EXPAND MEDICARE TO REPEAL OBAMACARE?

In the August 1 WSJ, conservative Peggy Noonan (a spech writer for President Reagan) says she thinks Obamacare will gradually be replaced by expanding medicare.  What a surprise!  Is there a liberal out there that wouldn't love that?

A reason that conservatives have such a hard time coming up with an alternative to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or Obamacare is that Obamacare IS the conservative health care plan.  It is not that liberals like the ACA, it is that it was the best plan that Democrats could get past.  There are DINOs in the Democratic Party (Democrats In Name Only) that had to be catered to.  So an attempt was made to appeal to DINOs and Republicans to vote for the plan.  Republicans voted against it and oppose it only because it was proposed by a Democratic administration.

An unusual feature of the ACA is that an attempt was made to PAY FOR IT.  Republicans don't like to pay for health care.  President Reagan, for example, instituted the plan where hospitals with emergency rooms had to take all comers whether they could pay for it or not.  But he left it up to the hospitals to find a way to pay for this service.  Ditto President Bush (Bush-43) with Medicare D, the prescription drug plan where no attempt was made to pay for it.  And Republicans seem to try to repeal all attempts to pay for Obamacare (e.g. the business mandate and the tax on artificial limbs and replacements).  It is a disappointment that Republicans, supposedly the party of fiscal responsibility are so irresponsible on health care.  It is as if Republicans don't want health care for the poor at all.  This is strange because the Republican Party has been taken over by Evangelicals.  They even criticize John Kasich, an evangelical with a small e, for accepting the Federal Medicaid money.  He believes that Christians need to take care of the less fortunate among us.  After all Poor and Poverty appear 446 times in the bible.*

* http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2014/03/poor-and-poverty-appear-446-times-in.html

IS THE MODERN REPUBLICAN PARTY LEGAL?

The Republican Party has long been the party of the wealthy people to protect and preferably enrich their fortunes. They full well realize that there are not enough of them to win elections so that they have opened their "tent" to some others. Strangely they have attracted a lot of wage workers, even though it is the Democratic Party that has their best interests at heart and the Republican party only pays them attention at election time.* It seems to me that this started when the Democratic Party opened its "tent" to the disenfranchised, namely Blacks, Hispanics and women, but more recently homosexuals. Republicans have also opened the "tent" to a coalition of religious extremists, notably those that describe themselves as "Evangelicals" who are social conservatives and conservative Roman Catholics .

The inclusion of religious extremists had the advantage of taking advantage of a group of very energetic people with religious fervor, to help protect the wealthy (of course some wealthy could be both), but it was also dangerous as we have seen. In the 2012 election cycle, the growth of the religious conservatives within the Republican Party has been phenomenal to the point where the Republican Party now seems to be a party of conservative Roman Catholics and Protestant Evangelicals. It might more properly be called the Christian Right Party, i.e. a religious party. The question is, is a religious party legal in the United States that prides itself on secular political parties and the separation of church and state?

The answer may not be all that clear. Separation of church and state is not specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, although Founding Fathers assume it to be in the First Amendment, most notably Thomas Jefferson. And it has been used in Supreme Court decisions: "Justice Hugo Black wrote: 'In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state.'"**

If these interpretations are correct the modern Republican Party may be illegal because, as a religious party, it does not separate church and state. If it is claimed they are a religious party, it undoubtedly would go eventually to the Supreme Court that incidentally, is comprised by six Roman Catholics, two Jews, and one Protestant. Not all the Roman Catholics are conservative Roman Catholics, however.

Nonetheless, we have had the politicians in Mississippi propose an initiative that life begins at fertilization of a women's egg, fortunately turned down in the referendum.*** The purpose of the initiative was to attack all abortions. The Mississippi initiative was followed by a bill in Virginia where women having an abortion would be required to have an "ultrasound" transvaginal probe of the fetus which after much outrage, especially by women, the governor threatened a veto.**** Texas, however, does have a law that a sonogram (exterior) must be taken, and the woman must listen to the doctor's description of it and. She must then wait 24 hrs before undergoing the abortion procedure.*****

*The Republican Party to appease wage workers has come out against higher education, especially higher education in Ivy League Universities using terms like "elites" and "not real Americans." See The Dumbing Down Of America:

http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2010/10/dumbing-down-of-america-if-you-listen.html.

** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

***http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/08/mississippi-personhood-amendment_n_1082546.html

****http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/22/10479427-virginia-lawmakers-back-off-requiring-invasive-ultrasound-before-abortion

*****http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57382162/is-a-required-ultrasound-a-barrier-to-abortion/