Less than Half of Mississippi Republicans Say They Would Support United States Against the Confederacy

mississippi-clocks-backI’ve lived in Texas all my life, so racism isn’t anything that shocks me.  Why should it?  I see it all the time.  To see a Confederate flag displayed somewhere, or hear someone use the “n-word,” isn’t anything out of the ordinary.  Hell, many of the people here truly believe “the South shall rise again.”

You know, the well known phrase often used by racists referring to the time when slavery was still legal in the South.

Well, a recent poll done by Public Polling Policy found that only 41 percent of Republicans in Mississippi would support the United States if there were another Civil War.  Thirty-seven percent said they would support the Confederate States with 21 percent saying they weren’t sure.

That means a full 59 percent of Mississippi Republicans aren’t loyal (or aren’t sure if they’re loyal) to the United States of America.

I’m really not sure what’s more stunning.  The fact that 41 percent of Mississippi Republicans wouldn’t support the United States against the Confederacy during a second Civil War – or that the number isn’t actually higher.

But this is the “logic” many conservatives use.  They claim to be these “proud patriotic Americans,” yet in one of the most Republican states in this country less than half would side with the United States against the Confederacy.

Tell me again how that’s “patriotic”?

Maybe it’s just me, but I’d call anyone who’d take the side against their own country a traitor.  Not a patriot.

Then again, these are many of the same people who think our Second Amendment is meant to arm Americans for a violent overthrow of the government that was elected by Americans, per our Constitution.

Think about that for a moment.  Say 60 percent of Americans elected a government, yet 30 percent of Americans who disagree with that government manage to violently overthrow it.  How is that not terrorism?  That’s those 30 percent of Americans saying to the 60 percent that elected those officials, “We don’t care what the majority of citizens wanted, we don’t like it so we’re going to overthrow it!”

And I’m almost sure that if you did similar polls in Alabama, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana and other “strongly Republican” states, you’d get similar results.

This poll is just more evidence showing how much loyalty these “proud patriotic conservatives” have for the country they claim to love, but clearly hate.

Image via Only In America Blogging


Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Fletcher Mendus

    That is interesting information.

    Except that I see no reason for a civil war. I actually think that the United States would become much stronger and healthier if we allowed red states to secede and form another nation.

    Political discussion has become impossible because staunch conservatives refuse to budge on anything, and scream even when they get their way. An entire political party refuses to talk, much less work, with the other side, and their supporters cheer them for it. Nearly half the country wants the Obama administration to fail, even more than they wanted Clinton, or Carter, to fail. Violent rhetoric is accepted, sometimes expected, from people on the right.

    The United States is gravely ill, from fiscal policy, to social policy, to foreign policy, to you name it. Things seem to get worse with each successive Democratic presidential administration. The healthiest thing to do, I think, might be to split into two, or even three, countries instead of holding the US together by sheer will or force.

    Nothing says that this nation must last forever. In fact, two separate nations, built with separate policies in mind, might come out much stranger. Especially when you have such a high percentage of people who admit that they would support the Confederacy over the US.

    • Ben in LA

      The United States – with their superior army and such – could always invade the seceded states…

      • Kimberly Hilton

        Lol, then after the war we’d have to build up their infrastructure,re:The Lion That Roared

      • bluesman

        amen

      • Stephen Barlow

        that is so sick.

      • Stephen Barlow

        WHY? Al we need to do it arm the border guards to the TEETH, give them “shoot on sight to kill” orders and let the REDS FEEL and understand how they treat hispanics.

        The job would be keeping them in the Republican Wildlife Preserve.

      • Ben in LA

        That as well haha

    • Brak Brakson

      The problem is, states don’t always stay one color or another. Political parties morph over time, and so does public opinion. And what about the poor liberals trapped in the South? It’s simply not a viable solution.

      It would also weaken the nation as a whole, militarily. How? Simple: large countries are infinitely more difficult for invading forces to occupy. A smaller, weaker neighbor is a big liability. I don’t imagine they would have many eager allies to help them defend themselves. Face it: we rise or fall as a UNITED nation.

      • Stephen Barlow

        See My ‘Final Solution” above.

