List Of True Conservatives In Congress and Senate

[Oceander]

You need to go back and look they are DECREASING payments to doctors - by a significant amount. 

Doctors would be thrilled to not have to work withing Medicare.  Are you aware that ALL medical fee schedules revolve around the fee schedule CMS sets for Medicare? or that a doctor who ops out of Medicare but treats a Medicare patient is legally obligated to only charge the allowed fee amount set by CMS???   or that doctors fees have not kept up with the cost of living, much less the expenses of keeping up with increased staff due to CMS requirements placed on them else their fees be cut even more significantly.  Perhaps if you as an attorney was told by the government what you can charge your clients it would make more sense to you.. in fact one of the biggest drivers of malpractice costs to doctors is lawyers.  Want to reduce medical costs then pass tort reform.

No, I don't.  All I have to look at is the inconsistency of arguing against government payments on one issue and arguing for government payments on another issue.  If doctors don't like what the federal government is paying them, then they should stop providing services that require them to look to the government for payment.  And if other payers follow the federal government's practices lockstep, then doctors who don't like that should stop providing services to people who are covered by those payers.

[Rapunzel]

No, I don't.  All I have to look at is the inconsistency of arguing against government payments on one issue and arguing for government payments on another issue.  If doctors don't like what the federal government is paying them, then they should stop providing services that require them to look to the government for payment.  And if other payers follow the federal government's practices lockstep, then doctors who don't like that should stop providing services to people who are covered by those payers.

You clearly don't know anything about how medicine works now days.  Under your scenario all doctors should just stop working or only work for the wealthy for cash and tell everyone else to go take a hike....

[Oceander]

You clearly don't know anything about how medicine works now days.  Under your scenario all doctors should just stop working or only work for the wealthy for cash and tell everyone else to go take a hike....

Are you telling me that right now no doctor can stop working, or that no doctor can work only for the wealthy for cash, and that they cannot tell everyone else to take a hike?

If you're not, then yes, I think that's precisely how doctors should work, provided only that they don't abandon a patient in the middle of open-heart surgery, or the like.  Why?  Because it's the essence of individual liberty and free markets that each individual be free to choose whether to work, whom to work for, and what consideration to accept for providing services (or for selling goods).  The one exception I would take to your remark is the "all" part.  I am not prescribing anything for anyone - all doctors are free to practice as they see fit (again, so long as they don't abandon patients in the lurch or provide substandard, and dangerous, services) - I am simply saying that stopping work, or working only for the wealthy for cash are valid alternatives that doctors are free to consider.

[Rapunzel]

Are you telling me that right now no doctor can stop working, or that no doctor can work only for the wealthy for cash, and that they cannot tell everyone else to take a hike?

If you're not, then yes, I think that's precisely how doctors should work, provided only that they don't abandon a patient in the middle of open-heart surgery, or the like.  Why?  Because it's the essence of individual liberty and free markets that each individual be free to choose whether to work, whom to work for, and what consideration to accept for providing services (or for selling goods).  The one exception I would take to your remark is the "all" part.  I am not prescribing anything for anyone - all doctors are free to practice as they see fit (again, so long as they don't abandon patients in the lurch or provide substandard, and dangerous, services) - I am simply saying that stopping work, or working only for the wealthy for cash are valid alternatives that doctors are free to consider.

Fine so we have a world without doctors.   Better hope no one in your family gets sick. 

[Oceander]

Fine so we have a world without doctors.   Better hope no one in your family gets sick. 

/snicker

So the existence of doctors stands or falls on whether the government pays them enough?  I thought you were against Obamacare; for all appearances though, you seem to be one of its staunchest supporters, and also one of those "useful idiots" whose parochial views simply help to add on additional federal debt.

[Rapunzel]

/snicker

So the existence of doctors stands or falls on whether the government pays them enough?  I thought you were against Obamacare; for all appearances though, you seem to be one of its staunchest supporters, and also one of those "useful idiots" whose parochial views simply help to add on additional federal debt.

Don't pull that stunt on me.  You are the one who said doctors should all quit.

The current system has NOTHING to do with Obamacare.  Obamacare is only going to make it worse.  Much worse.

[Oceander]

Don't pull that stunt on me.  You are the one who said doctors should all quit.

The current system has NOTHING to do with Obamacare.  Obamacare is only going to make it worse.  Much worse.

