patrick.net

Good perspective.

My friend, a republican and mormon, and I were discussing why i intensely dislike Mitt Romney. My answer:

I have trouble with someone who believes that, based upon my income alone, I'm a welfare baby with no redeeming qualities. His perception is that I don't matter because I don't have earning power, nor do I own $$$$$$ worth of investments. He believes that I'm not worthy of healthcare (although, thank heavens, my employer provides insurance); but his opinion is that people should go to the ER and get treated for acute conditions rather than to provide preventive care that would actually save money and free up the ER time.

Mitt was born with a silver spoon so far up his ass that he has no touch of reality. His horse has better health insurance than most of Americans - and his children are so priveledged (as was he) that they will never have to perform a day's work in their entire lives.

Mitt Romney used daddy's money to become a corporate raider, send jobs overseas and blame it on "they system" when the companies went bankrupt because of his intervention. He doesn't understand compassion, caring, the philosophy of the mormon church to not flaunt wealth, live simply and treat others with respect in the manner which you would like them to be treated.

Mitt is a liar - he says one thing when the cameras are rolling, but another altogether when he thinks he's among friends (republican fundraisers). He, like GW before him, has trouble with the truth and is merely a talking head.

He is offensive in his condescending attitude toward those who are less fortunate than he - which is much of the world.

This is my opinion, of course. I'm willing to say it on a website known for people who levy personal attacks based on their perception of my views, rather than my actual opinion.

If these other anonymous posters were to post their honest opinion rather than to simply make nasty accusations, their single message might have more meaning. However, I will be branded a "liberal" and personally attacked for stating my views of this useless piece of shit presidential candidate whose entire campaign is being financed by billionaires who don't want to pay taxes...

The real problem with his "47%" comments was it got caught on tape.

Finally people had PROOF of a forked tongue.

You can delude yourself someone is a friend, or an ally, or at least "not such a bad person". That is until you overhear them talking smack about you when they think you can't hear it. Suddenly your lurking tiny suspicion they are a fraud crystalizes.

Vicente says

The real problem with his "47%" comments was it got caught on tape.

Everything is on video today, yet politicians still think they say one thing to one group and the exact oppose to another group, and no one will be the wiser. They have yet to grasp the concept of an information age.

elliemae says

[Romney's] opinion is that people should go to the ER and get treated for acute conditions rather than to provide preventive care that would actually save money and free up the ER time.

Hi Elliemae, I like you and often like your comments, and I can't stand Romney, but because I do like you I want to say something about this one point. The myth of preventive care supposedly saving money was disproved by the CDC and the experience of RomneyCare in Massachusetts, where spending increased instead of going down. In particular, unnecessary diagnostic radiation can be lethal.

"What's new is that CT is being marketed as a preventive or proactive health care measure to healthy individuals who have no symptoms of disease
[but there are] No Proven Benefits for Healthy People"

"FDA doctors and scientists...blew the whistle on serious health and safety violations on medical devices being approved by the FDA. One CT colonoscopy device that they exposed made it onto the market, 600 to 800 times the radiation dosage of similar devices that are more effective"

Also the test results are often ambiguous so they lead to many unnecessary procedures that can cause further injury and premature death. I mention this only because I personally know women who think they are being responsible when they get themselves irradiated, even though it increases their risk of getting cancer.

Vaccines save money, but insurance covers few vaccines and vaccine coverage remains limited under ObamneyCare. Also going to the dentist twice a year is a good idea, but ObamneyCare does not cover that.

Romney is a hypocrite because he signed legislation requiring everyone to pay for medical "preventive care" and now finally he says they could go to the emergency room instead, but the fact of the matter is, when it comes to health, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Malpractice kills more than 100,000 Americans annually, and hospitals injure 20% of patients. 5-year survival rates are distorted and inflated to make it seem like "early detection saves lives," when in fact it often doesn't; Elizabeth Edwards had all the $ and insurance in the world, and she died at 61 instead of maybe 60 if she had done nothing at all, but she is counted as a "success" because she endured her diagnosis for more than five years. A neighbor died of cancer, he had what people call Cadillac insurance so he did every possible procedure, and afterwards a friend summarized it well: he should simply have gone on vacation and enjoyed his last few months. The first five Presidents lived a median of 82 years, the only one to die prematurely was Washington and that was because he agreed to medical care (which in those days consisted of bleeding the patient and administering possibly toxic remedies). They had no access to "modern medicine," it didn't exist. A lot of what's advertised on TV is toxic now, maybe not quite as bad as bleeding people deliberately but not much better. There are a few useful things, e.g. vaccines, but insurance usually does not cover them. The best predictor of longevity is education, not money and certainly not medical insurance. Anyway I wish you well, your life is your own, I only hope you won't get yourself unnecessarily irradiated into an unnecessary cancer.

The fact is that 71% of income tax is paid by 10% of the population while 2% of the income tax is paid by 50% of the population. Those are tough numbers to dispute. The fact that Romney brought this up as a point of discussion shows that he has the courage to start a past due conversation about how we need to reduce spending by changing a culture of dependence on the government not only by the poor but by corporations in industries such as healthcare, finance, farming and military. Nobody is entitled to anything other than their own personal pursuit of happiness, whatever that means to them.

To say that you have a right to healthcare services is ridiculous. Tell that to the nurses and doctors who are providing that service. Obamacare did nothing to reduce the cost of delivering service by getting the government out of the way and returning to a free market system. Government involvement in any industry always leads to higher costs and lower quality. Sure, you might have better access to some sort of services, but the quality is going to greatly suffer. Meanwhile, private healthcare will continue to provide excellent services to those who can afford it, only it will leave the USA altogether, or a 2-tiered system will form.

As to Romney's perceived privilege I say, so what? The politics of envy is a destructive force but very useful to the Socialist cancer cells that occupy Congress. Many of the wealthy in this country are where they are because they are smart and took risks. He may not be a Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos or Andy Grove but he is right about changing the USA to be the best destination for capital investment in the world. Following that vision will ultimately help the poor the most by providing jobs and opportunities that have gone elsewhere as the government continues to tax and regulate producers to oblivion.

The sheer number of useful idiots in the USA boggles my mind. I suppose it is a side-effect of the culture of entitlement and dependency that the Commies and Socialists have successfully fostered since LBJ went full-tilt on guns and butter. Romney may not have addressed the issue in a very eloquent fashion but, by the responses he received, he most certainly has hit a raw nerve.

JohnLaw says

The fact is that 71% of income tax is paid by 10% of the population while 2% of the income tax is paid by 50% of the population.

I would have no problem with the super-rich paying 0% income tax if they actually created the wealth they have instead of siphoning it from the poor and middle class. The real indisputable truth is that the vast majority of the top 0.1% are parasites who have never contributed anything to the real GDP and do not produce any wealth. If anything, they are massive wealth destroyers and they are rich only because they redistribute wealth from the working class wealth producers to themselves.

As such I have no problem with them being taxed at 90%. It's just a stop gap measure, but until the real solution of stopping these parasites from becoming rich at our expense is implemented, it's the best we can do.