patrick.net

@evil monkey, how can Cal be on the list of the lowest takers when the State is living off of the welfare tit from DC at this very moment?

Bap33 says

@evil monkey, how can Cal be on the list of the lowest takers when the State is living off of the welfare tit from DC at this very moment?

Because they are only living on the "welfare tit of DC" in your head. For every dollar CA sends to DC they get 81 cents back and that is a fact.

Bap33 says

Dan, you seem kinda bitter

No, I'm just trying to see how you rectify the contradictions in your philosophies.

Bap33 says

I am pretty sure those came from organized labor ... are you saying that organized labor is a progressive thing?

Yes,

http://www.youtube.com/embed/SILpcE7wffo

There is both good and bad in the history of unions. However, as long as capital is organized, labor must be as well. Otherwise the power is concentrated all on one side which exploits the other side including the use of violence and murder, even the murder of children. Yes, the murder of children is what you get when capital is left completely unrestrained. This is not an exaggeration of any sort.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/XDd64suDz1A

But if you want to know the real impact of the Progressive Movement and why it was necessary for what we now call civilized life, start here...

http://www.youtube.com/embed/5EcvdyY6r8w

Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

Are you including defense spending cuts in your "public spending" cuts? If not, then you aren't even making a dent in the deficit.

I was pointing my comment at State spending for Cal, not fed defense. Sorry for any confusion.

Alright, but the question is still valid. You have clearly advocated reduced federal spending, as have I. Given that over half of federal discretionary spending is in the defense industry and that we spend over 10 times as much as China the next largest spender on defense, can you really hold the position of spending less without drastically cutting defense spending?

evilmonkeyboy says

For every dollar CA sends to DC they get 81 cents back and that is a fact.

True. From http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/what-states-are-leeching-off-the-taxpayer/question-2475027/

The 32 states (and the District of Columbia) that got more in Federal Spending than they contributed -- 76% are Red States

17 of the 20 (85%) states receiving the most federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Red States.

80% of the Top 10 states that feed at the federal trough, get more dollars back from the US Gov than they pay, are Red States, Voting GOP in 2008

(Red States highlighted in bold): #s 2 - 10

States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)

100% of the 10 states receiving the least federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Blue States, voting Obama in 2008. They lose money when they pay taxes funding the Red States welfare and other programs

Top 10 states that receive the LEAST federal dollars per dollar given....feed the rest of the states with Blue States highlighted in bold.

States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)

Full Study here..

www.taxfoundation.org

Dan8267 says

You red state people have always been the most vile and evil people in America committing acts of slavery, genocide, racial terrorism, segregation, lynching, assassination, false imprisonment, execution of innocent people, and condoning the rape of black women.

Its a pity that the above still are happening in Africa... systematic and on a massive scale for the past 30 years.. You will not find it happening in the USA.>

Delurking says

I disagree. We create *way* more wealth than we consume. Problem is the 1% have their parasitical taps on everything.

Actually, it's more fundamental than that. The wealth flow is an extractive one, not a generous one. In other words, it consumes the resources it will need to create wealth in the future, rather than working to create more resources that will be needed.
The flow of resources (human labor and creativity is really the only thing we contribute) is in the wrong direction. Instead of humans being useful to their future, they are entertained by it: keeping them detached from responsibility for their own offspring's needs.

thomas.wong1986 says

Its a pity that the above still are happening in Africa... systematic and on a massive scale for the past 30 years.. You will not find it happening in the USA.>

No, but you will see the hand of Capitalism involved. U.S. companies 'develop' infrastructure in Africa, causing population explosions and migration off the land to the cities. When the factories or mines are terminated, the people have no way to create the money to buy imported food, and the land (being neglected for a generation) is no longer able to grow food (dryland farming requires continuous care to keep the soil from turning to brick).
When the people become desperate, U.S. companies encourage racism among people of the same race (as the Belgians did in the Congo), then sell them weapons to fight off the "Evil Communists", escalating into wars on terror that threaten "our" resource base.
No, we don't see it in the U.S. so much these days. Efficiency has demanded that we externalize those costs.
Don't get me wrong. I don't hate my country. I think it is a grand experiment which will determine the success or failure of the entire human race and whether or not Intentionality actually exists. I just think that the strength of a society lies in its ability to be honest with itself and take responsibility for its actions, not in any "national security" secrecy and fascism (corporatism).
Every dollar has a price in resources. For the last 100 years, the resource that made the most dollars available was oil (replacing labor). Now we need to be creative in how we reverse that and make dollars without oil through creative labors as well as physical labors. Otherwise, we will see nothing but conflicts, and those conflicts will not stay outside our borders for long.

evilmonkeyboy says

Bap33 says

@evil monkey, how can Cal be on the list of the lowest takers when the State is living off of the welfare tit from DC at this very moment?

