Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Thursday, October 20, 2016

If Republicans Want To Reach Out To Minorities, They Should Stop Denying Them Health Insurance

If Republicans Want To Reach Out To Minorities, They Should Stop Denying Them Health Insurance

The effort to defund Obamacare led by Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) is pretty much doomed, as even Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) admits. But Republicans already successfully prevented millions of Americans from getting completely subsidized health insurance through the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion.

GOP governors and legislatures from 26 states have chosen not to participate in Medicaid expansion, though they will still have to pay the taxes that will fund the law. Unsurprisingly, the states rejecting expansion largely claim the highest rates of uninsured residents, including Texas, which has the highest percentage of uninsured residents in the union.

Another unsurprising fact is that minorities are being disproportionately denied health insurance by Republican refusal to accept the federal funds to pay for the program, which will cover 100 percent of the expansion at first and taper down to 90 percent by 2020.

“People of color make up the majority of uninsured individuals with incomes below the Medicaid expansion limit in both states moving forward and not moving forward with the expansion at this time,” according to a recent report from the Kaiser Family Foundation, which is illustrated in this chart from Mother Jones.

medicaid expansion race

Expansion is designed to help the working poor, as the nation’s poorest residents are currently covered by Medicaid. The expansion frees those in poverty to earn more without risking losing their coverage. But each state gets to define what is considered “poor.” In Arkansas, a family of three can only earn up to $3,133 a year and keep Medicaid. Mississippi caps Medicaid recipients at $5,677 a year. Medicaid expansion would cover those who earn up to 138 percent of poverty — $31,321 a year for a family of four.

So who gets hurt most by rejecting expansion? Single mothers and minorities.

“The 26 states that have rejected the Medicaid expansion are home to about half of the country’s population, but about 68 percent of poor, uninsured blacks and single mothers,” The New York Times’ Sabrina Tavernise and Robert Gebeloff report.

The last election made clear that Republicans have a problem with two groups — single women and minorities. The “rebranding” they promised isn’t going well, even according to Republicans.

Here’s a simple way to let female voters and people of color know you’re not interested in scoring political points by making their lives more difficult: Stop making their lives more difficult.

As soon as you get to the acceptance stage — where you finally admit that Ted Cruz holding his breath won’t make Obamacare go away — just expand Medicaid.

Photo: Taber Andrew Bain via

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2013 The National Memo
  • sigrid28

    9:40am EST, and Congress is just opening for business, long after Capitol security guards and their legislative staffs have shown up for work for the day–without pay. Across the country, in more than half of the states of the Union, Red state legislators are pressing their ties and shirts, primping and shaving, practicing mean-tempered things to say about the individuals whose health care coverage they will go to their state houses and cavalierly deny.

    You have to ask yourself, how did the vanity of so many get caught up this way in bullying the weakest of their constituents? Decent health care hangs like Thomas Jefferson’s favorite apple that ripens this time of year, a striped red fruit with speckles that remains tasty until spring if you store it properly, with a super name: Esopus Spitzenburg. I and my fellow Americans are so close to adequate health care coverage we could almost reach out and taste it, except for spiteful bigots and misogynists who have been allowed to play out their intolerance for all to see–for our entire history as an evolving democracy. And they intend to keep it that way.

    Our salvation was once in the Civil War, and then in the Civil Rights Movement, and now resides in the word “roll-out.” During the life of an Esopus Spitzenburg apple, for a whole six months once it is picked, the ACA will have a long and gradual roll-out that will eventually encompass us all, impoverished women and minorities though we may be, leaving the backwoods redneck haters now clamoring in the halls of Congress and state houses across the country, in the dust of history, where they belong.

