Associated Press
Over the last several weeks, there have been competing reports about what, if anything, congressional Republicans will do if the Supreme Court kills the Affordable Care Act. Some reports suggest GOP policymakers, fearing a public backlash, will grudgingly extend some popular consumer protections currently in "Obamacare." Other reports suggest Republicans will simply do nothing.
As of this morning, the latter camp appears to be winning. Politico, citing a "shift" in the GOP strategy, reports today that Republicans won't lift a finger to help families hurt by the demise of the law -- no coverage for young adults; no protections for those with pre-existing conditions; no help for seniors struggling to pay for prescription medication.
If families suffer as a result of the likely high court decision, well, maybe Republicans will think about doing something next year, maybe not.
And this brings us to a big-picture question that received some intermittent attention in 2009, but which hasn't generated much attention since: do Americans have a right to medical care? As Jon Chait explained this week, it's a moral question the parties answer differently.
Several reporters have recently filed dispatches showing in human terms what sort of conditions we would be perpetuating in the event that five Republican Supreme Court Justices, or a potential Republican-run government next year, partially or completely nullify the Affordable Care Act. A man will watch the tumor in his leg grow to the size of a melon, and his wife will sew special pants to fit the growing bulge, because he has no insurance. A woman will hobble around for four years on an untreated broken ankle she can’t have repaired. People will line up in their cars and spend the night in a parking lot queuing for a rare free health clinic.
Maybe these stories sound like cheap emotional manipulation. They are actually a clarifying tool to cut through the rhetorical fog surrounding the health-care debate and define the question in the most precise terms.
Quite right. In precise terms, though both major American political parties accept the basic premise of the free-enterprise system -- those with more wealth will, as Chait put it, "enjoy vastly greater comforts and pleasures than others" -- Democrats and Republicans differ on what the consequences should be for those with less.
"What is being disputed is whether the punishments to the losers in the market system should include, in addition to these other things, a denial of access to non-emergency medical treatment. The Republican position is that it should."
This is obviously, painfully, demonstrably true, though it doesn't come up often in polite conversation.
There are basic American institutions that enjoy broad political support. Everyone in the country, regardless of wealth, is entitled to go to a public school. We can go to public libraries. If there's an emergency, we can call the police and/or the fire department. When we're older, we can count on Medicare and Social Security. Up until very recently -- right up until the radicalization of the Republican Party -- these basic observations were uncontroversial elements of American society. They enjoyed the status of consensus.
But if we want to see a doctor, the consensus disappears. Democrats believe you're entitled to seek non-emergency medical care, just as you're entitled to send your kid to school or ask the fire department to put out a fire. Republicans believe the ability to see a doctor is a luxury. They are, as Chait noted, "the only mainstream political party in the advanced world" to believe it's acceptable to deny basic medical care to citizens based on their wealth.
Let that fact roll around in your brain for a moment.
Long-time readers know that I've been writing for years about the ideological shift in GOP politics and the extent to which Republicans oppose the mainstream ideas they used to support. There are competing explanations for this -- some of it varies by issue -- but the shift on health care is of particular interest given this week's developments.
Up until quite recently, President Obama's Affordable Care Act was, for all intents and purposes, the Republican vision on how to reform the health care system -- it's built on pillars such as private insurers, personal responsibility, and deficit reduction. We now know, of course, that Republicans see this identical law as the end of civilization and an "Armageddon" policy.
What's behind the shift? Some of it is political expediency (if Obama supports the law, it must be deemed evil), some of it is ideological (the GOP has moved much further to the right), and some of it is electoral (if Obama gets credit for fixing the broken health care system, he's the FDR of the 21st century) but the unstated crux of the problem is practical.
Republicans proposed Obamacare-like solutions to the health care crisis, but their commitment to their own solution was always superficial, at best. Their argument, in effect, was, "If we're going to do health care reform, we might as well do it in this market-driven way."
But the underlying point is, Republicans didn't really want to do health care reform; they were offering a solution they could tolerate to a problem they didn't want to solve.