No I didn't.  I said that if they didn't like what they were getting paid by the government then they should find patients that don't require them to be paid by the government.  And that, quite frankly, is what is supposed to happen under the laws of basic economics.  It is only idiots and liberals who try to wave the magic wand of government spending to upend the laws of economics.

I quite agree with you that Obamacare will make things worse, but having the government pay doctors more - and pay more doctors - is precisely what Obamacare is all about, so anyone who argues that the government should be paying doctors more, not less, is arguing in favor of Obamacare.

Furthermore, you are pulling precisely the same sort of shenanigans garden-variety liberals pull when they want to prevent some entitlement from being yanked:  "oh dear" they'll moan, "if you cut off this entitlement then you'll be taking [fill in your favorite benefit] from people who can't afford to get it anywhere else.  How can you be so heartless?"

The bottom line is this:  if the government should not be paying doctors, then it should not be paying doctors, regardless of whether that results in there being no doctors around (that is an extremely dubious assumption, however).  Arguing otherwise is precisely what causes unwise, foolish entitlements to become cast in stone for the ages.

[Rapunzel]

No I didn't.  I said that if they didn't like what they were getting paid by the government then they should find patients that don't require them to be paid by the government.  And that, quite frankly, is what is supposed to happen under the laws of basic economics.  It is only idiots and liberals who try to wave the magic wand of government spending to upend the laws of economics.

I quite agree with you that Obamacare will make things worse, but having the government pay doctors more - and pay more doctors - is precisely what Obamacare is all about, so anyone who argues that the government should be paying doctors more, not less, is arguing in favor of Obamacare.

Furthermore, you are pulling precisely the same sort of shenanigans garden-variety liberals pull when they want to prevent some entitlement from being yanked:  "oh dear" they'll moan, "if you cut off this entitlement then you'll be taking [fill in your favorite benefit] from people who can't afford to get it anywhere else.  How can you be so heartless?"

The bottom line is this:  if the government should not be paying doctors, then it should not be paying doctors, regardless of whether that results in there being no doctors around (that is an extremely dubious assumption, however).  Arguing otherwise is precisely what causes unwise, foolish entitlements to become cast in stone for the ages.

Nope, Obamacare is about forcing doctors from being individual business owners into employees of the government and government run institutions (like hospitals) and the government telling doctors who they can treat, what they can prescribe, etc... the doctors ability to diagnose a patient is being taken away from them by the government... and OBAMACARE pays less  - not more... and Obamacare is trying to replace doctors with people who are not as well trained as doctors... 

Clearly you have a real dislike for doctors. 

[Luis Gonzalez]

There is a basic flaw in the question as posted.

It's difficult, nigh impossible in fact, to name "true conservatives" when the selection pool is limited to politicians.

It gets even trickier when you try to figure out what in fact constitutes a politician that is also a "true conservative" by discussing what specific ideals a "true conservative" would champion, because politics has become the act of solidly standing against everything while simultaneously being massively squishy and vague about the things that you do stand for, since actually standing for a specific something is a rather direct and efficient way to supply your opponents with ammunition to shoot you with.

Ergo it's easy to "stand" against out of control spending, but really, really hard to actually cut government spending.

[truth_seeker]

What is the "true conservative" litmus test, for abortion legality?

[Oceander]

What is the "true conservative" litmus test, for abortion legality?

Perhaps more generally, what is the "true conservative" test for the legality of killing?

[Oceander]

Nope, Obamacare is about forcing doctors from being individual business owners into employees of the government and government run institutions (like hospitals) and the government telling doctors who they can treat, what they can prescribe, etc... the doctors ability to diagnose a patient is being taken away from them by the government... and OBAMACARE pays less  - not more... and Obamacare is trying to replace doctors with people who are not as well trained as doctors... 

Clearly you have a real dislike for doctors. 

Nope.  It's not.  Conscripting doctors will eventually become necessary under Obamacare as it lurches to its final conclusion, but that is not what Obamacare is about.

Clearly you have a very hard time thinking logically.  Perhaps I'll discuss that with some of my psychiatrist friends the next time I see them.

[Oceander]

There is a basic flaw in the question as posted.

It's difficult, nigh impossible in fact, to name "true conservatives" when the selection pool is limited to politicians.

It gets even trickier when you try to figure out what in fact constitutes a politician that is also a "true conservative" by discussing what specific ideals a "true conservative" would champion, because politics has become the act of solidly standing against everything while simultaneously being massively squishy and vague about the things that you do stand for, since actually standing for a specific something is a rather direct and efficient way to supply your opponents with ammunition to shoot you with.

