die in the street from easily preventable and treatable illnesses." And I think that's a reasonably accurate summation of the views of the left.

Here's the point: It is not the job of the government to provide for **individual** citizens. In fact, as the long sad history of welfare programs shows, government has absolutely no competency to do so.

What our Founders intended the government to do, was to promote the GENERAL welfare - that is, the OVERALL welfare of all citizens as a whole. And the best way to accomplish that is through the maximum possible freedom for each individual person to do the best that they can, subject to restrictions on causing harm to others of course. Read John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" for a fantastic explanation of this principle.

And here's another item of common ground: As you ought to know from reading Scragged articles for all these years, we are every bit as incensed at incestuous and corrupt crony capitalism as you are! We even plainly stated our agreement with Bernie Sanders that the big banks ought to be broken up. And we are every bit as ready to lambaste corrupt Republican greedmongers as their Democrat opposite numbers. Really, we don't believe there **are** two distinct parties anymore - there's the Party of Power, and then, there's everybody else. That's what we like about Donald Trump - to the extent that he's a wrecking ball, he'll mostly wreck the establishment of both parties, which desperately needs and deserves it.

"...government had an obligation to look out for the people. We all agree with that, the devil is in the details".

No, sorry, you don't.

It's like you said, the "devil's in the details"

SAYING that the "government has an obligation to look out for the people" and then defining that obligation in terms (details) that are inadequate, capricious, onerous, and burdensome to those "being looked after", is hollow, empty, and disingenuous.

Not to mention Petrarch's own words that "it is not the proper purview of the government to provide healthcare for anyone other than uniformed employees". So just how can the government actually look out for civilian peoples' health, without providing a reasonable means by which people can actually utilize to affordably access routine wellness and catastrophic medical care without incurring a lifetime of indebtedness?

"We know that fatherlessness is associated with poverty, crime, and other societally disastrous outcomes."

While certainly, SOME kids absolutely require the firm guidance (and belt) of the physically present father, I'd argue, that it's not actually the missing father presence per se' that leads to negative outcomes, but the missing income which prevents the mother from moving her kids to a more productive and safe environment conducive to thriving. If it was merely not having a male in the home, we'd find similar rates of outcomes among middle-class children of divorce in which the mother has sole custody.

"Fatherless welfare mobs burnt down Detroit and Baltimore, and shoot each other in Chicago."

Pfffftttt! Don't talk to me about riots.

What about the "Fatherless welfare mobs" who participated in the following riots:
1. 2014 - Keene, New Hampshire: Pumpkin Festival
2. 2014 - Morgantown, West Virginia: WVU Mountaineers upset Baylor in football game
3. 2012 - San Fransisco: San Francisco Giants Win World Series
4. 2011 - Vancouver: Vancouver Canucks Lose to the Boston Bruins for the Stanley Cup
5. 2011 - State College, Pa.: Students riot after firing of football coach, and pedofile-enabler, Joe Paterno.
6.-Ad infinitum

Oh that's right...They were stupid, drunken, mobs of "privileged morons" who presumably, are from mostly two-parent homes?

So tell me again. What deficiency in familial structure is at the root of rioting?

Riots by stupid, drunken, mobs of "privileged morons" are a virtual certainty from one year to the next, whereas riots by "Fatherless welfare mobs" are a rare event that occurs under extraordinary circumstances. Based on the incidence of wanton murder and mayhem perpetrated on a daily basis by cops in such communities, the fact that such riots don't happen more frequently, evidences an amazing amount of restraint in said communities.

Sorry, for purposes of any discussion in which I am a participant, Thomas Sowell's utterings are unworthy of serious consideration or comment.

"If government programs actually helped people, I'd support them, but they hurt instead. If you doubt this, consider the Indians on reservations."

So in your mind, it wasn't the U.S. government's policy of dispossessing the Native American's of their land, culture and pride as a people huh? No, it was the pathetic, insincere, woefully inadequate, band-aid, afterthought attempts at assuaging guilt, that are the problem huh?