Because they are only living on the "welfare tit of DC" in your head. For every dollar CA sends to DC they get 81 cents back and that is a fact.

really? so, how can a state running a deficit in the millions (or is it billions) be sending any money any where? I am pretty sure Ca took out some Fed Gov loans to operate .... lots and lots of money - from a pile created by the nations taxpayers and prinitng presses - or am I mistaken? If Cal is not budgeted millions in the whole, and is clicking along just fine, then I retract my question. And I then want to know why so many State jobs in prisons, law, schools and such have been chopped .... it just don't add up "in my head".

RE: Africa,
Right now the Christians are being murdered by the IslaMuslaists on a grand scale --- but, somehow, the media missed the story ...

rootvg says

Conservatives are the cave men, going out every day to kill something for everyone at home to eat. Liberals are the ones at home taking care of the young, scared of their own shadow and frightened to death that they might offend somebody.

That would be funny if you didn't actually believe it.

tatupu70 says

rootvg says

Conservatives are the cave men, going out every day to kill something for everyone at home to eat. Liberals are the ones at home taking care of the young, scared of their own shadow and frightened to death that they might offend somebody.

That would be funny if you didn't actually believe it.

I know a lot of people who believe it. Where the fuck do you think I got it.?

rootvg says

I know a lot of people who believe it. Where the fuck do you think I got it.?

From another like minded individual who makes up shit about "liberals" so he can feel better about himself...

Bap33 says

how is the money being poured into California backed/accessed/ whatever the correct term is, without the FedGov (not "the fed") playing a roll and covering the debt? I may be missing the correct vocabulary,

The entire CA budget is on line. http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/

I'm sure with minimal effort you could get a list of CA bonds.

Why would you think that the federal government funded CA bonds? States, counties, cities, towns, independent authorities all issue bonds in their own names.

marcus says

Yes, I know it's shocking, yes SHOCKING, that we should move in this direction of communist wealth distribution. It's the worst and most un-American development for the people since social security and medicare.

What's shocking, I think, is that the 'leaders' couldn't find the fortitude to stand up to the corporations. What we ended up with is a tax that is laundered through corporate offices, rather than simply processed through the government. Instead of working to make government work like it was designed to work (with checks and balances), they (elected representatives) allowed corporations to buy all three branches of government. By voting the law to be constitutional (funny, that, since our constitution was specifically written with an anti-East India Tea Company bent), Justice Roberts did exactly what George Bush did with wars: taxed the shit out of people to ensure corporations continued making profits, whether or not we choose to pay them or whether we can afford to pay them.
The very first step of our representatives should not to be talking to economists or insurance experts. They should be talking to functional medicine doctors about how to develop health in people, rather than subsidizing cheap, crappy food and then subsidizing drug and surgery corporations to 'cure' people and cut them up in luxurious hospitals placed where people who can't afford cars can't wander into the emergency rooms.
Since we exported all of the useful jobs making money overseas, the corporations figured out how to make money by extracting the health of the country's citizens. It's just like drilling for oil. They know it's gonna end, but "not on our watch", so money is just money, and profits belong to the profiteers.

Bap33 says

really? so, how can a state running a deficit in the millions (or is it billions) be sending any money any where? I am pretty sure Ca took out some Fed Gov loans to operate .... lots and lots of money - from a pile created by the nations taxpayers and prinitng presses - or am I mistaken? If Cal is not budgeted millions in the whole, and is clicking along just fine, then I retract my question. And I then want to know why so many State jobs in prisons, law, schools and such have been chopped .... it just don't add up "in my head".