  • charleo1

    The Affordable Healthcare Act is not another government welfare program. In fact,
    the Affordable Care Act would cut the largest welfare program we have. The one
    that every year forces Federal, State, and local Governments, to spend billions, to
    keep local facilities, like community hospitals, and clinics financially afloat. These,
    often the only source of emergency treatment for miles, in thousands of small towns
    across the Country. And yet, even this is not enough. So, if you’re one of the majority fortunate enough to have health insurance. You should know, a portion of every dollar you, or your employer spends on providing your healthcare, goes to reimburse hospitals, and healthcare professionals to offset their costs incurred treating the uninsured, and indigent. Who’s numbers continue to increase every year. Indeed, every dollar in increased premiums will result Nationwide, in hundreds, or even thousands more, joining the ranks of the newly uninsured. We as a Country need to keep in mind, President Obama did not create our failing, and financially unsustainable healthcare system. Excuses given for repealing ACA, fall flat, when compared with hard cold facts. Ironically, one reason for the objection to ACA, is things are not as bad now, as they are going to get over the next decade, and beyond. The demarcation line between the two camps of those supporting the healthcare law, and those opposing it, are not right vs. left, old vs. young, or even
    rich vs. poor. The dividing line is much clearer between those who now have medical insurance, and those for whom medical insurance has been unattainable because of price, or a pre-existing health condition. Another fact, that is neither
    hard, nor cold. Is the Affordable Care Act is already helping millions of Americans.
    Parents able to keep their children covered, whether they are attending college,
    or just getting their feet under them, working an entry level position without medical
    benefits. Parents who’s children are born with a medical problem no longer have
    to worry about impoverishing themselves, and their other children, to pay for the
    medical care of their newborn. Because of the healthcare law, that child is covered.
    Does that sound like any tyranny, anyone has ever read, or heard about? Not to
    those new parents it doesn’t. ACA is a Godsend. Others say, well I think it’s wrong,
    or dangerous, or unConstitutional, for government to be in the healthcare business.
    Or, I don’t want the government to force me to buy anything! That’s Communism!

    Of all the objections, these two are the most frequently heard. And, actually make
    the least sense. When the undeniable truth is, if not for government, our National
    healthcare system would have bankrupted itself long ago. The fact the fortunate
    insured have a system to access at all, is due to the government subsidizing four
    out of every five dollars spent on healthcare in one form or another. We know
    about Medicare, Medicaid, healthcare for Veterans, and healthcare for those
    employed in the public sector. What we don’t always think about is, the tax breaks
    given to employers providing medical benefits to their workers. (A tax break is $$
    that would have otherwise gone into the treasury to pay other bills.) The money
    allocated to the thousands of schools, and colleges, that train our doctors, nurses, and technicians. And the student loans the government backs, for the thousands
    who enter the health field each year. We are aging as a people. And that fact,
    makes the business of providing, and delivering healthcare one of the fastest growing industries in the Country. Other ways in which our tax dollars are spent
    on healthcare, include the hundreds of millions of dollars dedicated to research,
    and finding cures, and more effective treatments for some of those illnesses that cost the Country billions each year. Such as cancer, and heart disease. But also Alzheimer’s. An illness that threatens to bury our aging system in red ink in the
    next few years, if new treatments are not discovered to allow these patients to
    remain independent much longer after the onset of this most cruel disease.
    Of course other tax dollars are required to run those agencies vital to the public
    health of the Country. The Center for Disease Control, monitors those pathogens
    capable of sickening millions of Americans. A job made incredibly difficult, and
    all the more vital in an age where jet travel, and human mobility can spread a
    pandemic in weeks. The FDA is charged with a wide variety of functions. All
    necessary, from maintaining the safety of our food supply, to the quality, and
    effectiveness, of of thousands of medications. Can we imagine a healthcare
    system without this government agency? Could we ever give our children a medication, without worrying about it’s strength, and quality again? Want
    Government out of healthcare? No you don’t. Someone just told you a fairy

    • foundingprinciples

      The government should stay complete out of healthcare, except perhaps to enforce A VERY FEW regulations like hospitals being clean, and physicians being licensed, or at least having to describe their qualifications.