As the political winds shifted, and the GOP became a more purely right-wing party, they simply dropped the pretense. Instead of saying, "If we're going to do health care reform, we might as well do it in this market-driven way," the new Republican position is, "Health care reform isn't worth doing at all."
It's exactly why "repeal and replace" was a fiasco -- GOP policymakers never had any intention of replacing the Affordable Care Act with anything, because they don't see a problem with a system in which those with less wealth receive less care.
To overlook this detail is to ignore what makes the larger policy debate such a mess.
Leave a Comment:
"...GOP policymakers never had any intention of replacing the Affordable Care Act with anything,..."
What's also funny (not ha ha) is that the GOTP is the same crowd that scream's about America being a "Christian" nation and how "morality & family values" are no longer apparent. And these are the same people willing to throw "the least of these" among US under the bus, quickly! So much for those "feigned family values"! These people are so far from that "Christ" they can't even touch the hem of his garment! From slashing services to people that really need them, to trying to kill the ACA, Medicare & Social Security - these people are morally bankrupt, hopelessly brain-dead and selfish beyond reason!
In this day and age in one of the "richest nations" in the world, we are still arguing about "market solutions" for something that should never be subject to "market forces" - and that is people's health! And unlike my car which most states say I must carry insurance for - people don't normally say "I wonder what a sprained/broken ankle feels like" and then proceed to go find out! The GOTP have proven that they are an immoral, selfish, greedy, nativist and racist bunch that only believe rich old white guys need apply! Vote them out in November!
Word. This is the party of horse@!$%# and power. The Cavalia of crap on a stick!
... and I was just trying to get my head around the notion of why walking on an ankle that is not broken constitutes a "comfort and a pleasure" to which some are entitled, but others are not.
It's really not that complicated when you understand that "Family Values" is all about punishment, not obligation (except for "obligation to punish," which is a different matter altogether.)
This discussion is something about healthcare, since it was originally a Republican solution namely from Romney. Republicans try to say it is death panels now, when than it would prove that Republicans than represent death panels and wanted them. Thinking about the type of person Romney is, that does make sense. Romney would be the one to run to kill people with a gleeful laughter on his face as he deceived everybody around him. But thinking more about it, you know that Romney lacks the ability to write any bill and has others to do it, care to say even the ability to run a good government that is representative of everybody and not just a wealthy few. So I guess this is what happens when you want to work together and try to compromise with a bunch of corrupt and deceiving Republicans. So Republicans, what is it this time or are you still bumbling around like a pack of bozos?
Romney also lacks the ability to speak, he has no opinions, he is a shell of a man.
GOP = Death Panel
The only people who would be opposing An Affordable Healthcare plan are rich doctors, lawyers, and insurance companies. If anyone else opposes our great leaders' efforts to help The American people, they must be receiving money from these organizations in an attempt to accept a bribery or a form of blackmail. I don't understand this form of insanity either. And if we're relying on The Supreme court to decide, we may be screwed. This should have been a no-brainer for the Supreme court. They need to rule in favor of helping the majority, The American people who through no fault of their own have no insurance, have been denied health insurance and cannot afford to see a doctor. Much like myself. So, if they're assuming that everyone is rich, which we're not, they will decide in favor of their own selfish gain, therefore they have no business representing us, they have chosen, like much of our entire government to represent themselves.
to deny people medical care is just as "cruel" as those life terms for juveniles that the SCOTUS reviewed. Pity that they can't see that.
For all their professed piety, the GOP/TP surely forget their own supposed savior's command to help "the least of these". They have created a religon that excuses their greediness.
and as burro~ say correctly, the GOP/TP is in effect become the "death panels" that they were supposedly so worried about. Typical projection in action.
Naturally, the idiot GOPers are being short-sighted once again. Does this surprise anyone? They've totally forgotten the tale of Typhoid Mary, or, more likely, never understood it in the first place. You may be rich as hell, with the best health care money can buy; but what happens the next time you meet someone who's carrying a highly contagious, incurable disease that went undiagnosed because that person couldn't afford, or couldn't get, healthcare coverage?
Oh brother.
Did Chait have an aneurysm and forget about Medicare? Framing this as all or nothing is not helpful. The truly needy are well provided for.