Uh, riiiiiiiiiight.

So given your belief that government programs "only hurt instead", exactly what is YOUR solution? For government to just "throw up it's hands"?

What?

No sorry, I completely disagree with your interpretation of Solzhenitsyn words. To equate government programs with "evil" is quite honestly, absurd.

"Do you seriously believe that government programs actually benefit people?"

Do YOU seriously believe that Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare, have NOT?

Tony? Why are you looking to government for a solution, when it was government meddling that created the mess in the first place?

Can you not notice a pattern? Government notices a problem, so it creates a department to solve it. The problem then becomes worse. Government then rails against the problem, and adds layers of regulation and nonsense. Problem worsens.

If you had even a slightly cynical eye, you would understand that this is deliberate, in order to ensure a permanently growing government involved in all things.

There is *no* silver lining to -bamacare. Its purpose was, and is, to destroy what's left of the private insurance market. It was designed to make a mess in order to usher in the white knights of government to save us all from the chaos.

Ha!

Petrarch, thank you for the kind words...I have sorely missed this, but already, I can see it starting to take up an inordinate amount of my time...sigh.

"...In fact, as the long sad history of welfare programs shows, government has absolutely no competency to do so."

See my previous comments on the cynicism and intellectual dishonesty of conservatives intentionally undermining and inadequately funding programs to set them up for failure as "evidence" of "government incompetency".

Your's is a perfect example and a "twofer". Cons/reps (Nate) are fond of citing the "problem" of "fatherless homes", and the "failure of welfare" yet never do they mention the fact that it was the conservatives who insisted on the "No man in the household rule" as a prerequisite for receiving welfare benefits. And by "failure of welfare" I presume your referring to the stubborn rates of poverty, right? And just exactly how is a person supposed to lift themselves out of poverty on benefits which are equivalent to below poverty-level wages?

"What our Founders intended the government to do, was to promote the GENERAL welfare - that is, the OVERALL welfare of all citizens as a whole"

Ok, again, you're certainly entitled to your opinion of what the Founding Fathers intended with regards to this particular point, but I think it odd that you feel there is a conflict, no, better yet, that promoting "the OVERALL welfare of all citizens as a whole" and promoting the welfare of its individual citizens are mutually exclusive.

I mean, what IS the citizenry, but a collection of individual citizens?

"And the best way to accomplish that is through the maximum possible freedom for each individual person to do the best that they can, subject to restrictions on causing harm to others of course."

Ok, and? Subject to our respective definition of exactly what constitutes "causing harm to others", what have I (or Liberals in general) said that you feel is in conflict or disagreement with that statement?

"We are every bit as incensed at incestuous and corrupt crony capitalism as you are! ...And we are every bit as ready to lambaste corrupt Republican greedmongers as their Democrat opposite numbers."

Sorry, but how am I to take the above statement seriously, or as anything but empty rhetoric, when I have yet to see a single article critical of Trump's shenanigans?

Trump's Veterans' "charity" donations only disbursed after the fact of their non-disbursal is made public months later?

Scragged? Silence.

TrumpU bilking "students" out of their hard-earned dollars for bogus courses?

Scragged? Crickets.

I could easily go on.

"Really, we don't believe there **are** two distinct parties anymore"

Again, I see this as more rhetoric. You don't believe there two distinct parties, yet somehow, you always manage to support the same party, time after time. With Scragg's tacit support of Trump being the latest and most blatant example of the insincerity of such statements.

Lastly, I believe this "pox on both their houses", in addition to being empty rhetoric, is also a blatant and obvious false equivalency.

How can you accuse Democrats of being "anti-business" ("stifling business through overregulation",etc.) AND "crony captitalism", when the two charges are diametrically opposed? It makes no sense whatsoever.

To anyone even vaguely aware of the party differences, it's obvious that "crony capitalism" is primarily a republican vice...It ain't even close.

And if Scragged can't bring itself to even acknowledge that obvious and simple fact, then its statements on the topic are not credible.