      • Stephen Barlow

        WHAT actual credible threat of invasion and occupation has
        America had since 1812?

        There were more AMERICAN planned domestic terrorist act than All of the Al quaida’s and Taliban’s world wide put together could muster. If immigration is such a miniscule problem that the Republicans don’t need to face it, then imagine what a RED Prez was doing allowing TERRORIST’s into American and lettingthem learn to fly planes.

        Did the REDS give them Federal Education Grants for that?

        If BUSH hadn’t been ignoring ‘credible threats’ because his personal religion REJOICED in the 9/11 attacks as the sign of Armageddon and Christ’s second coming…

        9.11 would have been thwarted. He even had fighters STAND DOWN and LET the Saudis crash their planes. We should have stopped buying Saudi oil that very day!!

      • Roger Kidder

        I would be willing to bet Bush let 9/11 happen not for religious reasons but for military reasons. It was a ready-made provocation to crank up the war machine and give the military/industrial complex a chance to try out all their nifty new technologies in a real life scenario. What is the point of developing more advanced ways of destruction and killing if you never get a chance to use them? Also, Bush the businessman, could not let his “company’s” most valuable asset remain untested and rusting in its bases.

        Besides, Bush was planning to go into Iraq before he was even in office. Remember how the administration twisted an attack by mostly Saudi nationals into a justification to go into Iraq? Plus we need to keep in mind the amount of money administration leaders could make personally from their investments in the military/industrial complex.

      • Stephen Barlow

        There is wisdom in that. They had war plans BEFORE the 2000 Voting Scam.

      • GUEST

        I agree with Fletcher Mendus. We’ve never been a United States… and the orginal southern colonies (deep south from Barbados) might as well have been from another planet when compared to the northern colonies (read Colin Woodard’s “American Nations; a history of the eleven rival regional cultures of North America” and Bill Bishop’s “The Big Sort”). So the colonies “united” for one reason only: to fight off the British aristocracy. The “United States” is as much a construct as Iraq is. The southern love of a feudal society, evangelicalism, and gun rights is like mixing oil and water when compared to the far west and the New England states (and maybe a few northern midwestern states). What would be the immediate fall out from splitting the nation? An end to US imperialism, and an end to being the policeman of the world. That, plus ending the strangle hold the corporations and the religious right has on the present “United” states of America would be a huge net gain for liberals in the west and New England. I say to liberals: let them go; we’re better off without them and to conservative/tea party types I say: move south… secede.

    • hank p

      Staunch liberals scream just as loudly when asked to compromise with conservatives. Both sides deserve each other.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Nope, liberals do not scream when asked to compromise. We scream when the conservative idea of “compromise” is “you need to come over to our way of thinking.” (Richard Mourdock, May 2012.)

      • strayaway

        in their second attempt and passage of a House budget bill, House Republicans got rid of their original demand to do away with the (un)ACA. In this second bill, Republicans only wanted to delay employer mandates for one year. It was a huge compromise on the part of Republicans. Obama and Senate Democrats wanted no part of compromise, did not respond, and let the government shut down. A couple of months later, Obama delayed the employer mandate for one year by executive order and, I think, he later made that two years. I could never figure out why, if he was going to do that anyway, he didn’t just compromise with Republicans and blame them for (un)ACA shortcomings.

      • Curtis Scarbrough

        The ACA itself was a compromise. It’s based on a republican healthcare plan. Democrats wanted a single payer system, but we compromised to use the plan we have now. And now republicans don’t even want to keep THAT.

      • strayaway

        My point was that this further compromise of the (un)ACA was unacceptable to Democrats when presented by Republicans. When the President ordered this same additional compromise, Democrats did not complain. Democrats did not mind further compromising the (un)ACA, they just didn’t want to comrpormise with Republicans.

      • Stephen Barlow

        The negotiations we made in 2009. That’s how the Republicans AGREED to the deal, and then WELCHED when they voted en masse against it. WTheir fraud and deceit was what drove Olympia Snowe from the party and from public office.

      • Curtis Scarbrough

        And my point is that republicans are ignoring the compromises democrats have made, and then claiming that the democrats refuse to compromise. If we really refused to compromise we’d have a single payer system by now.