Spoken as someone who has never had to deal with Medicare or SSI disability. It's not that the idea of providing a level of healthcare to the poor if bad, but the fact that there is a ceiling on income for benefits leads directly to perverse incentives. A friend of mine on permanent disability (for MD) can never make enough money to lift herself out of poverty because if she does she'll lose her benefits and die. And her case is hardly unique.
The system needs to cover everybody so that people can move up and down the economic pyramid as their abilities allow rather than being trapped in poverty by their medical condition.
What does Medicare have to do with Chait's statement? You don't get medicare unless you are disabled or over 65. The fact is, if you don't have insurance and you have cancer, you will die. Yes, there are various charities that help, but they have only so much money and cancer is very expensive.
Here's a simple example. My brother had the best insurance ever and paid around $600 per month for it. He got cancer and they covered him...until he ran out of money to pay insurance. You know, people who are sick can't work. Their savings goes away, they mortgage their house but eventually they run out of money. Getting disability takes time. In his case, it was three months without insurance before disability (Medicare) kicked in. Three months that he couldn't get any treatment. He's dead now. Who knows if he would have made it further without that gap.
Medicare would work if we all had it.
sorry, I meant Medicaid.
This is true, not only do you have to be over 65 for medicare or medicaid, but if you make one of the top amount in unemployment, you can't even afford Medi-Cal or other state paid health insurances. I was unemployed with a family of 3 and a rent of 1600 a month bringing in 1700 in unemployment. I was granted Medi-Cal with a monthly out of pocket of $900 before Medi-Cal would pay anything. So government paid health insurance for those under 65 is a dud which is why this would help even the needy. If we all can afford health insurance, then the government saves. It is a win win but since Obama likes it that means the Republicans have to hate it even if it was their idea.
When I last checked Medicaid in Red states are denying any help to people between the ages of 18-64. I have no health insurance, I cannot afford to buy any,I cannot afford to see a doctor. No health Insurance Company in my State will sell me health insurance. My only choice is to try and become extremely healthy, and pray that I don't get any sicker.I am no longer in remission with my illness and I cannot afford to get any medical help. Now what? Yes, I am dying and through this premise I am trying to help others in the same position that I am in, maybe they will be one of the lucky ones and receive much needed medicine. But, in order to do this my great brothers and sisters need to acknowledge first, that we are sick and we are dying and we are not being treated. Will the Supreme Court turn their backs on us. I hope not.
I guess the gop shooter voters can not grasp the fact that the number 1 reason for filing bankrupcy was healthcare bills before 2008 , and after doing that , these sick people still are not broke enough to qualify for medicare , but " The truly needy are well provided for." .......
And medicaid is not quality care , you get the minimum treatment , and are dis-guarded as quickly as possible , the less actual diagnosing the better , in iowa they wait 7 months to see the doctor
After 2 years ( +20) of exposing our dysfunctional H/C system for what it is , we still have Shooters making comments like that , people like shooter made great nazi's
I read this on a comment's page in my local newspaper.A doctor wrote that fewer young people will be willing to be MD's if Obamacare goes into effect.He cited they will not make the money they could make without it.Not his exact word's but you can get the general picture.I have alway's believed that doctor's are very special people who go into the medical field to help people,money being secondary.If one of my kid's told me they wanted to be a doctor,I would ask why.If they told me it's because they make a lot of money,well you've heard the old adage, I've got one kid I'd like to put through college and one I'd like to put through the wall.Guess which one that would be.
The poor and idigent already get free healthcare. The point being missed here is that most of us receive healthcare benefits thru our employers, whatever the cost to business or individuals. Obviously with unemployment where it is, many have lost access to healthcare. Clearly the motivation should be to get those folks working where they again have access, not motivate them to sit at home and expect 'big brother' to care for them indefinitely (buying votes). Criticizing republican christians is an idealogical cop out. Christians care for countless poor families thru their churches (which is anathema to many liberals) and other community outreach programs. Romney is criticized for not caring, yet his charitable contributions are unmatched by any democratic politician. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong on that note. Joe Biden is a miser and so was Brack Obama, until his candidacy for president.