I'm not arguing that CA has budget deficits that it has filled with federal loans, by the way loans have to be repaid so that is really not valid point as to CA being on the welfare tit. I am simple pointing out that taking money from one state and giving it to another is "redistribution of wealth". I am not saying this is right or wrong but simply that Republicans are all for "redistribution of wealth" when it is beneficial to them and their constituents.

Auntiegrav says

They should be talking to functional medicine doctors about how to develop health in people, rather than subsidizing cheap, crappy food and then subsidizing drug and surgery corporations to 'cure' people and cut them up in luxurious hospitals placed where people who can't afford cars can't wander into the emergency rooms.

I agree with the gist of what you're saying, but this is cynical even for me (or maybe I'm just splitting hairs).

Yes, capitalism leads to growth growth growth, sometimes at a cost in terms of quality of life for the masses, or sustainability for that matter.
But it isn't a conspiracy. Things just naturally go in that direction, with capitalism and free markets.

At some point this has to change. I'm for the most part agreeing with you. When people say that "capitalism and free market might not be perfect, but it's the best system we've seen," I sort of agree. But at the same time, it's clear that government is necessary and that a balanced system is best. It's not balanced now. It's skewed towards the benefit of the rich and corporations.

The political battle, which is partly just BS show, and these days mostly about fighting for who gets the most government money, is a tiring joke. They would have the dumb masses believe there are only two choices. Outright communism, with everyone having nearly equal quality of life, versus free market capitalism with small minimal government and regulations, where anyone should be able to work hard and get rich.

When the Citizens United decision occurred, we were already in a state where the pendulum had swung too far to the right, but now it's truly scary. Occupy Wall Street, and possibly other movements will arise. But yes you're initial point I agree with entirely, that is:

Auntiegrav says

What's shocking, I think, is that the 'leaders' couldn't find the fortitude to stand up to the corporations.

True. And maybe I am being overly optimistic when I hope that insurance company administrative costs (including profits they squeeze out), won't be that much more than the bureaucratic costs of a single payer system.

I want to give the PPACA a chance, mostly because it addresses most flaws. If costs don't moderate, then next step hopefully would be standing up to the corporations.

Meanwhile we can hope that campaign finance gets addressed before America as we know it, is totally destroyed. (maybe I am as cynical as you after all).

zzyzzx says

Personally, I always vote against them, irregardless of what they are for.

Some might find this ironic, but that word does not mean what you think it means. I recommend perusing this article on "irregardless," and eight formerly-pristine words that have become endangered due to the Internet's encroachment upon their natural habitats.

http://www.cracked.com/article_15664_9-words-that-dont-mean-what-you-think.html

marcus says

Auntiegrav says

They should be talking to functional medicine doctors about how to develop health in people, rather than subsidizing cheap, crappy food and then subsidizing drug and surgery corporations to 'cure' people and cut them up in luxurious hospitals placed where people who can't afford cars can't wander into the emergency rooms.

I agree with the gist of what you're saying, but this is cynical even for me (or maybe I'm just splitting hairs).

It's not so much an evil conspiracy, it's business conspiracy ("it's not personal"). The new hospitals being built are being built in the exurbs, where only people who have enough money for a car can access them easily. My brother tells me they did it on purpose to avoid the obligations to indigents, but I just think it's the cheaper land prices and the paying customers (the same thing, but less cynical and a little less paranoid).
I often hear people say things like "there are no conspiracies". I laugh because where I worked in the gov't, the ONLY way you could actually get your work done (see "doers" above) was to conspire with someone to manipulate the paperwork and "do some tradin' ". If I and my coworkers had followed the rules and not conspired to subvert the system when I was working for the gov't, nothing would have been done. Some of the tradin' gets mighty elaborate and very high up. It doesn't stop unless it crosses certain boundaries or steps on the wrong toes (NSA, DOE, CIA), other than that, it's all fair game to keep the budgets balanced and the authority established in the food chain.
God>>the Invisible Hand >>Banks >>Multinational Corporations>>Puppet Representatives >>Advertising agents>>Distribution (logistics)>>cash register>>Dollars>>drug dealers>>customers/voters
The dollars are counted before the votes, and they are counted every day, not just once every 2 or 4 years.

thomas.wong1986 says

Its a pity that the above still are happening in Africa... systematic and on a massive scale for the past 30 years.. You will not find it happening in the USA.>

It's a pity when humans inflict suffering on each other anywhere in the world. However, just because there is still genocide in Africa does not abolish or even lessen the guilt of the red states for what they have done over the past 300 years.