Yes Brother?

"Why are you looking to government for a solution, when it was government meddling that created the mess in the first place?"

Well first of all, it's kinda silly to say/suggest that ALL government solutions are for problems it itself has created. In my mind, such a mindset goes beyond simple cynicism, and borders on fanaticism.

Secondly and quite simply, some problems are too big, and their solutions don't lend themselves to making a profit.

"Can you not notice a pattern? Government notices a problem, so it creates a department to solve it. The problem then becomes worse."

Sigh...

"If you had even a slightly cynical eye, you would understand that this is deliberate"

Ha! I'm actually quite cynical. See my previous comments with regards to conservatism and their motives. :)

"There is *no* silver lining...Its purpose was, and is, to destroy what's left of the private insurance market."

Putting side the hyperbole of such a charge, do YOU actually think the private insurance market as it's currently constituted is a GOOD thing? Even Petrarch has suggested in effect that it's an example of "crony capitalism", in which competition has been "destroyed and obscured", resulting in "our insane healthcare costs"

You're criticizing something that would "destroy" THAT?

Sounds like a severe case of Stockholm Syndrome.

Hey Petrarch, After re-reading my response, I believe that the "tone" may not have come across as I intended, and want to clarify and expand.

If it didn't come across, I am appreciative of the general quality and "tone" of our discourse here. All one has to do is read the comments section on the various articles over at Yahoo, to appreciate the generally polite and intelligent exchanges that occur over here at Scragged. Which is why it becomes "addictive" to comment here. :)

In my previous response, having gotten up to "full battle mode", I believe that even though for myself, I was in a genial mood, my words may have conveyed a stridency in response to what I now see as the more "conciliatory" tone of your last post.

So, I just want to add and acknowledge that I do in fact see areas of "common ground" in these pages on some issues, as I have previously commented. And while our views of the extent to which Scragged, challenges "crony captitalism" and the like differ, I do acknowledge that Scragged does at LEAST challenge the conservative orthodoxy occasionally.

But Bernie Sanders, you guys ain't. :)

Best,
Tony

Tony, how in the WORLD can you say that crony capitalism is primarily a Republican problem? Nancy Pelosi arranged for her husband to get very lucrative contracts selling no longer needed Post Office buildings on prime downtown real estate. I have a friend whose law firm bought one a while back.

The WaPo says that the Clinton Foundation has collected $3 billion in bribes! and Hillary is the upcoming head of the Democrat party. What did she do for Goldman Sachs in return for $675,000? What did she do for Wal-Mart?

Mr. Obama has created his own charitable foundation!

Tell me again that it's solely a Republican problem. We hope "Wrecking Ball" Trump will take down both establishments.

You yourself cited riots that were not in the ghettos. That demolishes your argument that moving poor people to better neighborhoods would solve the problem. It's been tried several times. The crime moves with the people and the "better" neighborhoods go down.

Nate, I'll make this quick, because frankly it's not going to require much to respond.

First of all, I'm not going to continue to respond to stupid Breitbart/Limbaugh/Fox News attacks and right-ring nonsense.

The WaPo article did NOT once use the word "bribe". That was YOUR characterization, and I have no patience for the spewing of such nonsense as if it were fact.

Still not clear?

How about:

Various news organizations said Cheney steered the U.S. into the Iraq war, in order for his company Haliburton, to receive a 40 billion dollar payday from the U.S. government.

Understand?

If you can't argue facts, then at least argue opinion BASED on facts.

Last I checked, speaking fees are legal, and to suggest that one can't give paid speeches unless as part of some "nefarious" transaction, is tin-foil hat conspiracy territory.

"Tony, how in the WORLD can you say that crony capitalism is primarily a Republican problem? "

It's simple. Republicans are the lackeys of big business, while Democrats are accused of being "anti-business" right? So based on simple logic, and common sense, who is going to be more likely to conspire with big business and do their bidding?

Go ahead, I'll wait.

