I don't know what you are talking about and think you are making that up but I will allow you to provide an example to back up your claim.
State-funded health systems are crappy. They are good at covering people at the very bottom but for everyone else they're terrible. They literally let people die and suffer misery according to budgetting. Everyone who can afford to not use it should be encouraged to go private. However, I never understand conversatives wanting instead to bring insurance companies into their health system for everyone. Per-capita American's pay twice what we do and that is with tens of millions uncovered. It's just ineffective and even worse than we have.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism Dominionism in general, a popular ideology among the those in the far right. Let's start with a couple of major players in the recent Republican primaries. Examples; Michelle Bachmann's association with John Eidsmoe, studying under him at O. W. Coburn and serving as a research assistant for his book, Christianity and the Constitution, which argues that the USA was originally a theocracy and should move back in that direction. Repeated admiration for Francis Schaeffer and Nancy Pearcey, vocal dominionists. Newt Gingrich, who wrote the book Rediscovering God in America, including extensive quotes from David Barton's "research" to support the book's claim that the US is a "Christian Nation" and was intended to remain that way indefinitely by the founding fathers. In case you're not familiar with Barton, here's a quote from the back blurb of his book The Myth of Separation. The interior of the book takes that a step further by arguing that "Christian Nation" not only means a nation with Christian values and laws, but one that enforces a religious test excluding non-Christians from public office (he specifically mentions that Jews were not meant to enter office in the US). On Barton, Gingrich said; Want me to continue with the rest of the Republican ticket?
So basically you have the opinions of two republicans and no examples of them trying to manifest those opinions into any sort of law in the US. That is like me stating that all Democrats are far left Commie enviro whackos because of Van Jones. gg broad generalizations.
I implied at the bottom of that post that I only stopped because I wasn't sure it was worth the effort to chase down quotes from the remaining candidates, though Romney and Palin have both said similar things. Hell, for that matter, Ron Paul is a creationist and a proponent of Christianity and Christian "ethics", though due to his libertarian views he's far less concerning than mainline authoritarian republicans. Don't get me started on batshit crazy Santorum, and the scary thing is he came close to winning the nomination. Give me an hour. explicitly stated that I was referring to the far right/religious right. Don't strawman me. While there are secular republicans, they're a minority, and the six politicians I've referred to at this point all know that and pander to the religious right for votes. Jerry Falwell may be dead, but his special brand of evangelical Christianity still has power in this nation.
Bachmann's attempt at banning gay marriage in the Minnesota constitution. http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2003/11/20_mccalluml_doma/ Failed, fortunately, though Minnesota republicans are trying a third time this coming election. Wants to make teaching of creationism mandatory in public schools. http://www.stillwatergazette.com/articles/2003/10/02/export160.txt Gingrich: support of DOMA. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/25/us-gingrich-iowa-idUSTRE75O25720110625 Believes religious conservatives should radicalize to oppose the left, atheists "not american". I don't know why I'm doing all the heavy lifting, though. It's not my fault you're ignorant of the political and religious views of your own party. While you're not going to find a major political candidate directly attempting to overturn the First Amendment, a disturbing number of them have expressed views in writing or in speech that imply they wouldn't be opposed to such an action if it wouldn't cost them their seat in congress. (see my previous post) Every single one of the six politicians I've mentioned delusionally believe there's a war on religion going on from the White House.
Funny I read those articles and not once did I find that they were against gay marriage for any religious reasons. Ctrl-F (Christ & God). Kind of defeats your claim that Republicans (insinuating all of them) want a theocracy. You're doing the heavy lifting because you made the claim and the burden of proof is on you. Thus far I find your proof to be wanting in that Republicans want to turn the states into some sort of theocracy. I grant you that many republicans are have a belief system that stems from their religious beliefs outlining what is morally right and wrong which influences their opinions on things like gay marriages but that is a far far cry from your claim of wanting a theocracy and moving to implement one. Nice ad-hominem btw.
It works pretty good here. The main fuck up we have currently is that doctors are way overworked, we had pretty serious protests and strikes about a year ago and they got their terms, but I think it's still problematic. But as a "consumer" the system here works very good, at least from what I've experienced.
Are you seriously implying that they're opposing gay marriage for any reason but religion? What rock did you crawl out from under? Except you're moving the goalposts and then demanding I substantiate arguments I never originally made. My original post; A bit of an exaggeration, but the far right's consistent obsession with forcing pseudo-science to be taught in public schools in science classes (creationism), its obsession with controlling the behavior of others for religious reasons (everything from gay marriage to Alabama's ban on vibrators), general opposition to the separation of Church and State, and its stated interest in moving beyond these current issues if given the chance (most of the links I've posted ITT) are perfectly consistent with an interest in a religious (preferably protestant) government. Might want to look up that up, bro. An attack is only ad hominem when it's held to be evidence against an unrelated argument. A statement made for its own sake is never an ad hominem, even if it can be interpreted as an attack, as is apparently the case for the sentence I'm assuming you're taking umbrage with.
"But the far right" (what you mean is the religious right)...not all republicans are religious right therefore not all republicans are trying to force a theocracy on the population. Basically you made what you admitted to be an exagerrated claim and don't have the proof to back it up. I'm not the one moving the goal posts here. You are trying to shoehorn a few republicans into your argument to support your claim and it isn't working. Not to mention the whole statement that Republicans are the ones trampling the constitution after the discussion starts with Democrats are forcing people to buy a private product is laughable and the real example of moving the goal posts.