      • strayaway

        I doubt it. Liz Fowler was hired by Sen. Max Baucus’ office as the architect of the (un)ACA. A VP of Wellpoint, and presently an employee of Johnson & Johnson, can’t be expected to change her spots by turning her back on insurance and pharmaceutical corporations. She worked in some health care savings on paper and gave, in theory, 38M customers to insurance companies to offset any savings that came about. It was a trade. The insurance companies weren’t hurt.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        AMEN.

      • Lance Sherer

        It cant be a compromise if republicans didnt have say. you have a weird concept of compromise.

      • Curtis Scarbrough

        They had their chance to provide their input. But instead they just wanted to dig their heels in and obstruct everything Obama wanted to accomplish. They put partisan politics ahead of the good of the country. And now, due to their refusal to work with democrats, Obama is basically forced to resort to executive order to get anything done. And of course, the republicans complain about that too and call him a dictator for using executive order 100 times fewer than W and almost half as many times as conservative hero, Reagan.

      • Lance Sherer

        its not the number lol the content. Thats like saying I stole 5 times and she stole 100 hiding the fact that each time she stole it was a $1 and each time I did was $10,000. His have been of the substance of laws which is why he has lost the last 9 times before the Supreme court. OOOPS

      • Curtis Scarbrough

        It couldn’t possibly be because the supreme court has a conservative majority, and therefore are participants in the republican’ts game of “Lets block everything the president tries to do, even though it’s good for the country.”

      • Lance Sherer

        Many of those were ummmm 9-0 against him. LOL

      • Lance Sherer

        They didnt want what he wanted and neither do the american people!!

      • Curtis Scarbrough

        Actually, most Americans DO want the ACA.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Obama did NOT WANT the mandate. ANY mandate!

      • Stephen Barlow

        “By deliberately drawing on bipartisan ideas — the same basic outline was supported by former Senate majority leaders Howard Baker, Bob Dole, Tom Daschle and George J. Mitchell—the bill’s drafters hoped to increase the chances of garnering the necessary votes for passage.[77][78]

        However, following the adoption of an individual mandate as a central component of the proposed reforms by Democrats, Republicans began to oppose the mandate and threatened to filibuster any bills that contained it.[48] Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, who led the Republican congressional strategy in responding to the bill, calculated that Republicans should not support the bill, and worked to keep party discipline and prevent defections:[79]

        It was absolutely critical that everybody be together because if the proponents of the bill were able to say it was bipartisan, it tended to convey to the public that this is O.K., they must have figured it out.[80]

        Republican Senators, including those who had supported previous bills with a similar mandate, began to describe the mandate as “unconstitutional.” JournalistEzra Klein wrote in The New Yorker that “the end result was … a policy that once enjoyed broad support within the Republican Party suddenly faced unified opposition.”[51] Reporter Michael Cooper of The New York Times wrote that: “It can be difficult to remember now, given the ferocity with which many Republicans assail it as an attack on freedom, but the provision in President Obama’s healthcare law requiring all Americans to buy health insurance has its roots in conservative thinking.”[50][57]

        Sorry the truth makes a fool of you dude!!!

        PSYCHE!!!!

      • Stephen Barlow

        DAMN STRAIGHT!!!

        THAT was Obama’s only serious failure, negotiating with terrorists because he believes in the Constitution and American Democracy.

        He’d have gotten 60% in 2012 if he had ENVER let Boehner get away with SQUAT!!!

      • Curtis Scarbrough

        Agreed!

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        I still don’t see how this is so “un-American.” If you have a car, you have to buy insurance. If you have a house and a mortgage, you have to buy insurance. There are millions of people who would jump at the chance to buy affordable health insurance. So you wanna explain yourself?

      • strayaway

        I don’t tend to use the term “un-American”. Point out where I did if I did so. I think that you must be referring to the societally Unaffordable Healthcare Act. Remember that the Supreme Court said that this was a ‘tax’ rather than insurance. I already posted the following below to explain myself but I will post it again for you. “If the trial lawyers, big pharmaceuticals, insurance companies, and bureaucrats were removed as they are in Canadian provincial single payer plans, I might be able to remove the (un). Canadians pay 40% less for their health care and live longer. Until then, I would be lying to call this ‘affordable’. It is no more societally affordable than than what it replaced.”

