home

Rudy Was For "Socialized Medicine" Before He Was Against It

Rudy on universal health care:

Former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani pulled out the S-word to criticize universal-health-care plans advocated by Democratic presidential candidates. The Republican hopeful said in a visit to Raleigh, N.C., that Democrats who urged "mandatory" universal health care at a debate Thursday night were "moving toward socialized medicine so fast, it'll make your head spin," according to the Associated Press.

As always, Rudy was for "socialized medicine" before he was against it:

The date is the mid-1990s, and Republicans have swept Congress with their Contract with America. A top promise is greater fiscal responsibility, and a crucial element of that is a vow to pass a line-item veto and give the president the power to weed out pork. In 1996 Republicans are as good as their word, and grant the opposition's Bill Clinton a broad new power to strip wasteful spending.

Mr. Clinton is enthusiastic, and in August 1997 uses his tool for the first time to strike down a special-interest provision tucked in a bill. That provision gives New York hospitals a unique right to bilk extra Medicaid money, and the veto is expected to save federal taxpayers at least $200 million. Quicker than a Big Apple pol can say "pork," New York officials sue, challenging the line item veto's constitutionality. That suit, Clinton v. City of New York, goes all the way to the Supremes, which in 1998 put the kibosh on veto authority.

The kicker? The guy who brought the suit and won--or, rather, the guy who helped stall one of the more powerful tools for reining in government spending--was none other than former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

. . .For decades New York had taken advantage of a special program that allowed it alone to reap extra federal Medicaid dollars. The city's broken health system was dependent on this booty, and its loss would have required painful change. Mr. Giuliani instead sued, portraying the issue as us-against-them. When he won, his press release declared it a "great victory" for "the people of the city, the state and the constitution of the U.S." No mention of the other Americans who got to float NYC's bills.

Rudy is setting flipflopping records every day. He will become the Joe DiMaggio of flipflopping in no itme. His record will be unbreakable.

< Michael Wolff in Vanity Fair: "Crazy for Rudy" | What The American People Are Sick Of: The Iraq Debacle >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    "Socialized", a term (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 07:39:03 PM EST
    Guliani never breathed publicly before he became a psuedo-contender, is Right-Speak for the kind of welfare "that we're forced to pay" that dosnt immediatly benefit the major contributers.

    I knew there was logic to Saint Rudy's (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by walt on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 08:01:10 PM EST
    lawsuit, so long ago in the Clinton era.  Let's see: taxing every person in the USA to pay for public health care in New York City is both required & good governmental policy.

    But in the Bu$hKorp era, taxing every person in the USA to pay for public health care in the USA is bad governmental policy & is, or resembles, or looks like "moving toward socialized medicine so fast, it'll make your head spin."

    Yup, heads 'a-spinning, Rudy.  How 'bout this one instead, former Prince of Gotham: taxing every person in New York City to pay for public health in the USA is both required & good governmental policy?

    By the way, we already have socialized medicine; we all pay for it, but only some folks get the benefit of it.  "Free" health services go to the Armed Forces members, some aspects of their family care & some aspects of the retirees.  Almost "free" healthcare goes to senior citizens, those defined as disabled & the "assigned" poor folks.  Almost all prisoners get free medical services.

    What a national joke.  Let's have another glass of the anti-commie, anti-socialist kewlade.  Or maybe it's just some form of healthcare libertarianism that eludes my understanding.

    Not the same thing. (3.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Gabriel Malor on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 03:27:35 PM EST
    Universal health care is not the same thing as Medicaid, BTD. A person can be against forcing the entire populace to use a public health care system and still approve of providing medical access for the poor. The two are not mutually exclusive.

    BS (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 03:31:03 PM EST
    Gabe that does not even make sense.

    BTW, does this mean you and Rudy are against Medicare?

    Parent

    Universal Healthcare =/= Medicaid. (1.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Gabriel Malor on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 03:42:02 PM EST
    BTD, you claim that because Giuliani is opposed to universal healthcare he must also be opposed to Medicaid. You claim that his present opposition to universal healthcare is a "flip-flop" from his mid-1990s support for New York getting federal Medicaid money.

    That is simply untrue. Medicaid is not the same thing as universal healthcare. Medicaid provides medical access for the poor. Universal healthcare would force everyone to use public-administered healthcare. Do you see the difference? A person can reasonably support providing medical care for poor people and simultaneously forcing the entire population of the United States to use public health.

    The mark of intelligence is the ability to make reasonable distinctions, BTD. Universal healthcare is not the same thing as Medicaid. A person can easily support the latter without supporting the former. No contradiction is involved.

