Google+ Followers

Blog Catalog

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

Republicans: Political Party First, Then Money, THEN People


The Republicans in Congress and in state houses all across America have been putting money and their political party ahead of their constituents, ahead of Americans and for years.
After the horrible, horrific Newtown shooting/slaying of 20 school children and 6 adults at the school, the first thing out of their mouths was that this murder "shouldn't be politicized" in a clear effort to protect the NRA and the gun lobby and weapons manufacturers.

Once again, guns--and money--before people, before us Americans. They put their political party and the money they get from their "sponsors" before Americans and before American lives.

This one they just recently, rather famously did.

House GOP Blocks Measure to 

Keep Guns from Mentally Ill


They ruled that people who are clinically diagnosed as being mentally ill and/or unstable should be able to have weapons, guns. In their terms, they should "be able to exercise their Second Amendment rights."

People be damned.

And now, with Republicans finally, finally creating and releasing a plan of any kind to replace "Obamacare", which is so important to them, they once again did the same thing. They put money and the deficit and the budget ahead of people, ahead of Americans, ahead of American lives.

This headline proves, shows where the Republicans' priorities are and proves my point with their health care plan is right here:



Here's another.

No Magic in How G.O.P. Plan Lowers Premiums: It Pushes Out Older People


They’ve put guns before American lives for years and now, budgets before American lives. Everything boils down to money with these people. And then they’re doing it so they can get and keep more money in their pockets, from their sponsors and overlords, in the form of “campaign contributions.”


Though it's estimated 24 million Americans would lose their health care insurance completely, these Republicans want and plan to give the already-wealthy yet more tax breaks, with the very same bill.

8 comments:

Sevesteen said...

If the social security rule was intended to stand, why not establish it just a little earlier than AFTER the ELECTION RESULTS?

The answer is that the rule was only intended if Hillary lost. It won't withstand challenge. Change from "clinically diagnosed" to "adjudicated", you will remove most of the objections...and we've already got that, the GOP isn't changing that. If I'm that crazy, you should be able to prove it easily in court. These headlines make it seem as if Trump is changing long standing gun laws--why is this sort of deception necessary? Headlines don't prove anything, anybody can write a headline.

It will cost a certain amount of money to provide a certain level of care. An insurance company that doesn't collect that amount of money can't provide that level of care. It costs more money to care for older people. We don't object to charging more for auto insurance when costs will be more for the insurance company--young male drivers pay extra. People with a poor driving history pay extra. I'm over 50, drive a small, sensible car, choose to not pay for full coverage. I shouldn't pay the same rate as a teenager in a Camaro-but teens risk of expensive health conditions is much lower, he shouldn't have to pay the same rate as someone over 50. People understand that you can't wait until after a collision to buy car insurance--but the same math applies to health insurance.

And most of the things I could do to reduce my actual health risks can't be taken into account. I lost 85 pounds not long ago-I'm sure that drastically reduces my risk, but it is considered unfair to charge obese people more--so I get no insurance benefit by no longer being obese.

The PJ O'Rourke quote is odd in context--buying and selling health insurance is more and more controlled by legislation. He's speaking out against that, somehow you seem to be taking that as an endorsement.

Mo Rage said...


It wasn't Trump changing the law for the mentally ill to have weapons. It was Congress. They are doing the NRA's and the weapons manufacturers' bidding, of course. It's what they're paid for, with "campaign contributions."

If you studied health care in virtually any other nation on the planet, you would know our health care system is, far and away, the most expensive one in the world. Literally. And not just by a small amount. It is also grossly, grossly over-priced and killing us, as Americans. So we have, as the study in 2014 showed us, the most expensive and least effective health care system of the top 17 industrialized nations. It's insane. But hey, it's also Capitalism. It's also indefensible but I feel certain you'll try.

Finally, you're mistaken about me and the P.J. O'Rourke quote. I put it there as proof of corporations and the already-wealthy buying our legislators and so, our laws and finally, our government.


Sevesteen said...

This isn't anyone changing the laws allowing mentally ill to have weapons, it is going back to requiring judicial due process before denying rights. Dangerously mentally ill people are still denied the right to own guns even after this reversal of an extremely brief regulation. it's dishonest to claim otherwise. But repeat a lie often enough and loud enough...