Now, is it ONLY 100% republicans? Of course not. Hence the qualifier "primarily".

"You yourself cited riots that were not in the ghettos. That demolishes your argument that moving poor people to better neighborhoods would solve the problem"

::: facepalm :::

Sorry, I thought the simple point I was making was clear.

The riots I enumerated where "white" riots.

The point being that if "Fatherlessness" was the root cause of Boston and Ferguson rioting, why do so many suburban and college whites riot on such a regular basis?

By the way, even if you had not mentioned Trump at all, based on your posts, it would have been obvious you're a Trump supporter. :)

Tony, once again, I must thank you for inspiring another article. I was composing a response to your post about crony capitalism - then realized it would be much too long and deserved a more detailed exploration. So I'd like to set aside that aspect of the debate until next week.

But by all means, continue with the other issues at hand! I have one specific question for you concerning the rioting: do you, in general, agree that there has been a degradation of society, social cohesion, and general peace over the last 50 years or so? Regardless of the potential reasons why, do you feel that this observation is true, or is an illusion?

Anytime Petrarch.

I can certainly sympathize. I sometimes find myself spending more time editing for length than composing the actual post.

"do you, in general, agree that there has been a degradation of society, social cohesion, and general peace over the last 50 years or so?"

You know, that is a GREAT question!

Without giving it a LOT of in-depth thought, and without any sort of historical analysis and comparison, on it's face, the answer APPEARS to be yes.

However, depending on where you're going with this, and allowing for the benefit of actual in-depth analysis at some point, I reserve the right to change/amend my answer in the future.

The national degradation I mentioned seems crystal clear to us, which was one of the founding reasons for Scragged and a major impetus to our book.

So if America was "better" in some abstract way in (say) 1940 - or better yet the early 1900s at the beginning of the Progressive Era - then it's simple logic to try to examine the ways in which we've changed since then.

Some of them seem to be almost indisputably good. I can't imagine that America would be a better and more moral nation if we still had Jim Crow.

And some of them seem to be almost indisputably bad. Regardless of your opinion on the immediate effects, nobody could argue that the overwhelming prevalence of divorce and broken families is a Good Thing.

The problem with the Left in general is that they identify problems - in many cases, legitimate problems that really do need to be addressed. But their solutions are almost always either completely new and untried approaches, or, more commonly, ideas which have already been tested to destruction elsewhere. I don't think I've ever seen a leftist say, "OK, this is bad, and it used to be better - we need to think about what we've changed for the worse."

You could argue that this is the definition of conservatism. But it's also simple logic, unless you truly believe that "progress" is an irresistible one-way street that forces things to get better all the time. We quite flatly don't - we view mankind as fallen and foolish, making mistakes more frequently than wise choices, and that progress must always be a "one step forward, two steps backward" proposition.

Sorry, work/life intruded. ;)

Well see, I don't accept your proposition that "America [as a whole] was 'better'", because Jim Crow is precisely one of the reasons one could forcefully argue that America actually WASN'T better back then.

"The problem with the Left in general is that...their solutions...have already been tested to destruction elsewhere."

Ha ha, I have to say I was quite amused by this statement.

Tell me, which side for the last 30 years, has insisted that "Supply-side economics" ("trickle down) is America's "economic salvation", and yet, every time its components are implemented, either deficits balloon, a recession/depression ensues, or both?

"Trickle down" has been shown to be a complete and utter failure, yet cons continue to insist that lowering taxes on businesses and the affluent, is the way to prosperity.

Now, you say that the "left's ideas have already been tested to destruction elsewhere, but interestingly, when one looks at the 20 or so BEST economies in the world by any measure, the majority of them to varying degrees have implemented "leftist" ideas such as universal healthcare, paid family leave, free/heavily subsidized college education, etc..

"I don't think I've ever seen a leftist say, "OK, this is bad, and it used to be better - we need to think about what we've changed for the worse."