There are many "poor and indigent" people who don't get free healthcare.
There are millions of working poor who can't afford healthcare.
Healthcare should not depend upon employment(there are many employers that don't offer healthcare).
What about those who are disabled and can't work?
Thinking the unemployed are lazy is a republican christian way of thinking, which is not very charitable or Godly.
Churches as a source to help the poor? Flawed and faulty. Not all churches will do that, will say that they are not responsible to do that, and will attach many strings to that.
Romney as charitable? LOL!
And what planet have you been living on?You apparentally are one of the few who feel they have the right to dictate who gets what, as long as you are tithing in your church. Your money would be put to much better use if you were to buy a meal for a homeless person ,you might see in your poorest neighborhoods where you live. That's what I do, I don't bother with middlemen and red tape and supporting organizations that cater to the rich and famous. I don't need gold faucets and you shouldn't either. Not when there are children going hungry. I have no respect for preachers who plead and target the elderely, and those who believe that the only way to see our Father is to pay him first. Shame on those who have turned the Lord's house into a den of robbers. You may want to check on your state of mind once more before speaking crazy words.
Republicans now make Muslim extremists look civil, especially on this issue. The truly needy are well provided forShooter? Wow.. Thanks for clearing that up! Again, even in total lack of humility, we are all each others keeper(s). The Supremes tread on thin ice over Lake Lawless here, but as you sow once again. This is healthcare we're still talking about.
Out on a limb (expensively repaired - and covered by single-payer health care, for which I am fortunate and eternally grateful, after a serious motorcycle accident) I have to say health and wealth are still complex issues. Both are, to a large extent, karmically determined, which is to say their causes lie in past actions in this and mainly previous lives. We accumulate the causes of wealth through the practice of generosity, and the causes of health through having protected life and cared for the well-being of others.
The trouble is, most wealthy people don't seem to remember the virtuous causes that brought them their good fortune, and so they probably won't enjoy the same circumstances in future lives. By contrast, healthy people who live long still tend to care for others and respect life, not just of humans but of all living forms.
This, of course, is hard to swallow from a politically partial or ideological point of view. But, if we can leave that aside for a moment, it is possible to gain a more objective perspective on these two issues. When we see a person suffering in poverty and are motivated to help, which we should be, we need not remain blind to the true causes of that person's plight. By knowing that there is a karmic basis to that person's suffering our assistance will be that much more effective because it is grounded in a deeper and more accurate understanding. As well as giving immediate aid (material generosity), we can also work to help that person avoid the causes of future suffering (dharmic generosity).
Similarly with health care. If people are left with no idea why they are suffering health problems while others apparently are not, they have no basis upon which to improve their conduct for the future. The lives we are born into and the suffering and happiness we experience are the result of accumulated causes from the past. We are very aggressive and indignant about murder and theft, when we see the act and the culprit. Unfortunately, we tend not to make the same connection when we see the outcome of such actions which have occurred, out of sight, in a previous life.
This is where education fails to equip people properly to understand their current circumstances in terms of causes they have accumulated in the past. If they did have this understanding they would be better able to adjust and develop a better disposition to their conduct in the present and going forward. They and everyone else would benefit immeasurable from such awareness.
For someone like me who was born into a country with single-payer health care I have enjoyed the freedom and security of that good karma. I've rarely been ill and am enjoying a long life - and I still don't kill even a fly if I can avoid it.
Providing immediate care and assistance is what a civilized society should do automatically while, at the same time, providing people with a valid basis to maintain and improve their conduct, and hence their karma, for the future.
Great piece, Steve. Republican ideas for health care reform, cap-and-trade, immigration reform, deficit reduction, and on and on... They're all ideas to solve political problems, not to solve practical problems. If and when the political problems go away, then the ideas are abandoned.
Once again, the exclusive Republican mission is simple: Enrich the rich. All messaging and all policy is to carry out this mission.
The problem is that we do not have a functioning free market in healthcare.