If I'm wrong, what dangerous people were denied but now aren't?

Free market capitalism is a system, it requires actual free markets to work properly. I need to be free to buy from someone else. We don't have capitalist health care. We have at best mercantilist health care--the government requires that we deal with a limited number of providers from a limited menu of options, those providers have way too much influence on the government and restrict competition. Imagine if Target had to get permission from Walmart before opening a new store, or if the FCC added millions or billions in costs to license a new cellphone design...or even an otherwise legal copy of an existing one. An aside,this is yet another reason for drug legalization--Don't allow lies, require all clinical trial results to be public regardless of results...then let me and my doctor decide.

Complaining that corporations have bought government regulations...therefore we need more regulations makes no sense. Why will this batch of regulations be different than the last batch?

Mo Rage said...


You and the NRA and weapons manufacturers make answering a lot of your questions easy. Very easy. This one, from you:

"...what dangerous people were denied but now aren't?"

From March 6, this year. Approximately 2 weeks ago:

"Despite a mother's plea, her mentally ill daughter was sold a firearm"

She called the police. Then ATF. After that, the FBI.

Janet Delana was desperate to stop her mentally ill adult daughter from buying another handgun.

Finally, Delana called the gun shop a few miles from her home, the one that had sold her daughter a black Hi-Point pistol a month earlier when her last disability check had arrived.

The next check was coming.

Delana pleaded.

Her daughter had been in and out of mental hospitals, she told the store manager, and was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. She had tried to kill herself. Her father had taken away the other gun, but Delana worried that her daughter would go back.

“I’m begging you,” Delana said through tears. “I’m begging you as a mother, if she comes in, please don’t sell her a gun.”

Colby Sue Weathers was mentally ill, but she had never been identified as a threat to herself or others by a judge or ordered to an extended mental hospital stay — which meant she could pass the background check for her gun.

At the Odessa Gun & Pawn shop, Weathers approached a manager: “Something like what I bought last time.”

She seemed nervous, the manager, Derrick Dady, would recall to police.

The Hi-Point pistol and one box of ammunition cost Weathers $257.85 at the store, on the main drag of the small town of Odessa, about 40 miles east of Kansas City.

Weathers headed back to the house that the 38-year-old shared with her parents, stopping along the way for a pack of unfiltered cigarettes at a gas station. A firefighter who was an old acquaintance saw her acting skittishly and muttering.

An hour after leaving the gun store, Weathers was back home where her father sat at a computer with his back to her.

She shot.

_________________________________

She ended up killing her father.

Nice, huh?

Mo Rage said...


And please.

We absolutely have Capitalist health care.

It's directly tied to profit and profits.

It's why ours is the most expensive health care system in the world, far and away.

Is it completely unregulated?

No, certainly not.

But the UK realized that would be crazy, years ago. They made that illegal and impossible--wisely--in the 1940s.

They pay far, far less for health care than we do and their life expectancy is longer.

You'll deny all these facts, I'm sure.

Sevesteen said...

The argument is due process. It appears that existing law should have been sufficient at the time to get her added to the deny list even with due process. We have criminals fall through the cracks all the time, that doesn't mean we eliminate criminal due process. There's a reason we separate jury, judge and police, why we have Miranda warnings. We need to do the same here--we can't just let the government say "this isn't criminal, so due process doesn't apply", or "The doctor has a diploma, that's enough due process". We need an impartial judge, rules of evidence, constitutional protections, individual hearings. It is important to keep guns away from dangerously ill people, but not so important that we give up the bill of rights.

...and if the regulation had been serious instead of lame duck political posturing, why wasn't it already in place in 2012 where it could have prevented this? Nobody thought of it until JUST NOW?

Mo Rage said...


I trust and assume, giving you credit, that you accept and realize I'm, first, all for due process, and second, that I've never said anything against it.

The Republicans are saying---legislating--that people officially mentally ill should still be able to purchase weapons. Look what this family got from that idea.

Mo Rage said...


Finally, people have "thought of it" long, long before just now.

It's just that the NRA and weapons manufacturers, through the Republicans, whom they own, have been able to block any real legislation on weapons, as you ought to know and recognize, and repeatedly, over the years.