Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Research the relationship between the Reagan administration and Iran before the 1980 election.
You obviously weren't around or you would know how stupid that statement is. Tip O'neil opposed everything Reagan tried to do. The Democrats like to call him a bi-partisan because they want to share in Reagan's accomplishments but O'neil was an obstructionist. He had a temper tantrum on the House floor when Reagan got his tax cuts passed. He supported every Soviet position on arms control talks and his word wasn't worth shit (nor was he).Actually, he DID do it all by himself. I don't know if you were around then, or paying attention if you were, but the Democrats fought Reagan at every turn. His popularity and effectiveness made the liberals crazy, and their efforts to make him fail drove them to do some very unpatriotic things (like side with the Soviets in arms negotiations). I love how the Dems now try to claim that the defeat of the Soviet empire was a bi-partisan effort. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Actually, that's a lie. Tip O'Neil and Reagan worked together because they weren't obstructive imbeciles and cared about the country.
Reagan is simply one of the most over-rated Presidents ever.
One could make the argument that Ronald Reagan is the most under-rated President.
History will tell.
I wonder if Bripat realizes that 'Everyone deserves what YOU worked hard for' is actually a slam on Obama?
It is genuinely fascinating how Mr. Reagan, using only common sense and logic (one presumes, at least, that he was not a prophet in the true sense, and delivering directives straight from the Almighty, although I could be wrong about that), so accurately predicted what came to pass in our country.
Reagan, the guy who predicted that if Medicare passed the government would tell doctors which city they had to live in? Prophetic! And mildly insane.
Leftists today are so busy framing the arguments as though the current state of things has ALWAYS pertained that most people forget that there was once an argument about implementing the programs the left takes for granted now as the basis for the NEW programs they want.
There you go again! Reagan himself maintained that in the early 1960s he was "not opposing the principle of providing care for [senior citizens]" but rather preferred the design of Kerr-Mills to Forand. Either way he supported a program of federal financing of care for the elderly; or so he claimed later.
So in fact there was, in Reagan's telling, a wide consensus in the early 1960s that the federal government needed to step in and help out in getting care to the elderly. The argument was about the program's design, not whether or not there should be a program.
Traditionally, one of the easiest first steps in imposing socialism on a people has been government-paid medicine. It is the easiest to present as a humanitarian project. No one wants to oppose care for the sick.
You know Reagan's administration is the one that decided Medicare would no longer pay what providers billed but would in fact become a price-setter and tell providers how much services were going to be worth, right?
Why? Well, ex-Congressman (Aime) Forand provides the answer. He says, If we can only break through and get our foot in the door, then we can expand the program after that.
As we know now, that's exactly what happened.
That happened? When was Medicare expanded?
It is genuinely fascinating how Mr. Reagan, using only common sense and logic (one presumes, at least, that he was not a prophet in the true sense, and delivering directives straight from the Almighty, although I could be wrong about that), so accurately predicted what came to pass in our country.
Reagan, the guy who predicted that if Medicare passed the government would tell doctors which city they had to live in? Prophetic! And mildly insane.
There you go again! Reagan himself maintained that in the early 1960s he was "not opposing the principle of providing care for [senior citizens]" but rather preferred the design of Kerr-Mills to Forand. Either way he supported a program of federal financing of care for the elderly; or so he claimed later.
So in fact there was, in Reagan's telling, a wide consensus in the early 1960s that the federal government needed to step in and help out in getting care to the elderly. The argument was about the program's design, not whether or not there should be a program.
You know Reagan's administration is the one that decided Medicare would no longer pay what providers billed but would in fact become a price-setter and tell providers how much services were going to be worth, right?
Why? Well, ex-Congressman (Aime) Forand provides the answer. He says, If we can only break through and get our foot in the door, then we can expand the program after that.
As we know now, that's exactly what happened.
That happened? When was Medicare expanded?
Sometimes, it's really hard to tell when leftists are being deliberately obtuse to annoy us, and when they really are that damned oblivious.