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        No, the PENALTY is a tax, not the purchase of insurance.. The ACA is built on the private insurance industry, something those of us who wanted a single-payor system are pissed about. I don’t know why you think it’s “unaffordable” when the average price of a family policy on the individual market was $16,351 in 2013. I know people paying $1200-$1600/month for insurance. THAT is unaffordable.

        My daughter, 28, independent contractor, is getting a Blues Silver plan for $112/month. Prior to the ACA, it was $600/month.

        Being cute with the prefix (un) adds nothing to the discussion.

        The GOP plan for health care has been “die quickly.”

      • strayaway

        “Affordable” implies it has made US health costs similar to those of Canadian plans which isn’t the case. In fact, the average traditional policy costs have increased about $2,500 since this all began. Remember, Obama said it would decrease the average family plan cost by $2,500 by the end of his first term. It did the opposite. You know people who are subsidized by other insurance policy holders and taxpayers. Its like knowing people who get great telephone rates with their Obamaphone. Someone else has to pay. I know someone who just got a $900 bill from the emergency room but considering that person doesn’t have any health insurance, that isn’t bad over a year. The people you know paying $1,200 – $1,600/month might be subsidizing your daughter. Say thank you to them. Were I in your daughter’s situation, I would like a cheap subsidized plan too.

      • Charles Vincent

        http://www DOT cms DOT gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/proj2012 DOT pdf

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        First, show me your figures. I get mine from the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Employee Benefit Surveys. Here are the averages for family policies and the percentage increase since 1999:

        Year Premium % increase

        1999 – $5791 —
        2000 – $6438 11%
        2001 – $7061 9%
        2002 – $8003 13%
        2003 – $9068 13%
        2004 – $9950 9%
        2005 – $10880 9%
        2006 – $11480 5%
        2007 – $12106 5%
        2008 – $12680 4%
        2009 – $13375 5%
        2010 – $13770 2%
        2011 – $15073 12%
        2012 – $15745 4%
        2013 – $16351 4%

      • strayaway

        “During his first run for president, Barack Obama made one very specific promise to voters: He would cut health insurance premiums for families by $2,500, and do so in his first term.

        But it turns out that family premiums have increased by more than $3,000 since Obama’s vow, according to the latest annual Kaiser Family Foundation employee health benefits survey.

        Premiums for employer-provided family coverage rose $3,065 — 24% — from 2008 to 2012, the Kaiser survey found. Even if you start counting in 2009, premiums have climbed $2,370.” -from Sept.24, 2008 Yahoo Finance article

        “We are going to work with you to lower your premiums by $2,500. We will not wait 20 years from now to do it, or 10 years from now to do it. We will do it by the end of my first term as president.” –Obama 2008

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Gee, willya look at that giant 12% increase in 2011, right BEFORE the ACA went into effect, and then the 4% increases in 2012 and 2013. Also look at the 13% increases in 2002 and 2003.

        If you do the math, premiums were $12680 in 2008, before Obama was elected. They were $15073 in 2011 as the ACA kicked in, which is where the 24% figure comes from, but somewhat misleading. Look at the yearly trend and you get something else.

        If, as I pointed out before, you were paying sticker price for insurance on the individual market, then your premiums should decrease. How many families have insurance subsidized by their employers?

      • strayaway

        Maybe if I click my heals and start believing, Obama’s promise of cutting premiums by $2,500 will come true sooner or later.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Some people’s premiums got cut. All the people I know who couldn’t afford insurance before now have it. Good enough for me. And Obama can cut premiums as soon as he is in charge of insurance companies. You want cuts? Talk to them.

        Unless you are paying sticker price for insurance with after-tax dollars coming directly out of your pocket, you got nothing to complain about. BTW how much did YOUR premiums go up?

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Politifact Wisconsin had this to say:

        “Johnson said that under Obama’s health-care law, the premium for “an average plan for a family didn’t go down by $2,500 per year, it’s gone up about $2,500 per year.”