Trying to distract people from the real issue that red state people are morally inferior is not going to work. Red staters have been on the side of evil in every moral conflict in our country for the past 300 years, even predating independence. As such, red staters have no claim to the moral high ground.

And if red staters want to be viewed as different from their ancestors and they want to redeem the red states, then they have to start by admitting that their ancestors all the way up to the mid-20th century were morally wrong. Next, they have to stop repeating those unethical and immoral decisions like suppressing other human beings.

The red states have yet to even start their redemption process.

Bap33 says

RE: Africa,

Right now the Christians are being murdered by the IslaMuslaists on a grand scale --- but, somehow, the media missed the story ...

That is simply because the media will never admit that religion is inherently evil. Doing so would be highly unpopular.

Dan8267 says

However, just because there is still genocide in Africa does not abolish or even lessen the guilt of the red states for what they have done over the past 300 years.

White mans guilt.. oh! i dont think so! You can stop with that kind of BS. Are you going to pin that same crap on whites or any others whose ancestors were not even in the US during those years! I guess your going to have to come up with some other white guilt trip!

Dan8267 says

religion is inherently evil

so said Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.. so they butchered 50+ millions to make a point destroy their people, culture, and history!

Dan8267 says

And if red staters want to be viewed as different from their ancestors and they want to redeem the red states, then they have to start by admitting that their ancestors all the way up to the mid-20th century were morally wrong.

Want to start with the Africans who TODAY still have slavery, killing 100,000s, rape, genocide... no no nothing moral wrong there!

Its all white mans fault.. its all Bush fault!!

Dan8267 says

Bap33 says

RE: Africa,

Right now the Christians are being murdered by the IslaMuslaists on a grand scale --- but, somehow, the media missed the story ...

That is simply because the media will never admit that religion is inherently evil. Doing so would be highly unpopular.

man is inherently evil, and man came up with every religion except God's. I think you are on to something.

evilmonkeyboy says

I am not saying this is right or wrong but simply that Republicans are all for "redistribution of wealth" when it is beneficial to them and their constituents.

I am not aware of welfare systems supported by the Repubs where individual workers are taxed and the gov then gives that money to other individual citizens deemed worthy by the gov. If the workers do not surrender the wages demanded by the gov for transfer to other voters/citizens, they will be jailed. I just don't agree with the forced tranfer between voters by the gov. It's a bad idea.

I do not think supporting the war machine is a transfer between individual citizens, like Section 8 housing is, for example.

I am not in favor of giving corps the same status as individuals. Just my personal feelings on that.

Medicare D .... did it replace something else?

Bap33 says

I am not aware of welfare systems supported by the Repubs where individual workers are taxed and the gov then gives that money to other individual citizens deemed worthy by the gov. If the workers do not surrender the wages demanded by the gov for transfer to other voters/citizens, they will be jailed. I just don't agree with the forced tranfer between voters by the gov. It's a bad idea.

I see, so your against the government imposing a "transfer of wealth" from rich to poor, but you don't mind the government "transferring wealth" from CA to Mississippi (state to state).

Just think if Mississippi didn't take so much money out of the pot then the people of CA could pay less in Federal taxes. Sounds pretty conservative to me, see if you can get any red staters to go along with it.

thomas.wong1986 says

White mans guilt.. oh! i dont think so! You can stop with that kind of BS.

Yet another bullshit Straw Man argument. No one ever said red state people are guilty because they are white. We say they are guilty because of genocide, slavery, lynching, raping, and assassination. I see that you haven't refuted any of these points.

Furthermore, I'm white, yet I've never committed any of those heinous acts. So your Straw Man argument holds no weight.

I stand by my statement. The people in red states have been on the side of evil in every moral conflict in America for the past 300 years. As such, they have no claim to be wholesome, decent, or morally superior to blue state people. History has proven that claim wrong.

thomas.wong1986 says

Dan8267 says

religion is inherently evil

so said Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.. so they butchered 50+ millions to make a point destroy their people, culture, and history!