Competition is restricted by government granted monopolies, such as patent protections for pharmaceuticals and limits on who can practice medicine (licensing restrictions, limits on immigration of doctors). This increases price compared to a free market and redistributes income towards the best off.
Look at Arrow's famous paper "Uncertainty and the welfare economics of health care" Buying healthcare is not the same as buying bread or a TV.
excellent link. Thank you.
foosion, the biggest problem isn't government monopolies or any other intervention. It's that the fundamental requirements of a working market aren't present in health care: fully informed consumers, substitutability, price elasticity, etc.
When I had a gangrenous appendix, I was in no position at all to do comparison shopping for an abdominal surgeon. When I had a knee replaced, I was totally unable to find any information on relative infection rates between hospitals or surgeons. Those are just two examples, but they illustrate the silliness of attempting to apply market solutions to healthcare.
Some say there is little nobility in the 1%, that the corruptive forces of human greed have completely taken over. Dark days are ahead if that were true.
President Obama is to this era what Theodore Roosevelt, the Progressive Republican, was 100 years ago. TR acted quickly, as he did with nearly everything. For President Obama, it will take longer. His first term started off more like that of Thomas Jefferson, who spent much of his time fighting off the other party until the Louisiana Purchase fell into his lap. But then Jeffersonian Democracy was to settle in for 36 of the next 40 years. We should be so lucky.
Read more at
http://lifeamongtheordinary.blogspot.com/2012/06/tr-and-noblesse-oblige-part-one.html
There are a *few* in the 1% who see the utter wrong and societal suicide in all this... Warren Buffett, for one. I find it fascinating that, of all the ones I've seen so far who are in the 1% and who support raising taxes on their economic class, etc., the ones who understand why it's not only important, not only morally right, but also NECESSARY for our society and our economic structure... are the ones who rose from middle class to their wealth---they did not inherit it. In other words, people who understand the importance of the middle class to the economy, people who understand what hard work really means, people who seem to *get* that both an economy and a social structure flourish when all the parts understand their necessary INTERDEPENDENCE... and die when one part assumes it is "exempt" and "immune" from concerns of the rest of the socio-economic classes.
There is a frightening moral degeneration in the GOTP and their supposedly christian ilk. Their insensitivity to human pain and suffering is appalling. Their platform of disservice to adult citizens, their children, and the communities that care for them is a barbarous attack on our rights.
The GOTP are superstitious barbarians whose faces should be superimposed on the Capitol One commercials for a political add campaign. WHAT'S IN YOUR WALLET?
My feeling has always been that corporations should be profit-making machines with no conscience. To expect any of them to act morally will have random results, therefore the government needs to exert proper control.
I believe the GOP is telling us - pretty clearly - that their plan is to stop paying for that conscience. It's too costly, it causes deficits, and no matter what, we shouldn't pay for it. That's the priority. The government can't afford this luxury any more, and the constitution said we should limit government. Remove regulations and the safety net. (pathetic creatures that they are)
Why this has to be coupled with practically 0 taxes for corporations is baffling. I guess if the govt. won't need those funds, why make corporations keep paying them.
Why is the public snowed by this? A lot of people think they shouldn't have to pay a nickel to help anyone else. It's really too bad they can't see that the austerity plan will do nothing to grow the economy, they'll be scraping for minimum wage jobs after everyone's laid off, and they'll be wondering what happened to their government and the safety net.
But apparently Obama's attack ads are working, that's the good news. People in the swing states are realizing that Romney's Bain experience is useless.
It's not at all the Christian thing to do, but if people want to save their pennies...
I agree with you, except that Romney's Bain experience isn't just useless---it's downright antithetical. WHY would you want someone to run the country who is a billionaire BECAUSE the company he owned/ran bought out successful American companies, ran them into the ground, acted as a predator on all their assets, farmed their jobs out to cheaper labor in foreign countries, unloaded the company before bankruptcy was declared and the stock plummeted... and then on top of all that, TOOK BAILOUT MONEY FROM THE GOVERNMENT? Why would you want a sociopath who is "so 'American'" that he sees absolutely nothing wrong with putting millions of people out of work, costing them their homes and life savings/investments, all so he could become a billionaire and own six homes, where his trophy wife can complain that as a "working mother" she works SO hard, managing all the nannies, chauffeurs, butlers, and staff in these lovely six homes?