"A few republicans" is nowhere near adequate. Take a look at the major players in the previous few elections. Take a look at several of the biggest political issues in the Republican party (gay marriage, creationism, abortion, hell even the hullabaloo around the public display of the Ten Commandments). The number of republican hopefuls that accept evolution have always been an extreme minority (of the eight people present at the 2011 Republican Primary debate in Goffstown, New Hampshire, only Huntsman was not a creationist, and in 2008, McCain faced similar notoriety.) Evangelical Christianity is not a fringe sect in the Republican party. Don't pretend that it is.
Ok so if all Republicans are religious nutbags then all Democrats are socialist enviro whackjob elitists who think they know how to take better care of an individual than the individual would take care of themselves. Glad we established how logical your thought process is. Moving on.
Sure, religion takes a huge role in America as far as politics go. Religion means alot to alot of people. I dont care as long as someones religion doesnt call for harm to another person.
Gotta say, the socialised medicine system in Britain has looked after me well for my entire life. And I have several chronic health problems. Did right by my Dad when he was sick and dying. Took care of my mum when she was sick. It isn't perfect, no system is. But people who wave at our NHS and say 'look at the waiting lists, look at the rationing' seem to be ignoring the rationing inherent in the insurance system, as well as the 'waiting times' for those who can only get care in emergency situations, or indeed for the rest of the emergency patients who are attending casualty units overflowing with asthmatics, and diabetics, and others whose condition could have been maintained better and cheaper by the timely provision of regular medications. You can still get private health care if you can afford it and wish it. But that doesn't mean you don't have to pay into the NHS through your national insurance contributions. The doctors who treat the private patients were taught and trained through the public education system. Some of the treatment they buy will be dealt with in NHS hospitals using NHS facilities. The sheer scale of the NHS purchasing power means that drugs are very cheap here compared to many places. Private health providers benefit from that driven down price, as do their 'customers'. Like any system there are areas of difficulty. Particular health conditions become a problem at particular times and in particular places. Satisfaction surveys consistently show that whilst the public has a negative perception of the state of the NHS, when they have had actual personal contact with the system they have found it to be good or satisfactory. Usually when problems occur, it is because too many layers of system and management have been added through consistent attempts to marketize parts of it. NHS trusts and various conglomerate health bodies created to allow hospitals and caregivers to 'compete', locally negotiate services and priorities, and manage resources and staff in competitive, commercial style. Even so, the majority of people will find the care they need, when they need it, the majority of the time. At no point will the fact that they or a family member have at some point in their life been sick, stand in the way of them receiving further care. Nor will there be an arbitrary limit placed on how much care or treatment they can receive in a single year, or across their lifetime. There is a 'triage' approach to medical need in the NHS. An attempt to ensure the money and resources are focused to where they are most needed and can do most good, to where they are most 'cost effective and needful'. A medicine that can, with a 50-50 chance of success give a cancer patient an extra six months to a year, at a cost of 30k is unlikely to be acceptable in most cases. A medicine or procedure that can, with a 50-50 chance of success give someone an extra ten years at a cost of 200k may well be acceptable. The difference between the two systems is really only that in one the shittiest parts of the health care system settle entirely on one class of people, whilst the best parts of the system settle entirely on another class of people, and in the other system both the best and shittiest parts are shared.
I'm ok with tax money going towards healthcare as long as it is everyone, it would be hypocritical to say its ok for tax to be spent on defense of people and not the health of people. That being said, Obamacare doesn't guarantee everyone has healthcare, it only forces them to buy health insurance. With our half in half out system it drives the cost up while not increasing the quality of care or the accessibility of care. By forcing the burden of healthcare on our employers, they end up paying more into our healthcare benefits than into our paycheck and that contributes to our stagnating wages. This causes employers to deal with insurance companies that put as much of the cost on their employees as possible and our inability to choose a different insurance provider unless we change jobs increases their profits. If healthcare insurance was like car insurance I would be able to switch to another healthcare company whenever the one I am dealing with doesn't fulfill my needs at a reasonable price. A fully socialized healthcare program would cut out the insurance companies, but would become a tax burden eventually. The healthcare system as it stands gives small monopolies to insurance companies and reduces competition. This Is why I am against the government getting involved with too many things, their involvement raises prices without making things any better and then they use a worthless statistic to win people over. 30 million Americans forced by the government to buy unaffordable health insurance is what really just happened, coupled with several taxes which will increase the cost of healthcare, and several provisions which will increase the cost of the insurance. And they have the audacity to call it the Affordable Care Act.
Here's some copypasta from Reddit I think everybody should read. One of the key parts of the penalty (that most people seem to miss) is it takes into account an individual's income, handing out exemptions for those who genuinely can't afford health insurance. For those not exempt the penalty is adjusted to individual income. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/health-care-law-mandate-tax-how-much-is-it/ The funny thing is, this bill is about as right wing as it gets. I'd much prefer single-payer to this crap. But can you imagine the shit storm a single-payer system would have caused when the GOP is melting down over this extremely conservative act? It's inelegant, but it's a hell of a lot better than what we had before.