Ah, poisoning the well. All of these dictators also said that we should protect children from harm. By your logic, we should therefore let children come to harm.

Seriously Thomas, don't you every get tired of making the same logical faculties over and over again? Do you really want me to repeat every evil thing that religion, particularly Christianity, has done during every single century over the past 2000 years? Cause, you know, I do enjoy doing that.

will I (or you) get to use Medicare D? or just non-working types? I am not aware of any Medicare stuff.

Bap33 says

man is inherently evil

Incorrect.

For thousands of years philosophers have debated the question "Is man's nature to be good, but he gets corrupted by outside forces, or is man's nature to be selfish, and he only becomes good if guided by noble outside forces?". And for thousands of years, philosophers got this question wrong. I will now tell you the correct answer.

It is man's nature to be good when he expects the behavior to be reciprocated and it is man's nature to be selfish when he expects the behavior not to be reciprocated.

For example, people are generally nice to strangers when meeting them face-to-face on the sidewalk. After all, it pays to be nice. But the same people will often act selfishly when driving on a highway cutting each other off because drivers don't expect to encounter the same other drivers again.

The reciprocity of behavior is what drives selflessness, fairness, and kindness. It's all about cooperation, and cooperation only works if the players meet repeatedly. This is why long-term relationships are inherently healthier and more beneficial than short-term relationships. This is why you get screwed over by realtors and car dealers, but not grocery stores and restaurants.

All of morality is a set of guidelines for facilitating cooperation in a complex and ever-changing environment. Morality is all about cooperation. That is why morality exists.

um, so, um, you just said that people screw each other when they know they have the chance ... and I suggested that man is normally an ass hole (unless taught morals and follow them). So, I think we are close to the same thing.

"Morality is all about cooperation" - not a bad idea. I think morality is also about personal accountablity, responsiblity, and helping those less fortunate without being asked and without expecting a return. Doing the right thing, when noone (but God) will ever know the difference .... that is one of my favorite things.

Republicans are promising to repeal and redo "ObamaCare," while preserving pre-exisitng conditions coverage, and all of the other favored aspects of ObamaCare, but killing the mandated coverage of everyone (or penalty (tax if you prefer)for not being covered).

Yeah? Who says? Is this a direct quote from some media/Democrat talking head, or what?

As far as I know, Republicans are promising to repeal Obamacare, and I have yet to hear of any specific proposal to put in its place.

Which is A-OK by me. Healthcare only became a national urgency all of a sudden in 2008. So what changed in 2008? Absolutely zip. Except it was time for the Democrats to pull out some vast monstrous Save The Planet scheme and try to panic everyone into throwing away their liberty and money to support it. Because that's what Democrats do. They're always the party of Big Ideas. Wars to Save Democracy, Wars on Poverty, Wars on war itself.

It's their same old same old. We have a panic about missing kids, and we get kids on milk cartons. Then that mysteriously vanishes, when people figure out not a whole heck of a lot of kids are actually abducted by strangers. We have a panic about school shootings that leads to "assault weapons" bans and hand-wringing about guns in America, and metal detectors at school and what not. And then that drifts away. We have a crisis with girls not being able to play Division I sports. Or gays not being able to marry. Or "equal pay" for women, and the Equal Rights Amendment (remember that? The Republic was going to collapse if that didn't pass.) Or redlining in insurance. Or uninsured motorists. Or apartheid. Global warming (or maybe cooling). Oil spills. Oil addiction. Drug addiction. Legalization of drugs. Education. The homeless. The uninsured.

And on and on and on. There's ALWAYS a Panic Of The Year whipped up by people who want you to send them your vote and your money, so they can hire a bunch of $250,000 a year lawyers and assistants and coffee-fetchers and have meeting after meeting in some nice conference room in Washington, or possibly in Aruba or Paris if it involves international stuff, at which absolutely nothing gets done except more plans and rules are drafted which will -- what a surprise! -- require still more of your tax money and still more of your attention to following another thick book of rules. And after a while, when people realize the "crisis" isn't really happening, it drifts out of sight and out of mind, until the next one is dumped on you, like a fresh steamer from the dog on your newly cut lawn, right from Democratic Party headquarters.