Probably because no such situation actually exists. Please provide an example of a LIBERAL solution to a "leftist-identified" problem, that actually and provably made the SPECIFIC problem worse.

There is a difference between worsening a problem, and not fully alleviating the problem. Which is why Liberals constantly reevaluate results and try to tinker, adjust, and modify their solutions to improve outcomes.

"You could argue that this is the definition of conservatism."

You could, but it would be a fallacious argument. Please see "trickle down" example.

No, conservatives on their own, do not actually identify problems, because they are primarily only concerned with a handful of issues; lowering taxes for corporations and the affluent; reducing regulations; reducing social spending; maximizing income of corporations and the affluent; gaining and keeping power. The only time they concern themselves with "quality-of-life" issues directly affecting the average individual, it's generally under one or more of the following contexts:

1. As an opportunity to criticize or demagogue the issue and/or proposed solution for political gain.
2. As an opportunity to enrich their business cronies.
4. As an opportunity to damage perceived Liberal constituencies/beneficiaries.
3. As an attempt to dismantle/undo the proposed/implemented solution while taking no action of their own to meaningfully address the identified problem.

With the possible exception of abortion, take any social "problem" or issue conservatives have seized upon, and their actions will fit into the contexts I outlined above. And depending on the affected constituency, frequently the preferred option is to either do nothing, and leave the affected to their own devices, or actively work to make the situation worse.

"...we view mankind as fallen and foolish, making mistakes more frequently than wise choices, and that progress must always be a "one step forward, two steps backward" proposition."

Yeah right.

All the above is, is a poor rationalization to justify a conservative philosophy that at its core, is morally absolutist, and punitive to the "fallen and foolish, who make mistakes more frequently than wise choices". A philosophy that is indifferent and unsympathetic to the human misery and suffering that results from the implementation of it's policies.

Yes progress is indeed one of fits and starts, and setbacks. But the difference between the Liberal and conservative ideas of "progress" is that for Liberals, such "setbacks" and "steps backwards" are "unintended", whereas for conservatives, they are by design.

Oh, Tony. You persist in conflating "Conservatives" with "Republicans." This has never been precisely true, and is getting less true with each passing day.

Economics is not the sort of subject that can be effectively addressed in a comment. Suffice to say that I see no purpose in lowering taxes for the superrich. I'm not even sure that's possible - it seems that they pay basically no taxes anyway because of their ability to manipulate corporate structures, international regulations, the law, and of course politicians. I don't think this can really be got round.

But there can be no doubt that lowering the taxes of normal people, who need to spend the money, does indeed improve the economy. I'd be well content to leave the topmost and luxury bracket exactly as it is, and halve the taxes of everyone else.

Petrarch, I couldn't agree more with your saying:

"You persist in conflating "Conservatives" with "Republicans." This has never been precisely true, and is getting less true with each passing day"

The irony of you saying this is amusing. Indeed, "Republican" elected a man like Trump who has never been confused with conservatism.

Oh Petrarch.

I'm surprised you'd avoid the points of my post, by employing such a flimsy dodge.

Disappointing to say the least.

I believe you know full well, my point wasn't about economics and lowering taxes.

My post was precisely to your point that there are distinct differences between the way Liberals and Conservatives both identify issues, and the solutions they put forth to solve them.

Yet, rather than directly respond to what I think are well articulated and argued counterpoints, you've decided blow off the debate, instead, choosing to hide behind what is, for the purposes of debates here, is a purely farcical excuse.

I'm a Liberal, but I can be tied to Democrat positions/policies, but you can't be to republican?

It's absurd.

While all republicans are not conservatives, from the standpoint of political party and policy support, and for all all intents and purposes, all conservatives are republicans.

Excepting the occasional "blue-moon quibble", there IS NO daylight between republican positions and the positions taken by Scragged on the topic of the day.

Hell, you even support Trump, who is as much a conservative as *I* am.

It blows my mind.

What has happened to you?

In the future, I will think long and hard before I put the time into formulating and crafting a serious response to what I read here.

Have a good day.