Ergo it's easy to "stand" against out of control spending, but really, really hard to actually cut government spending.

Pearls of wisdom.

[Rapunzel]

Nope.  It's not.  Conscripting doctors will eventually become necessary under Obamacare as it lurches to its final conclusion, but that is not what Obamacare is about.

Clearly you have a very hard time thinking logically.  Perhaps I'll discuss that with some of my psychiatrist friends the next time I see them.

What is illogical?  Your dislike for doctors is clearly illogical...  you are quiet as a church-mouse about the driving cost behind driving medical costs so high in the first place is YOUR chosen profession...

[Luis Gonzalez]

Nope.  It's not.  Conscripting doctors will eventually become necessary under Obamacare as it lurches to its final conclusion.

Not necessarily.

The short-term effect will be an unavoidable shortage in doctors, which is one of the intended consequences of the law, BUT conscripting existing physicians will create too much of a public outcry, and that public outcry would work against the end-game of Obamacare.

The path is a little different that you envision, but at the end you end up with basically the same thing.

If you list all items on the progressive agenda, eventually you run across the "right" to an education.  Couple that with the general progressive dogma of "for the good of society", then throw in this argument that if doctors (and Catholic hospitals) accept money from the government, then they are bound to act in a manner designed to address a compelling need of the State, and you'll start seeing the path.

The government will get around to paying for your education, so long as you enter a field of studies chosen for you by the government to address a compelling need of the nation/government.

That will have the government coming to the assistance of the people and addressing the serious shortages in doctors that the government itself created.

So in the end, they are not conscripted, which is an involuntary action, but rather Federal employees by "choice".

And the government "saved" us all.

[Cincinnatus]

How about we inject some objective data which can be more easily assessed?

I had intended to add this much earlier but ran out of the time necessary due to a meeting I had to attend with some other True Conservatives (Lol) on the issue of Agenda 21. In any case the basis for these rankings, which come from the John Birch Society, is each Congressperson's votes on a number of matters. I suppose one can dismiss the rationale for the rankings either based on what the votes covered or whether in fact a particular position is "Conservative" or not. But at least this provides some standard beyond saying someone's mother wore army boots.

One more thing: I originally meant to list anyone who had a 90% or higher rating but there were so few I dropped it to 80% and above. The source for these rankings is based on

The Freedom Index: A Congressional Scorecard Based on the U.S. Constitution rates congressmen based on their adherence to constitutional principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, national sovereignty, and a traditional foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements. The percentages below are cumulative scores are based on key votes from 1999 through 2013. Click on a senator's or representative's name to get a detailed breakdown of his or her voting record.

and can be found here: http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/

(AL) Dist.5: Mo Brooks - 80%                               (NC) Dist.8: Richard Hudson - 80%
(AZ) Sen. Jeff Flake - 82%                                           Dist.11: Mark Meadows - 80%
       Dist.6: David Schweikert - 82%                      (OH) Dist.4: Jim Jordan - 80%
(CA) Dist.4: Tom McClintock - 92%                        (OK) Sen. Thomas Coburn - 82%
(FL) Sen. Marco Rubio - 80%                                        Dist.1: Jim Bridenstine - 100%
       Dist.3: Ted Yoho - 90%                                         Dist.2: Markwayne Mullin - 80%
       Dist.6: Ron DeSantis - 90%                            (SC) Sen. Tim Scott - 80%
       Dist.8: Bill Posey - 86%                                         Dist.3: Jeff Duncan - 86%
       Dist.15: Dennis Ross - 80%                                    Dist.4: Trey Gowdy - 80%
(GA) Dist.9: Doug Collins - 80%                             (TN) Dist.2: John Duncan - 81%
        Dist.10: Paul Broun - 90%                                     Dist.4: Scott DesJarlais - 80%
        Dist.14: Tom Graves - 81%                            (TX) Sen. Ted Cruz - 90%
(ID) Sen. James Risch - 84%                                         Dist.25: Roger Williams - 80%
       Dist.1: Raul Labrador - 87%                                    Dist.36: Steve Stockman - 100%  WOOT!
(IN) Dist.3: Marlin Stutzman - 82%                         (UT) Sen. Mike Lee - 90%
(KS) Dist.1: Tim Huelskamp - 85%                          (WI) Sen. Ron Johnson - 86%
(KY) Sen. Rand Paul - 93%                                     (WY) Sen. John Barrasso - 80%
       Dist.4: Thomas Massie - 100%                        Dist.: Cynthia Lummis - 82%
(LA) Dist.4: John Fleming - 82%
(MD) Dist.1: Andy Harris - 80%
(MI) Dist.3: Justin Amash - 93%
       Dist.11: Kerry Bentivolio - 80%
(MN) Dist.6: Michele Bachmann - 80%     