It's all bullshit. All of it. The "health care crisis" is completely manufactured, no less than the global warming that was supposed to destroy the planet any day now, or the food riots that were supposed to be consuming the United States a few year ago, according to the timeline of the 1980s Democrats.

If Obamacare were simply repealed, and we went right back to the status quo as it existed in 2007, after a few years nobody would notice a damn thing. Aside from the eternal grumbling that There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch, we were all pretty satisfied with our healthcare and how we bought it in 2007. Nobody felt any huge sense of disaster. There was no marching in the streets. No Nightline coverage of the millions dying of infection because they couldn't afford to have their broken bones set, or the grandmothers denied their chemo and sent home with aspirin and a whiskey bottle. Because there never was any genuine crisis, and there still isn't. It's a manufactured bit of FUD to sell you a bill of goods.

Sure, the cost of medical care rises year after year. Duh. So does the price of a smartphone, in case you hadn't noticed, or the top of the line Mercedes E class, or the best HDTV you can buy, and for the same reason. The best keeps getting better, and if you insist on the best, you'll be paying more and more. (You can very easily keep your health care costs down to 1970s or even 1950s levels, simply by making do with 1970s or 1950s health care outcomes. It's only if you want 2012 outcomes that it's going to cost you 2012 prices.)

But so what? Anybody who has a decent job gets almost all his costs covered as part of the job. (Which means the REAL scandal -- the one the Democrats don't want you thinking about -- is how hard it is to get a decent job under President Obullmaster.)

Sure, healthcare is going to eat up a larger and larger fraction of your budget, compared to other stuff. Again, so what? That's progress. We all spend WAY more of our monthly budget on electronics and communications than we ever did. In 1975 you paid $15 for your monthly phone bill, and that was it. No cell phone, no cable TV, no Internet, no data roaming plan, no WLAN. You bought a phone and a color TV. The phone lasted 20 years, the TV 10. None of this buying of a phone for every person in the household, and replacing them every two years, plus a router, a cable modem, maybe a flatscreen TV for each room of the house, plus a handsfree thingy for the car, not to mention a PC or two, maybe a Kindle and an iPad, just for when it's too much trouble to walk up to the bedroom where the PC lives...

We don't begrudge that. We are a wealthy people, we LIKE the fact that we have money to spend on electronic toys and communications, we feel it's worth it, it improves our lives. Well, so does 21st century healthcare. The statins, the drug stents, the white cell boosters for chemo, the liver and kidney transplants, the hip replacements, the blood pressure meds, the arthroscopic surgery, the MRIs to tell whether it's just a migraine or a brain bleed, the fancy radiotherapy that lets guys with prostate cancer still get a boner. Superior allergy meds, Viagra, birth control pills that take away most periods, arthritis pain meds that don't give you ulcers, patches to help you quit smoking, drugs to control your diabetes so you don't have to stick yourself with needles every day.

These things all let us live years and years longer than our parents, and more importantly in much greater comfort. We are lucky that they are available, and we should be pleased and proud of ourselves that we can afford to devote an increasing percentage of our income to simply improving our health and longevity well past what our genes (and lifestyles) would naturally give us.

The thing that's going to surprise a lot of people this November is how many people are fully capable of comprehending this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/opinion/the-real-winners.html?source=Patrick.net&_r=1&hp

You might want to check it out Carl.

marcus says

The point is that we are moving forward. And we get the things that everyone wants:
*Preexisting conditions covered
*no lifetitme caps including no caps on medications to seiors (the so called donut hole)
*nobody get's kicked off health insurance for being sick
Everyone wants these things. Obama Care delivers these and attempts to pay for them with the mandate.
Republicans say they can magically deliver these things without a mandate.

Actually, I don't think that rank-and-file Republicans say they can deliver these w/o a mandate. It's not a priority to them (you can tell where I stand on this). A person shouldn't choose to get sick unless they have enough money to pay for the treatment. If they don't have enough, then then they should ask for private charity. If they can't get it, that is unfortunate but not the goverment's concern.