      • Carol Dijkhuyzen

        OBAMCARE is here to stay,Mister.Now the wealthy Koch’s could not buy our doctors,hospitals or pharmaceutical institutions anymore..they are being BLOCKED by OBAMACARE…Risk Scott has committed the biggest Medicare fraud in history& reimbursed Florida billions in exchanged not to be persecuted!& handed the governorship.But he will be hammered soon in 2014…..Under Obamacare he could no longer committ a FRAUD!From a DEM in Monaco.

        • foundingprinciples

          It looks like ObummerCare is probably going to stay. I hope we survive. It will result in higher prices and shortages.

          I will bet you something else, too, and I guarantee it: If ObummerCare becomes part of everyday life, within 3-5 years, the Left-wingers will be clamoring for more! Yes, MORE, MORE, MORE!

          The Liberals will want universal healthcare. On the way, they will ask for other stuff like sex-change operations, and scream this is a right, of course. Watch.

          • Carol Dijkhuyzen

            Extremedeadly founding wrong principles,the name of our President is Barack Obama..Your parents did not teach you good manners…

      • charleo1

        Just judging from your moniker, I can guess you think the Founding
        Fathers covered all contingencies way back in 1770s & 17780s.
        Did you know, when Washington was on his death bed, they called
        in several apothecaries with presumably impeccable reputations to
        bleed the great man, and thus, rid him of whatever the hell was ailing
        him. And the Founding Fathers probably saw no need for regulating
        apothecaries. Other than maybe having clean knives, and a successful apprenticeship. Times change. If the government is not ultimately responsible for pubic health, then who? What private organization is responsible in that world where the government is completely out of healthcare? For guaranteeing the effectiveness, the purity, and strength of every medication given to every patient,
        or sold across the counter to the general public? Which private company then monitors the continuous outbreaks of contagions emanating from across the globe? Researches the rate, and manner of the pathogen’s ability to pass from one person to another. Or one animal to another. Who pays for that? Or, is it your opinion, that is all superfluous to the security of a Nation, or it’s people? My feeling
        is, you give Mr. Washington a modern, 7th grade lesson in biology,
        and he would immediately see where the government’s responsibility
        in working for the common good, was never more properly placed
        than in the field of healthcare. But this issue also has to do with the
        kind of society we want to create here in this Country. The kind of
        society we will be passing on to the next generation. Are we to be
        the kind of society that extends the notion that even in the area of
        life, and death, sickness, or health, there will be a strict enforcement
        between those that have the resources to pay, and they will receive. And those that cannot secure those resources, will not. I think we
        must consider this issue long, and hard. Because, that will indeed
        be a drastic change from the society we have known throughout
        our lives. The idea that a society has a moral conscience. Beyond
        the Constitution. Beyond the bounds of contractual law. For there
        is not where the soul of our collective lives. Our collective soul lives
        within each of us. No, I do not buy into this anti-government, fad.
        And that’s what it is. Do you think if the Right was in control of all
        the levers of the government, they would be so anti-government?
        Use your common sense here. If we were to ask criminals if they
        could make more money, and thereby improve the economy.
        If we cut the bloated, out of control, police department, and stopped making unreasonable regulations that only served to punish their success? What do you think their answer would be? Sure, environ-
        mental regulations cost companies billions. But, for the simple fact
        that if corporations always did the right thing, we wouldn’t need
        the government to regulate them. Just like if all of us were law abiding, we wouldn’t need a police force. I submit we should form
        our opinions based not on pure ideology, and faith. But on the realities of the world as we find them.

        • foundingprinciples

          { I can guess you think the Founding
          Fathers covered all contingencies way back in 1770s & 17780s.}

          In principle, they did, in fact.

          You mentioned the government and public health. Of course, the public should be protected from fraud, poisons, charlatans, etc. But that does not mean that government is supposed to take money from the people to dole out medical treatment.

          You are illogical. There is no connection at all. There IS one against fraud and chicanery, but being sure medical care is provided – including things like knee replacements and sex-change operations that Leftists claim is a “right” – is neither a right nor a government responsibility.

        • foundingprinciples

          { If the government is not ultimately responsible for pubic health, then who?}

          The individual, of course. What else – Your Leftist COLLECTIVE?