Some other notables: Sen. John McCain - 64%, Sen. Mark Pryor - 21%, Dist.23: Debbie Wasserman Schultz - 14%,
Sen. Saxby Chambliss - 58%, Dist.8: Tammy Duckworth - 0%, Sen. Pat Roberts - 61%, Sen. Mitch McConnell - 61%, Sen. Mary Landrieu - 20%, Sen. Susan Collins - 40%, Sen. Elizabeth Warren - 0% (both MA senators have a zero), Dist.6: Fred Upton - 48%, Sen. Al Franken - 8%, Sen. Thad Cochran - 53%, Dist.1: Paul Ryan - 58%, Sen. Orrin Hatch - 59%, Sen. John Cornyn - 68%, Dist.1: Louie Gohmert - 74% (there were quite a few 70s but I had to cut it off somewhere), Sen. Lamar Alexander - 53%, Sen. Lindsey Graham - 63%, Dist.8: John Boehner - 54%, Sen. Kay Hagan - 14%, Dist.2: Peter King - 45%, Sen. Kelly Ayotte - 70%, & Sen. Harry Reid - 17%.

As I said this is the opinion of one site but at least the JBS, agree with them or not, rank these people on their actual voting record.


 

[Rapunzel]

Interesting list, cinc.

[EC]

Nice find, Cincy, and the 80% cut off seems like the fairest point!

Any other rating lists out there that would also be useful? Both single issue (the NRA for example) and multiple issue ratings?

Since even here we can't seem to pin down what a conservative actually is, multiple metrics might be the way to go. Negative listings may also help. If a very left wing group gives Reps / Sens a very low rating that would also be valid input.

I don't mind collating the posts, can do that sort of thing in my sleep, but honestly haven't the time to actually find the rating sites meself.

[Cincinnatus]

First of all, thanks to both you and Rapunzel for your comments about this.

Tomorrow I shall look for some other rankings and encourage others to do so also but tonight I am too tired. There are both Conservative and Liberal sites which deal with such matters and the low scores on the latter can also be interpreted as evidence of degree of Conservativism.

[flowers]

Why?  Are pogroms and concentration camps conservative ideals?

What are you getting at?  Conservatives like to kill  Jews and have people in concentration camps? What are you trying to say here?

[flowers]

I honestly don't have any idea of what a "true conservative" is - that's why I asked for a definition from those who, to all appearances, do know what one is.  Being sick of McCain, et al, isn't something that's limited to so-called "true conservatives" and disliking them doesn't ipso facto make on a "true conservative" - at least I don't think it does, but I can't say for sure because so far no one's been able to articulate any sort of coherent definition of one.

Let me see if I can try to define my "true conservative" type.  Less government more private sector. Of course cut taxes. Stop spending money. Is a few of my real conservative ideas.

[flowers]

How about we inject some objective data which can be more easily assessed?

I had intended to add this much earlier but ran out of the time necessary due to a meeting I had to attend with some other True Conservatives (Lol) on the issue of Agenda 21. In any case the basis for these rankings, which come from the John Birch Society, is each Congressperson's votes on a number of matters. I suppose one can dismiss the rationale for the rankings either based on what the votes covered or whether in fact a particular position is "Conservative" or not. But at least this provides some standard beyond saying someone's mother wore army boots.

One more thing: I originally meant to list anyone who had a 90% or higher rating but there were so few I dropped it to 80% and above. The source for these rankings is based on  and can be found here: http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/