Neither of them have ever done an HONEST day's work in their life... and they live off the suffering of people who worked hard and who were managing to meet their costs of living and put back something for retirement and their kids' college... until Romney and Bain Capital sold them down the river.
Everyone in the country, regardless of wealth, is entitled to go to a public school. We can go to public libraries. If there's an emergency, we can call the police and/or the fire department. When we're older, we can count on Medicare and Social Security. Up until very recently -- right up until the radicalization of the Republican Party -- these basic observations were uncontroversial elements of American society. They enjoyed the status of consensus.
Well if you live in an enclave with private Police and Fire , private schools and enough money to see any doctor you want ., the other peoples health care doesn't matter you .
Over 90% of Americans self-identify as Christians. Not all Christians are Republicans, however almost all Republicans identify as Christians. The far right of the party, particularly evangelicals, see themselves as being "more and better Christians" than those with moderate and liberal beliefs. None of this is likely news to anyone here.
Two of the most basic tenets of the teachings of Jesus (the "Christ" in Christian, in case anyone has forgotten) are to help the poor and heal the sick. Jesus spoke about this repeatedly and at great length. Every Christian knows this. His words on this issue are clear. If we are the Christian nation that so many assure us that we are, then helping the poor and healing the sick MUST be two things our Christian Congress MUST be spending it's time working towards. He did not say it was only important if it were convenient, or inexpensive, or if the poor and sick were believers, or if they promised not to "cheat the system", or if they were citizens of the country. There are no qualifiers, it is simply an action He required of all of his followers. Anything less is a rejection of the basic principles of Jesus. Rejection of His principles are a rejection of His faith.
So to the electors and the elected, your individual actions will make clear. Those who actively help the poor and heal the sick... through individual effort or legislation, are indeed true Christians following the teachings of Jesus. And the others?
The GOP is a party of fake Christians.
So does this mean I will be able to drop all insurance. If the court says no to health insurance will there be a class action on all other insurance?
I agree, I don't want to pay homeowners nor auto insurance. If a health insurance mandate is ruled unconstitutional why is honoring these other mandated commitments? Again, the "Supreme" court is about to set a really stupid example if they rule the mandated health insurance participation in the ACA unconstitutional. I seriously hope that they do of course, this will be the shut up part of the put up and shut up for the portion of the country who want to put Rmoney in charge of the country's well being.
Homeowner's insurance and Auto Insurance are not an equivalent example, unfortunately. No one is required to own a home or a car, but if you do, you know in advance that insurance is part of the decision. Being born is not an individual decision to make (not yours, anyway) and not something you can decide not to do.
Not to mention, if people get preventative care, it costs far LESS than waiting until the person is at ER status, can't pay, and the system has to absorb the costs.
Which is also an argument for female hormone therapy treatment: hormone therapy (aka Birth control pills) cost insurors far less than OB/GYN visits and hospital stay and pediatric care for a pregnant woman. Not only that, by a family being able to control fertility, both men and women are able to delay having children until they're in a better education and social situation to care for them, they're able to limit the number of children they must provide for, and finally, when a woman is able to delay getting pregnant again after a childbirth, both she *and* the new fetus are healthier---it's a health risk for both mother and fetus if a woman gets pregnant too soon after a previous pregnancy, because her body hasn't had time to rebuild nutrients and strength.
Insurance companies KNOW this, and that's why they'd much rather supply monthly birth control, than have to pay for multiple, frequent, costly pregnancies.
Not to mention, hormone therapy treatment is the first line of defense in SEVERAL medical conditions women face... and using it properly can often defer, or outright get rid of, the need for surgery, hospital stays, and/or more costly treatments.
I've seen commentaries that compare Hormone Therapy and Birth Control to the invention of the Gutenburg Press, in terms of "Most Important and Far-Reaching Inventions"... and I must agree.