You obviously weren't around or you would know how stupid that statement is. Tip O'neil opposed everything Reagan tried to do. The Democrats like to call him a bi-partisan because they want to share in Reagan's accomplishments but O'neil was an obstructionist. He had a temper tantrum on the House floor when Reagan got his tax cuts passed. He supported every Soviet position on arms control talks and his word wasn't worth shit (nor was he).Actually, he DID do it all by himself. I don't know if you were around then, or paying attention if you were, but the Democrats fought Reagan at every turn. His popularity and effectiveness made the liberals crazy, and their efforts to make him fail drove them to do some very unpatriotic things (like side with the Soviets in arms negotiations). I love how the Dems now try to claim that the defeat of the Soviet empire was a bi-partisan effort. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Actually, that's a lie. Tip O'Neil and Reagan worked together because they weren't obstructive imbeciles and cared about the country.
Reagan is simply one of the most over-rated Presidents ever.
One could make the argument that Ronald Reagan is the most under-rated President.
History will tell.
Reagan, the guy who predicted that if Medicare passed the government would tell doctors which city they had to live in? Prophetic! And mildly insane.
There you go again! Reagan himself maintained that in the early 1960s he was "not opposing the principle of providing care for [senior citizens]" but rather preferred the design of Kerr-Mills to Forand. Either way he supported a program of federal financing of care for the elderly; or so he claimed later.
So in fact there was, in Reagan's telling, a wide consensus in the early 1960s that the federal government needed to step in and help out in getting care to the elderly. The argument was about the program's design, not whether or not there should be a program.
You know Reagan's administration is the one that decided Medicare would no longer pay what providers billed but would in fact become a price-setter and tell providers how much services were going to be worth, right?
That happened? When was Medicare expanded?
Sometimes, it's really hard to tell when leftists are being deliberately obtuse to annoy us, and when they really are that damned oblivious.
Let me recap for you:
1) Reagan's shrill warnings in the 1960s were wrong and, in some instances, borderline insane.
2) When Medicare proved overwhelmingly popular and Reagan decided he wanted a future in politics, he backtracked in the late 1970s. He was always for Medicare, there was never any debate about whether it should exist, just a nitpick here and there about program design. It'll be interesting in a decade or so to see how his intellectual descendants try to manage this sleight of hand with Obamacare.
3) To Reagan's credit, his administration improved Medicare's hospital payment system drastically in the early 1980s by "Sovietizing" its design, which for obvious reasons is amusing and ironic.
He's an interesting character, I'll give you that. Prophet? Not even close.
Reagan is simply one of the most over-rated Presidents ever.
One could make the argument that Ronald Reagan is the most under-rated President.
History will tell.
Well history is telling.
Historians have rated the Reagan presidency for some years now. The last rating of 238 noted historians and presidential experts rated Reagan 18th, of the 43 presidents. Twenty- one or two would be perfectly average presidents. These ratings do change as new expresidents are added or as new history emerges, but they usually don't change by much, for example in the previous ratings Reagan was in 16th position so he dropped by two presidents. Obama, still in his first term was rated in the 15th position ahead of Reagan, that will change of course when Obama finishes his second term.
Bush was rated as the 5th worst president. Harding still held his lock on worst president. FDR always in the top three held on to his rating as best American president since 1982.
You obviously weren't around or you would know how stupid that statement is. Tip O'neil opposed everything Reagan tried to do. The Democrats like to call him a bi-partisan because they want to share in Reagan's accomplishments but O'neil was an obstructionist. He had a temper tantrum on the House floor when Reagan got his tax cuts passed. He supported every Soviet position on arms control talks and his word wasn't worth shit (nor was he).Actually, he DID do it all by himself. I don't know if you were around then, or paying attention if you were, but the Democrats fought Reagan at every turn. His popularity and effectiveness made the liberals crazy, and their efforts to make him fail drove them to do some very unpatriotic things (like side with the Soviets in arms negotiations). I love how the Dems now try to claim that the defeat of the Soviet empire was a bi-partisan effort. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Actually, that's a lie. Tip O'Neil and Reagan worked together because they weren't obstructive imbeciles and cared about the country.
One could make the argument that Ronald Reagan is the most under-rated President.