GOP leadership usually won't explicitly say that these issues are of no concern, but they also won't say that tort reform, high deductible ins plans, etc will enable universal coverage. Because they won't.

The issue goes beyond economics, to a value judgement. Is it OK that some percentage of US citizens should suffer or die due to being unable to afford health care? Some say yes, some say no.

SiO2 says

The issue goes beyond economics, to a value judgement. Is it OK that some percentage of US citizens should suffer or die due to being unable to afford health care? Some say yes, some say no.

I agree with you here, except it's not that simple.

Many republicans are extremely capable of programming themselves to believe what they want. They wouldn't even be republicans if they weren't very good at ignoring how against their own interest their votes often are. It happens for a number of reasons.

In one case it might be that they've bought the whole Guns, Gays and God bs. In another it might be a southerner with strong racist upbringing. Often it's just allegiance to a party that they aligned themselves with 30 years ago, because of parents, or whatever reason, and they aren't changing. This happens on the left too.

Many of these people either won't honestly look at the question:

"Is it OK that some percentage of US citizens should suffer or die due to being unable to afford health care?"

Or, they will somehow magically convince themselves that that isn't what it's about. It's about government takeover, death panels, blah, blah, blah,.....(insert propaganda here)...

But you're right, in many other cases, they simply don't believe that we should all pay for health care for everyone.

If asked why we're the only developed country that doesn't have some type of universal health care, what would their answer be ?

I suppose they think it's because we're special.

rootvg says

I'm on a first name basis with a few people who write for Newsmax and they're saying we already have southern governors who are seriously talking secession. The general consensus seems to be that both parties have betrayed us.

Yeah but they won't because of this:
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/what-states-are-leeching-off-the-taxpayer/question-2475027/
I personally wish they would though so America could get back to becoming the greatest country in the world again.

Bap33 says

man is inherently evil, and man came up with every religion except God's.

I bet Romney and Glen Beck are pleased that you have come to know that Mormonism is God's one true religion and all others are abominations. It must have been a difficult first step for you to realize that your brand of Christianity is a corrupt and evil construct of man.

The next step is to have a few lessons before your baptism.

http://mormon.org/missionaries?gclid=CK_liouY_rACFSgbQgodSE_lWA

"My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right — and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong, and the personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in His sight: that those professors were all corrupt . . ."
-Joseph Smith, "History of the Church", Vol. 1, page 5-6

"no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith...every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are"
-Brigham Young, "Journal of Discourses", vol. 7, p.289

Carl Pham says

Which is A-OK by me. Healthcare only became a national urgency all of a sudden in 2008. So what changed in 2008?

You forgot 1996 when Bill Clinton had to save us from those pesky $35 premiums. He failed but we got $300 premiums for his effort, and a convoluted health privacy act, but for some reason we know exactly how much someone weighed and how much drugs were in their system at the time of death, with more precision than ever.

Medical billing is so complex now, that Medical MD United HC biggest business is their billing practice for smaller doctors.

Thanks Clintons, I can really feel the Vaseline now.

@leo,
Have you forgotten my view of Joe Smith? I think your full force attack aimed at me is based on a misunderstanding. I'm not surprised at your willingness to kick shit my way, but I am surprised that you did so on a baseless, or at the very least misunderstood, point. You are much better at this, than that, normally.

Bap33 says

Have you forgotten my view of Joe Smith?

What, you are not open to change?

Bap33 says

I think your full force attack aimed at me is based on a misunderstanding.

Come now Bap, an "attack"? Yes, this is indeed a misunderstanding. I was merely responding to your comment that all religions were evil except "God's" (whoever that is!). Remembering that Joe Smith once said a very similar thing. I was merely suggesting that perhaps the mormon god is the right one.

An attack no... but yes, knowing what a supporter you are of prominent mormons I thought a good-natured ribbing was in order.

As you well know mormons hold Joe Smith in the same regard/level that they hold Jesus, So...

Right from God's mouth --to--> Joseph Smith's ear --to--> Mormon scripture --to--> Romney and Beck's brains.

The quote can be read on the LDS website right here:
http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1.19?lang=eng#18

Is Beck a mormon ? I thought he converted to Catholocim. Who am I thinking of,...Gingrich ?