          {My feeling is, you give Mr. Washington a modern, 7th grade lesson in biology}

          Typical Leftist – Take a “fweeling” and make it public policy, a right that working Americans have to pay for or go to prison.

          • charleo1

            You’re kind of hung up on the impression these are all,
            “leftist,” ideas. Well, they’re not. Or that being Conservative
            means that working Americans should be free to pay no taxes, if they see no value in the government making sure medications are safe, or work as intended. Or, your water and the air is not contaminated. See, some American are just, well, stupid when
            it comes to appreciating all the ways governments must do
            these kind of things, that add security, and quality to our lives.
            Things that must be done. And we cannot do all of them ourselves. You mentioned two operations in which you don’t
            believe government should be involved in. Knees, and sex
            change. First, Medicare does replace a lot of knees. And I
            don’t see people out in the street calling for it’s elimination.
            Especially those who are benefiting from it. Yes, even the
            Conservatives. Who do like quite a few of those collective
            Leftist ideas. Wouldn’t you agree with that?

          • foundingprinciples

            Lie #1:

            “being Conservative
            means that working Americans should be free to pay no taxes.”

            Show me where I wrote that.
            Lie #2:
            “no value in the government making sure medications are safe”

            I actually said there should be some regulations and recourse for fraud and injury.
            Lie #3:
            “Things that must be done. And we cannot do all of them ourselves.”

            Reasonable people know that. Take the military, the courts, the police. Leftists go hysterical and write extremes that do not exist or were ever proposed.
            Lie #4:
            “You mentioned two operations in which you don’t
            believe government should be involved in. Knees, and sex change.”

            I wrote that we should not expect the young people to give up large portions of their incomes to pay for such things.

            And you never made mention of sex change operations. I take it that your silence means you think that the “government” should pay for these.

          • charleo1

            Well Sir, you made a very extreme statement, that Gov.
            needs to be completely out of healthcare. If you don’t
            have exactly that opinion, and believe Gov. should be
            involved, then I understand your point of view better.
            I didn’t respond to sex change operations, because
            one, the number preformed each year would not be
            important to the overall. And I believe they are
            considered elective. You did not respond to my
            assertion that Medicare is Gov. in healthcare. And, so?
            And you’re right, about young people. More young people
            are uninsured than any other group. Because, more of
            their employers do not offer health benefits as part of their
            pay. Because of the kinds of jobs many millions of young
            are employed at today. Conservatives are forever talking
            about the entrepreneurs, and how important they are.
            Did you know, that between 1995, and 2005 the cost of
            an individual major medical, which is the policy people
            who work for themselves, starting their businesses, has
            to buy. Has quadrupled from around $3500 to more than $15,000 per year, for a family of four?
            So, think about this. How many bright, and gifted young
            people are out there, right now? That want to start their
            own businesses, and create thousands of new jobs. But,
            are tied to their jobs, because they can’t afford the price
            of an individual plan? Then, there are millions more
            young people without insurance that go to emergency
            rooms when they get sick, or injured, or pregnant. Who
            pays for that? Still don’t think the youth should either buy
            themselves some insurance, or pay a little extra in taxes?
            Don’t think the Gov. ought to have them pay at least
            something into the system? Then, you may like taxes more
            than you think. Unless you want to just turn them away at
            door? And that’s not going to happen.

          • foundingprinciples

            [I didn’t respond to sex change operations, because
            one, the number preformed each year would not be
            important to the overall.}

            I am more interested in principles, and it would reveal your principles.

            {You did not respond to my assertion that Medicare is Gov. in healthcare. And, so?}

            In principle, I am against all government intervention, but the reality is that – take SS – there are many people who will simply not save for their old age, even if they have the income to do so. So, I suppose I would have to concede on principle and agree that we have to FORCE people to save money. I simply would like to see a private option for the more intelligent and responsible people And some kind of savings plan as an option instead of Medicare.