History will tell.
Well history is telling.
Historians have rated the Reagan presidency for some years now. The last rating of 238 noted historians and presidential experts rated Reagan 18th, of the 43 presidents. Twenty- one or two would be perfectly average presidents. These ratings do change as new expresidents are added or as new history emerges, but they usually don't change by much, for example in the previous ratings Reagan was in 16th position so he dropped by two presidents. Obama, still in his first term was rated in the 15th position ahead of Reagan, that will change of course when Obama finishes his second term.
Bush was rated as the 5th worst president. Harding still held his lock on worst president. FDR always in the top three held on to his rating as best American president since 1982.
"Blah-blah-blah-number of historians have said THIS. Yak-yak-yak-number of historians said THAT. Which historians? Where did I get this information from? Why would you want to know THAT? I said it, so you just take it as gospel, right?"
Call me when your post contains the words of someone intelligent, believable, and interesting . . . in other words, someone besides you.
Your opinion, asserted with no substantiation. Ooh, yes, let me get RIGHT on ignoring everything I posted to believe YOU!
But let’s also look from the other side. The freedom the doctor uses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms, it’s like telling a lie. One leads to another. First you decide the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government, but then the doctors are equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him he can’t live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go some place else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.
MR. REAGAN: When I opposed Medicare, there was another piece of legislation meeting the same problem before the Congress. I happened to favor the other piece of legislation and thought that it would be better for the senior citizens and provide better care than the one that was finally passed. I was not opposing the principle of providing care for them. I was opposing one piece of legislation versus another.
LAWMAKERS CHALLENGE PLANNED MEDICARE SHIFT
By ROBERT PEAR, Special to the New York Times
Published: November 23, 1982
WASHINGTON, Nov. 22— Members of Congress made it clear today that they wanted to make substantial changes in the Reagan Administration's proposal to pay hospitals a set fee for treating all Medicare patients who have the same ailment.
The lawmakers, members of the health subcommittee of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, praised the Administration for its step toward controlling hospital costs, but criticized the proposal as inflexible and perhaps inequitable. The proposal received public scrutiny for the first time at a hearing of the committee.
Carolyne K. Davis, head of the Federal Health Care Financing Administration [Reagan's Medicare chief], said the Government was justified in setting Medicare payment levels because it wanted to be a ''prudent buyer'' and had a legal responsibility for the hospital insurance trust fund, from which Medicare pays hospitals. She said there was no such justification for the Federal Government to audit and regulate spending by private insurers at this time.
Under the Administration proposal, hospitals could not bill patients for the difference between their normal charges and the standard Medicare payments. Jack Owen, executive vice president of the American Hospital Association, said hospitals should have ''the option'' to do so.
that's funny... cesspit ranting and raving and complaining that history isn't revisionist the way she wants it to be.
Well history is telling.
Historians have rated the Reagan presidency for some years now. The last rating of 238 noted historians and presidential experts rated Reagan 18th, of the 43 presidents. Twenty- one or two would be perfectly average presidents. These ratings do change as new expresidents are added or as new history emerges, but they usually don't change by much, for example in the previous ratings Reagan was in 16th position so he dropped by two presidents. Obama, still in his first term was rated in the 15th position ahead of Reagan, that will change of course when Obama finishes his second term.
Bush was rated as the 5th worst president. Harding still held his lock on worst president. FDR always in the top three held on to his rating as best American president since 1982.
"Blah-blah-blah-number of historians have said THIS. Yak-yak-yak-number of historians said THAT. Which historians? Where did I get this information from? Why would you want to know THAT? I said it, so you just take it as gospel, right?"
Call me when your post contains the words of someone intelligent, believable, and interesting . . . in other words, someone besides you.
What should I call you? Actually I don't do that name calling bit, I rely more on history and historians.
These historians were polled by the Siena Reseach Institute. But there have been a number of other polling of historians to rate the presidents. The first was the Schlesinger poll in 1948. This last poll used twenty criteria of presidential characteristics and rated the presidents on each.
What hurt the most, the Obama rating or the Reagan rating?