That's aside from the entire issue of those who oppose the amendment that creates a direct relationship between insurance companies and the person as "Violation of Religious Freedom" being in total error:
1. They are defending the religious freedoms of an INSTITUTION, while utterly trampling on the religious freedoms of the INDIVIDUALS IN QUESTION. I'm sorry, but I think religious freedom of individuals trumps the supposed religious freedom of Institutions who want to impose, by law, their own dogma upon EVERYONE.
2. A lot of this argument is predicated on the sexual *behaviors* of the person in question. (Rush Limbaugh managed to provide a distilled example of this.) Excuse me: when did the BEHAVIORS one uses with one's body parts become a criteria for whether or not one qualifies for healthcare of said part? In essence, these people get their panties in a wad because these particular body organs are used for sexual purposes. Well excuse me, but I think the fact that they're BODY PARTS trumps whatever they're used for, in terms of what does and does not qualify for healthcare treatment. It's not like you set your uterus, ovaries, and vagina on a shelf when you go to the doctor (or your penis, testicles, and prostate gland). If we're getting into the area of "what you use it FOR makes a difference on whether or not you can get medical treatment for it," then I think a number of people need to be leaving their hands, their tongues, and their penises at home when they go to the doctor---because I see a LOT of "immoral and un-Christian behavior" from those body parts from a great number of individuals.
The GOP is mainly a party of heartless and cruel old white men and their wives who masquerade as Christians to cover for their dark hearts and souls. .Life has ruined them and they truly are a Lost Generation. Nothing can be done to rescue them from their own narcissism, antisocialism, and inhumanity. They are simply soulless beings.
Nurses – who have the most interaction with patients and the health care system – understand the real impact of a lousy economy every day. They see people who are losing their jobs and homes, have poor nutrition and declining wages. They see them face skyrocketing costs and price gouging by insurance companies, drug companies and hospitals. RNs have seen increased medical conditions linked to the economy, including stress-induced heart attacks in younger people, anxiety and higher asthma rates brought on by delay in care. There are some positive elements to ACA, such as allowing adults to stay on their parents’health plan until their 26. No matter what the Supreme Court decides, millions will still not be able to afford health care. That’s why RNs say an improved and expanded Medicare For All system is the only choice for our country
How nice to know that the Republicans equate Healthcare to bon-bons, or a week at Ascot, or "owning a Ferrari instead of a Hyundai." They're all about "privilege and elitism," and they fly that by the pseudo-Christians by invoking "moral outrage" at government "giving handouts to the lazy, the losers, the 'welfare queens.'"
Basically, not one of the voters who support these jerks knows the first thing about statistics and analysis of FACTS on the poor---all they know is what propaganda Fox News has given them today---and none of these "Christian" people realizes how hypocritical they're being in condemning people as "faceless masses worth nothing" and hypocritical in being so utterly selfish, self-centered, and focused on their own self-righteousness.
They know *they've* worked hard---and because they succeeded, because they had the luck to dodge the bullet that has taken so many others to economic ruin, because they enjoyed privilege without knowing it, because they are deliberately unaware of how they themselves have received help and benefits from the State... they're willing to treat people less fortunate than themselves as "lazy, worthless, non-humans that I don't have to give a crap about if your kids starve and you die of that cantaloupe-sized cancer tumor you're carting around."
It seems empathy, compassion, critical-thinking, and digging for fact are all "out of fashion" among the GOP set and their supporters---yes, even the supposed salt-of-the-earth-mom-and-pop supporters, who live and breathe the ignorance the GOP (and Fox, and the 'Conservative talking heads') put out to them like slop in a trough.
But the biggest point of all that I "blame the little guy" for is that they claim to be "Good Christians" yet they exhibit the most heinous vindictiveness against the poor and the most appalling self-righteous amoral selfishness I've ever had the displeasure to witness... along with a knee-jerk resistance to letting down their barriers and being totally self-honest about what they say, what they do, and most of all, what they support.