            {Did you know, that between 1995, and 2005 the cost of
            an individual major medical, which is the policy people
            who work for themselves, starting their businesses, has
            to buy. Has quadrupled from around $3500 to more than $15,000 per year, for a family of four?}

            I do not know the exact figures, but I will take your word for it. I suspect that with groups, the price can be less.

            But other questions remains. How is it paid? It is not any kind of a “right” to receive medical care. Saying that ” they can’t afford the price
            of an individual plan” does not lower the total cost to the nation, money that has to be taken from someplace.

            A big problem is cost, and the free market is not allowed to work to lower costs. And international clinics are pretty much free market, and their costs are about 1/4 to 1/5 ours. There is excessive paperwork, government regulations. Lawsuits account for some of the expense. Do you know that cosmetic surgery, which is closer to the free market because there is less government involvement, has actually seen the costs maintain or go DOWN, while the quality has gone up?

          • Carol Dijkhuyzen

            Stop calling people lefties!You misterfounding wrong principles!Then you are the greedy deadly extreme right..

          • foundingprinciples

            Left-wingerism is a dogma that has to be presented and exposed to the American people because it is a cancer, a malignancy that rots at the very fabric of our society.

    • 4sanity4all

      Excellent post, Charleo, and I would add that money will be saved on healthcare in the long run, because people will have illnesses nipped in the bud because they can see a doctor as soon as they have symptoms, instead of waiting to go to the hospital when they are nearly terminal.

      • charleo1

        Yes, you are 100% right about this! Money will definitely be saved.
        We will over time become a healthier people. And strictly speaking
        from an economic standpoint, a more productive people. I heard
        we have perhaps 1 million Americans who have developed type 2 diabetes, and are not aware of it? I don’t remember the source of
        that stat. But, it sounds logical, given our problem with obesity.
        Again, considering only the economics, untreated diabetes is the
        cause of, “a ton,” of serious long term. and very expensive to treat maladies. The truth is the emergency room is no substitute for a
        regular doctor, and a an annual physical exam.

  • Carol Dijkhuyzen

    Repubs will never understand what hit them last election..It was the repealing intention of the hcare…they will enver unerstnd a thing!Repubs were free loaders of the government funded hcare paid for by you and me,they don’t want others to get what they received for free…imagine offshore Romney and his ignorant jealous wife Ann,spreading”we will repeal Obamacare!speaking of reaching out to many who need this hcare badly..Romney has introduced in Massachusetts the same Obamacare!Is Ann and Mitt so stupid wanting to repeal their own hcare?Get lost ÿou people loser!

    • foundingprinciples

      It is a matter of ethics. It would be unethical to buy votes by going against our Constitutional principles and having our government get involved – directly or indirectly – with providing healthcare. It is not any kind of right, except a made-up right by Leftists.

      • Carol Dijkhuyzen

        America as one of the richest in this world,as powerful militarily and economically,should provide hcare especially for the poor,.. millions of them that are uninsured…Thank God now everyone has a health care regardless fo wealth & religion..Abe Lincoln if alived today,would not only have abolished slavery but also dismantled his own greedy selfish, empty incompetent republican party…with toxic teas in tow.Yes it is more than a right to have a good hcare for America’s a rich nation.

        • foundingprinciples

          The military is part of our Constitution. The primary responsibility of the government – even before defending our NATURAL RIGHTS – is to protect the country itself. If it ain’t protected, there ain’t gonna be no rights, nohow, buddy.

          Health care is not a right.

          • charleo1

            Healthcare is a Right, at least according to the Federal law.
            In the early eighties, the number of uninsured showing up
            at emergency rooms was rapidly increasing. Even before
            ObamaCare, huh? Some hospitals had taken to rerouting
            ambulances to community hospitals, if it was determined
            the person was uninsured, and most likely unable to pay.
            So, Congress passed a law, and Ronald Reagan signed
            it. Mandating all health facilities to render care to anyone
            presenting themselves, without regard, to insurance, or
            bond, or securing any type of promissory note in lieu of
            necessary treatment, or triage. Sounds like a Right to me!