    Incidentally, as a leader in New York, he may have been seeking federal Medicaid funds for reasons other than personal support of that program. But we'll set aside this possibility, for now, as it's irrelevant to the fact that a person can be against universal healthcare and still want to provide medical assistance for poor people.

    Parent

    Gabe (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Peaches on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 03:53:17 PM EST
    Although I agree with your distinction between Universal Health Care and Medicaid, your statement that "Universal healthcare would force everyone to use public-administered healthcare is not accurate. Universal Health Care would provide everyone with some measure of health care coverage. It would not force everyone to use public administered health care. If anyone wants more than what is provided by public-administered health care, I am not aware of anyone suggesting that they could not pay for private services.

    I sometimes get all the suggestions for a national health plan mixed-up though. I am in favor of a single payer health insurance coverage where everyone pays into one pool and the risk of poor health is spread through-out the population. Of course, anyone who wishes and can afford to could pay for greater health coverage form a private health insurance provider. Coverage would be for a minimal level of service that could be privately or publicly provided, theoretically. Perhaps, there are nuances in Universal coverage I am unaware of, but I don't see that universal coverage has to mandate that everyone can only use the publicly-administered plan. I always assumed that what we are talking about is a minimal level of protection, coverage and/or health care with a greater emphasis upon preventative care.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 04:02:38 PM EST
    But without the rhetoric of being forced it makes his argument against UHC silly. File that under convient omission strategy.

    Parent
    Indeed. (3.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Gabriel Malor on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 04:03:53 PM EST
    You're right, Peaches. I shouldn't have said:

    Universal healthcare would force everyone to use public-administered healthcare.

    What I really should have said is:

    Universal healthcare would force everyone to pay for public-administered healthcare, whether they use it or not.


    Parent
    The Same as (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 04:12:05 PM EST
    Taxpayers being forced to pay for the scam war?

    Parent
    Yup (none / 0) (#11)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 05:17:41 PM EST
    And the scam war on poverty.

    Parent
    Don't forget.... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 05:54:34 PM EST
    scam war on drugs, and scam war on crime.

    Scams, scams, everywhere are scams.

    Parent

    Everyone pays for Medicaid Gabe (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 06:44:45 PM EST
    So your entire argument was BS as I stated in the beginning.

    Bad show. You are better than this.

    Parent

    Gabe (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 04:14:27 PM EST
    IF universal health care is socialism, then Medicaid and Medicare are too.

    You're not making any sense at all.

    I leave you to your strange logic.

    Parent

    Typo (1.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Gabriel Malor on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 03:52:19 PM EST
    That should read:

    A person can reasonably support providing medical care for poor people and simultaneously opose forcing the entire population of the United States to use public health.

    Parent

    Nonsequitor (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 04:15:17 PM EST
    Since this describes nothing proposed.

    You are being rather foolish here imo.

    Parent

    I'm having trouble following your argument... (2.66 / 3) (#12)
    by cal11 voter on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 05:39:47 PM EST
    that Rudy was for socialized medicine before.  Are you saying that attempting to secure federal medicaid dollars for your city's hospitals equals expressing a belief in socialized medicine?

    Um (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 06:43:11 PM EST
    Yes. What part of that did you not understand?

    BTW, "socialized medicine" is what Rudy called it, not me.

    Honestly, is there something in the TL water today?

    You are not seriously missing this are you?

    Or do you think universal health coverage means you must be in the public program too?

    Sheesh.

    Parent

    It all depends on how universal... (1.00 / 1) (#16)
    by cal11 voter on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 07:31:21 PM EST
    healthcare is structured.  Single-payer?  Mass. style?  Edwards style?  Something else?

    I don't know what Rudy meant when he said socialized medicine.  But I would never say that simply trying to secure receipt of medicaid dollars for your city's hospitals constitutes a belief in socialized medicine.   Nor would I say that a system such as the Mass. style is socialized medicine.  Neither would Romney.  But, like I said, I am not sure what you were saying.  Maybe it's just me...

    Parent

    The ignore this post (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 08:58:10 PM EST
    You seem to be the only one.

    And I have no patience for ingenues today.

    Parent

    another BTD thread arriving DOA and watching him squirm like a worm on a hook, or the almost daily reminder of what a pile of lameosity the candidate the Dems ran last time for Pres was and continues to be.

    A reflection on you (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 01, 2007 at 12:05:47 PM EST
    no doubt.

    Go Rudy eh?

    Heh.

    Parent

    Go anyone except (none / 0) (#22)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 01, 2007 at 04:17:36 PM EST
    Billabomwardson and their ilk.