And before you condemn me for all this, know this: my own parents have been duped by all this, my own parents have been brainwashed by Rush, and Beck, and Bortz, and Fox... and under normal circumstances, my parents are some of the nicest, kindest, most giving, most sympathetic people on earth: good, salt-of-the-earth folks. I'm trying to show them facts that refute the garbage they've absorbed that the Neo-Conservative and Christian-Dominion front has put out... but it's not easy. It doesn't help that they don't get diddly squat of news from the internet: they get it from talk-radio (translation: Conservative outrageous talking heads) and from Fox.
I'm 49 years old... and I can remember a time when Republicans were Conservatives and not "Right Wing Extremists!", when Religions and Religious Leaders did NOT get into politics and advocate for making their own personal religion's dogma into LAW, and when both Republicans and Democrats knew what "bi-partisan" meant, and actually worked *with* each other to get important issues settled (as opposed to now, when the GOP holds the governing process hostage on a regular basis to get their owners' pet tax-cuts and projects passed into law).
Meanwhile, I have good, Christian, hard-working friends who can't get health coverage, live paycheck to paycheck, and can't get the diabetic wife the cancer-screenings she needs. I know of people who work two or even three jobs and can't afford healthcare after paying for a roof and food and utilities and caring for their kids. I know of people who have contributed all their lives to the system, who have worked and paid taxes and social security and all that stuff, and/or people who served in the military, who can't get the help they paid into the system to receive. All while mega-Corporations pay no taxes and get paid by government for tax breaks, and mega-wealthy pay the lowest tax rates in history, while the middle class is sinking into poverty and the wealthiest have the highest increase in earnings in history... and they want to "downsize government" (a.k.a. social programs, not the spending on war and military that so many of them make their money from as private contractors). It's sad to see us going the way of the Roman Empire, with Bread and Circuses to distract the masses until the inevitable crash.
And if I hear one more "I don't want MY taxes paying for_____" from uber-Conservatives who've benefited from government programs from BIRTH, I think I'll just scream.
It is absolutely disgaceful that America should be the ONLY western country without Health Care. Or, summarised in a different way:
Children love their parents because:
When they need shelter, parents provide,
When they are hungry, parents feed them
When they are sick, parents care for them
When they are in trouble or distress, parents will help them
Americans love their country, but:
When they need shelter, the country will not provide or help find
When they are hungry, the country will not feed them
When they are sick, the country will not care for them
When they are in trouble or distress, the country will not help them
And now the GOP wants to repeal Obamacare, Medicare, Social Security, hesitate to pass Obama’s Jobs bill, refuse to fund relief for hurricane Irene and vote against the President’s Jobs Bill..
Americans love their country;
Why can’t the country love them back?
Many conservatives indignantly point out that the United States has the best medical care available anywhere in the world. Quite possibly true, but this totally misses the point.
If people cannot afford to pay for health insurance coverage, let alone their own preventative medical treatment, then as far as medical care availability is concerned, there's no there there.
One of the measuring sticks of a civilized society is the extent to which it provides basic necessities (food, shelter, preventative and critical medical care) for those unable to provide for themselves or their families.
God help you if you get laid off from your job and thus lose your health benefits, and then discover that you or a family member has a life-threatening health condition. Or are denied coverage due to a "pre-existing condition". Or are a low wage earner with no benefit plan and cannot afford the skyrocketing insurance premiums.
Can't afford treatment? Go away and die quietly.
Of course, we all know the Republican Party's position on health care reform:
Phase 1 -- kill the current legislation.
Phase 2 -- Status quo. Do nothing.
The Congressional Republican version of health care insurance reform is the equivalent of vaporware. Long on nebulous generalizations laden with party ideology, short on substance and specifics.
Even so, the GOP's solutions are better … if you never get sick or injured, if you are extremely wealthy, or if you have a major financial stake in the private health insurance industry ...
Some conservatives self-servingly declare that "health care is a privilege, not a right", essentially stating that if a person cannot afford preventative health care or insurance coverage, then they are simply taking up oxygen and deserve to die anyway. And if businesses are in danger of going bankrupt due to rising health care benefit costs, then they should eliminate all benefits -- give the newfound savings to the stockholders and executives, as God intended it to be.
My health care plan is for a big rock to hit the earth in about a year... Same as my retirement plan...