          • foundingprinciples

            {Healthcare is a Right, at least according to the Federal law.}

            It should not be. I believe that people cannot be turned away not because of a right to get medical treatment, but because if it is life-threatening, the hospital that declined would be responsible. An uninsured person cannot ask for a hip replacement.

            But non-life threatening situations a right? Hardly.

          • charleo1

            Well now you’re just splitting hairs. If a non insured parent
            brings in a child with an inner ear infection, they must treat
            it. If a uninsured person has their leg broken in a car accident,
            it’s not life threatening. The hospital, and doctors may send
            the minimum wage worker a bill for $15,000 dollars. But,
            the chances they’ll ever get a dime from this person is zero.
            As they have no assets to attach. And millions are treated
            in this manner every year. So, this situation of having tens
            of millions, mostly young individuals, presenting in this way.
            Requires the government at all three levels, Federal State,
            and Local, plus insurance cos. themselves, to reimburse
            the hospitals, in order to keep them afloat. That’s just the
            way it’s done. You may contend a broken leg should not
            be set, on principal. But, in realty they are required to treat.

          • foundingprinciples

            I like one part of the Japanese system: The person receiving treatment WILL pay up, one way or another.

            If the person does not have insurance, he will pay. His salary will be taken. If he is not working, his car and house will be taken. If he has no car or house, his father, children, or even cousins will be expected to pay up, and they will. Someone will pay up, sooner or later.

          • charleo1

            The health care system in Japan provides healthcare services, including screening examinations, prenatal care and infectious diseasecontrol, with the patient accepting responsibility for 30% of these costs while the government pays the remaining 70%. Payment for personal medical services is offered through a universal health care insurance system that provides relative equality of access, with fees set by a government committee. People without insurance through employers can participate in a national health insurance programme administered by local governments. Patients are free to select physicians or facilities of their choice and cannot be denied coverage. Hospitals, by law, must be run as non-profit and be managed by physicians. For-profit corporations are not allowed to own or operate hospitals. Clinics must be owned and operated by physicians.
            Guess what? I have a computer that allows me to look things

          • foundingprinciples

            I specified only the fact that people have to pay, one way or the other. CAN’T YOU FREAKIN’ READ, PAL? I did not recommend the system, I SPECIFICALLY wrote, “one part of the Japanese system.” Got that? Do you understand what “one part” means?

          • charleo1

            Yes, the 30%. Not the government’s 70% Or the universal
            availability. Or that the plans are administered by the local
            government. Or, that corporate for profit hospitals that run
            the costs up here. Are not allowed there. This is how the
            rest of the industrialized world deals with healthcare. We
            are the only Country that handles healthcare like we do.
            Frankly, they couldn’t afford it. And, neither can we. We
            don’t have the best outcomes. Or the healthiest population.
            Because we fail to test millions of our citizens. So, they
            show up sicker, and much more expensive to treat. We
            spend three times as much on healthcare here, than is
            spent anywhere in the world. More than the entire economy
            of France spends on everything. And, there are no price
            controls on any of the vast majority of companies that
            provide healthcare. Or the vendors that supply them the
            equipment. You have mentioned hips a couple of times.
            The cost of manufacturing that artificial hip-$350 dollars.
            The price they charge the hospital-$13,000. The price
            the hospital charges to install it-$30,000 dollars.

          • foundingprinciples

            I referred to how the people have to pay. You are dishonest.

          • 4sanity4all

            And you are woefully uninformed on how the ACA will be funded, and what it will provide, and to whom.

          • foundingprinciples

            It is not a matter of funding or the lies that the government will be more efficient and bring costs down.

            It is about overstepping the bounds of our Constitution, buddy. It is about liberty. You do not understand that at all!

          • 4sanity4all

            But the Japanese government pays 70%, so your example only supports Charleos position, and shows your contention to be erroneous, foundingprinciples. In fact, all other industrialized countries have government subsidized health care. They cannot understand why we are so backward, to not provide it to everyone. We already provide it to the poor (Medicaid) and the elderly (Medicare). You sound like an old geezer. Are you going to turn down Medicare when you turn 65? Or will you accept “socialized medicine” then?