(AL) Dist.5: Mo Brooks - 80%                               (NC) Dist.8: Richard Hudson - 80%
(AZ) Sen. Jeff Flake - 82%                                           Dist.11: Mark Meadows - 80%
       Dist.6: David Schweikert - 82%                      (OH) Dist.4: Jim Jordan - 80%
(CA) Dist.4: Tom McClintock - 92%                        (OK) Sen. Thomas Coburn - 82%
(FL) Sen. Marco Rubio - 80%                                        Dist.1: Jim Bridenstine - 100%
       Dist.3: Ted Yoho - 90%                                         Dist.2: Markwayne Mullin - 80%
       Dist.6: Ron DeSantis - 90%                            (SC) Sen. Tim Scott - 80%
       Dist.8: Bill Posey - 86%                                         Dist.3: Jeff Duncan - 86%
       Dist.15: Dennis Ross - 80%                                    Dist.4: Trey Gowdy - 80%
(GA) Dist.9: Doug Collins - 80%                             (TN) Dist.2: John Duncan - 81%
        Dist.10: Paul Broun - 90%                                     Dist.4: Scott DesJarlais - 80%
        Dist.14: Tom Graves - 81%                            (TX) Sen. Ted Cruz - 90%
(ID) Sen. James Risch - 84%                                         Dist.25: Roger Williams - 80%
       Dist.1: Raul Labrador - 87%                                    Dist.36: Steve Stockman - 100%  WOOT!
(IN) Dist.3: Marlin Stutzman - 82%                         (UT) Sen. Mike Lee - 90%
(KS) Dist.1: Tim Huelskamp - 85%                          (WI) Sen. Ron Johnson - 86%
(KY) Sen. Rand Paul - 93%                                     (WY) Sen. John Barrasso - 80%
       Dist.4: Thomas Massie - 100%                        Dist.: Cynthia Lummis - 82%
(LA) Dist.4: John Fleming - 82%
(MD) Dist.1: Andy Harris - 80%
(MI) Dist.3: Justin Amash - 93%
       Dist.11: Kerry Bentivolio - 80%
(MN) Dist.6: Michele Bachmann - 80%     

Some other notables: Sen. John McCain - 64%, Sen. Mark Pryor - 21%, Dist.23: Debbie Wasserman Schultz - 14%,
Sen. Saxby Chambliss - 58%, Dist.8: Tammy Duckworth - 0%, Sen. Pat Roberts - 61%, Sen. Mitch McConnell - 61%, Sen. Mary Landrieu - 20%, Sen. Susan Collins - 40%, Sen. Elizabeth Warren - 0% (both MA senators have a zero), Dist.6: Fred Upton - 48%, Sen. Al Franken - 8%, Sen. Thad Cochran - 53%, Dist.1: Paul Ryan - 58%, Sen. Orrin Hatch - 59%, Sen. John Cornyn - 68%, Dist.1: Louie Gohmert - 74% (there were quite a few 70s but I had to cut it off somewhere), Sen. Lamar Alexander - 53%, Sen. Lindsey Graham - 63%, Dist.8: John Boehner - 54%, Sen. Kay Hagan - 14%, Dist.2: Peter King - 45%, Sen. Kelly Ayotte - 70%, & Sen. Harry Reid - 17%.

As I said this is the opinion of one site but at least the JBS, agree with them or not, rank these people on their actual voting record.

thank you for this input!!

[flowers]

Let me try to re ask my original question. Who do you think in Congress is a true conservative?  Your list, your thoughts without going into the detail of what a true conservative is. Just YOUR list.

[Fishrrman]

Oceander wrote:
"Because it's the essence of individual liberty and free markets that each individual be free to choose whether to work, whom to work for, and what consideration to accept for providing services (or for selling goods)"

But did you not also write in another thread (about the bake shop in Colorado refusing to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple) that the bakery shop owner didn't have legal standing to refuse, under anti-discrimination laws?
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,122900.msg497881.html#msg497881

You continued:
"I am not prescribing anything for anyone - all doctors are free to practice as they see fit"

But a bakery shop owner cannot "practice" as he sees fit?

Jes' wonderin' ...

[Rapunzel]

Oceander wrote:
"Because it's the essence of individual liberty and free markets that each individual be free to choose whether to work, whom to work for, and what consideration to accept for providing services (or for selling goods)"

But did you not also write in another thread (about the bake shop in Colorado refusing to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple) that the bakery shop owner didn't have legal standing to refuse, under anti-discrimination laws?
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,122900.msg497881.html#msg497881

You continued:
"I am not prescribing anything for anyone - all doctors are free to practice as they see fit"

But a bakery shop owner is cannot "practice" as he sees fit?

Jes' wonderin' ...

Doctors are no more free than lawyers - they are all licensed in the states in which they practice and if the state deems they have to treat certain patients they will have little choice - same as the aforesaid baker... I posted another article this evening about CMS deeming GYN's are not allowed to treat men for pelvic pain (a problem they have been treating in women patients for years) and if they do treat men in their practice their license WILL be revoked.