          • foundingprinciples

            You are a vile distorter of what was posted. I know how the system works. お前は何もわからん!

            It is not about the Japanese system, it is about making people responsible. If people do not have insurance, the government does not pay 70% pal! They pay when the person HAS the insurance. If the person does not have insurance, he pays the full amount, and my point, MY FREAKIN’ POINT ABOUT WHICH YOU ARE LYING AND BEING UNETHICAL AND EGREGRIOUSLY DISHONEST, is that the uninsured are made to pay up!

            Got it now, pal?

          • nells

            Dude you may or may not be an older person but you certainly act like a spoiled brat throwing a tantrum when things aren’t going your way. You bring up points and when somebody shoots them down with facts and or logic you get mad. I imagine you holding your breathe and stamping your feet as you write your response. Also what the hell is with you and sex changes lmfao.

          • foundingprinciples

            No, I do get impatient when Left-wingers completely distort what was written. As I repeated about six times already, I referred to the fact that the Japanese make uninsured people pay for the medical care. I said SPECIFICALLY that I liked this ONE ASPECT.

            Then, in response some Left-winger starts writing about Japanese government insurance, completely changing the topic! I explained yet again to the Liberal, but the Liberal simply continued to write at length about the Japanese system, obviously trying to impress others on the thread. Heck, I wrote IN THE JAPANESE LANGUAGE to make a point, and the writer was too much of a Leftist DOLT to get it, and just kept on spewing leftist nonsense completely unrelated to my original point.

            Yes, it is frustrating, but I am used to how liberals are. It shows why reasonable and rational adults get so frustrated with Liberals and how irrational, emotional and illogical they are.

          • Carol Dijkhuyzen

            You sounds like the toxic tea losers…

          • foundingprinciples

            I support the patriots of the Tea Party of which I am a member.

      • Jim Myers

        You forgot to mention that it is also a “right” for the so called “Job Creators” to ship jobs overseas, reduce working hours of those left here in order to eliminate benefits, and get massive tax breaks for being “Job Creators.”

        • foundingprinciples

          You have categorized a group of people and are inferring that they are evil, and that they should not have the same rights as the rest of us.

          You probably are also referring to the “evil corporations” in that most wicked of all nations – America.

          I hope you know that our corporations have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

          Oops! I left out Dubai. Theirs is a bit higher.

          • Jim Myers

            I have not categorized a group of people and I am not inferring that they are evil.

            I am saying the very nature of the corporate structure is based on profit first, regardless of the consequences to employees, clients, etc.

            The rest of this reply makes comments about the gist of your response.

            Although the corporate rate may be higher than most of the world, with the deductions, expenses, depreciation, etc that the major corporations use, (and abuse), the actual rate is rarely the maximum corporate rate.

            Also, the deductions have allowed some multi-billion dollar corporations to escape tax free in a few cases. In many other cases the tax for certain years is pathetically low.

            Not exactly a reason to provide even more tax breaks for the so called “Job Creators” who are desperately downsizing, shipping jobs overseas, and doing any other thing, legal or otherwise, that enhances the bottom line.

            While at the same time, reporting record profits and sitting on Trillions of Dollars of capital.

            If corporations are truly “people” why are the CEO’s and Executives allowed to provide unlimited money for political causes, regardless of the wishes of the majority of employees, stock holders, and sometimes even the Board of Directors?

            This same argument applies to Unions as well.

          • foundingprinciples

            {Although the corporate rate may be higher than most of the world, with the deductions, expenses, depreciation, etc that the major corporations use, (and abuse), the actual rate is rarely the maximum corporate rate.}

            Interesting how Left-wingers WANT to think the absolute worst. If that statement is going to make sense, to be a real statement of an issue, you would have to present information about companies of other countries.

            But the Leftist simply presents an proclamation – without any evidence – of American corporations (I DID present the international information) – of what he THINKS is true, and without any reference to any other countries.

          • foundingprinciples

            {Not exactly a reason to provide even more tax breaks for the so called “Job Creators” who are desperately downsizing, shipping jobs overseas, and doing any other thing, legal or otherwise, that enhances the bottom line.}

            Do you think that wage slaves create jobs? And do not forget unions that have demanded unreasonable wages. Take the UAW type – They make almost DOUBLE what the Japanese do! And they ask for more, more, more, more. They finally backed down and even accepted cuts because they saw that their excessive demands were destroying the very source of their incomes!

          • Jim Myers

            First, my last sentence stated that the same argument applies to Unions as well.

            As for the UAW, the wage increases they negotiated were at the same time when Roger Smith was holding DAILY catered lunch “meetings” with the top executives of GM, at an estimated cost of $50.00 per plate.

            GM executives gave in to the UAW because of the huge margins they were making at the time. Better to pay what the UAW wanted than to see all that profit go away during a prolonged strike. A strike that would have cut into profits and would have stopped the ability of the top executives to demand higher and higher compensation for themselves.

            GM proved that excessive greed, both at the executive level and at the labor end, CAN AND WILL kill nearly any profitable enterprise.

          • foundingprinciples

            {If corporations are truly “people” why are the CEO’s and Executives allowed to provide unlimited money for political causes, regardless of the wishes of the majority of employees, stock holders, and sometimes even the Board of Directors?}

            Part of the reason is related to free speech. But if you are going to take that stand, please note how unions, many GOVERNMENT unions, spend incredible amounts of $$ on supporting candidates, and all the candidates – repeat, ALL – are Democrats. LOL

  • howa4x

    The republicans are in a no win position on this. Governors are not in DC but closer to home and have to deal with unintended consequences. For example, the uninsured are not going to stay home when they are critically ill, they will go to the hospital emergency room for treatment. Most can’t pay the bill so the hospitals start knocking on the statehouse door for reimbursement. Most states, even the red ones have some sort of charity care. After all it’s the Christian thing to do, and it is used to pay for this type of hospital care. So these states will be paying out of their own pocket for care that could be paid for by the federal government. People always told me that republicans are fiscally smart but this is downright stupid. Another consequence is the anti abortion movement that gets young girls to keep their babies, especially in the bible belt south. This is very noble except most live in abject poverty with limited access to child care. So republicans not only deny them health care but also their newborns. They also cut the safety net that these young mothers depend on. Programs like head start give these kids pre kindergarten, and food stamps help feed them. These are two of the programs that the house cut from the budget. A lot of unskilled people that make up the working poor work in jobs with no benefits. Think of Wal-Mart or the fast food industry here. The states want these retail industries to employ their residents but don’t force them to pay for benefits, so the tax payer is on the hook for care, because the state didn’t take the expansion! How will they lower state taxes if this mess is happening there?
    Sometimes you can’t make this stuff up

  • nana4gj

    If this proves to be an ongoing issue, and I live in Texas under a Mad Hatter Governor who has refused to expand Medicaid and refused to create state plan exchanges under ACA and who has refused the funding in Medicaid for the Special Women’s Health Fund, denying more and more healthcare access to more and more people instead of creating better alternatives, just shutting stuff down, and as long as we can elect as many Democrats into national office from President on down, the problem will eventually be intercepted with a Federal plan with which to solve it.

    These kinds of strategies will force the Universal Single Payor issue. Let the games begin.

    • nana4gj

      The Federal Government created the ACA plans for Texas and they are great ones, better than anything the Republican Governor or Republican Legislature would have done.
      Perry refused on the principle he did not want the federal gov’t telling him what to do. So now, the people in his state will be insured through the assistance and intervention of that same Federal Government and I thank the Federal Government with all my heart and mind.

  • Carol Dijkhuyzen

    To Misterfounding principles,This is the blogosphere,commenting live thread you may,but your parents did not teach you good manners..the way you call our President Obama’s names?you don’t deserves to be heard!We may differ in opinions by an ocean but can you put civilness in your comments?I guess not,you keep on calling our President wrong name…It is President Barack Obama the great…