        Johnson is correct that by 2013, three years after the Affordable Care Act became law, the total average premium for employer-provided family insurance had risen by $2,500 per year. But experts say there is little or no evidence that Obamacare is responsible.

        We rate Johnson’s statement Half True.”

        http://www DOT politifact DOT com/wisconsin/statements/2013/dec/15/ron-johnson/obamacare-health-insurance-premiums-havent-gone-do/

      • Andy Kinnard

        It IS true that that campaign promise was wishful thinking and amounted to unmitigated real politik. It was, at best, the result of a best case scenario if he’d gotten EVERYTHING he’d wanted in the ACA (and, even then, seemed hard to fathom [that kind of savings]).

      • strayaway

        I wonder if Vermont could have achieved such savings with its proposed single payer plan. After all, the single payer plans of each Canadian province are about 40% cheaper than our plans here before or after the (un)ACA.

      • Andy Kinnard

        I don’t know, but I do think that single payer is the only feasible, long-term solution (for which one can make a sensible and tenable argument). I’d love to see total elimination of the health insurance industry and a normalization of medical service base rates. The machinations of the former caused massive distortions in the latter, and they are, combined, the biggest drag on the American economy and society.

      • strayaway

        I would be all right with a sate run single payer plan like those of any Canadian Province.

      • Andy Kinnard

        Holy crap! Awesome! Would you agree with any national standards or regulation? How about Federal funding (perhaps via block grants so as not to offend 10th amendment sensibilities)?

      • strayaway

        Yes, the Constitution does authorize Congress to establish measures and the worth of money for example. Things that move across state lines like traffic and pollution qualify as being interstate. However an insurance policy, teacher certification, local schools, need not have an interstate component and are thus intrastate. Block granting would be a good way to shift programs back to the states to prevent the messiness of their abrupt end. The federal department of education would be a good candidate. Each state already has a DOE. The Federal DOE is redundant. What states choose to do after that is their business. Some states always do better than others and set the mark for those others. If a power isn’t delegated to the federal government or forbidden for the states, that power belongs to the states and to the people. That’s pretty easy to understand.

      • Andy Kinnard

        How about the Federal standards and regulation question?

      • strayaway

        “the Constitution does authorize Congress to establish measures and the worth of money for example.(Those are standards and regulations) Things that move across state lines like traffic and pollution qualify as being interstate. However an insurance policy, teacher certification, local schools, need not have an interstate component and are thus intrastate.”

      • Andy Kinnard

        So, no. Why is ideology more important than people having a predictable regulatory and healthcare environment when they move between states?

      • strayaway

        I see the Constitution as being the basis for predictability. I don’t know why that would be any less ideological than with court interpretations of other court interpretations of the Constitution. States do accept each other’s drivers licenses, some professional licensing, and have reciprocal college enrollment agreements as instances of working out agreements not involving the federal government.

      • Andy Kinnard

        Yes, but that’s all ad-hoc and unpredictable. Navigating the unpredictability requires cognitive and time resources most people don’t have. The SCOTUS rulings are based in the Constitution and it is the concept of precedent that provides the stability (that prior decisions interpretations stand), whereas, without precedent, any decision could be reversed at any time, leading to wholesale unpredictability.

      • markpkessinger

        The ACA ;didn’t “kick in” in full until this year.

      • Andy Kinnard

        …but the regulations that affected premiums and how much of those premiums must be spent on reimbursement have been in effect for years now.

      • Stephen Barlow

        I thought that ONE promise was If you like your crappy no benefits, waste of money policy you can keep it (if it is upgraded by your insurance carrier to meet ACA standards)?

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Those people were paying $1200-$1600 BEFORE the ACA. I suspect they can get cheaper coverage now. And insurance has always been about the many subsidizing the few. Why is it suddenly a problem?

        I remember arguing with some youngster who claimed his insurance premiums had doubled. I pressed him several times and he finally admitted they’d “doubled” from $140/month yp $280 a month. I laughed, repeated the above figures, and told him to stop whining.

        A $900 ER bill is a bargain.

      • strayaway

        Why, because retirees are being charged for things like insuring a 25 year old when there are none in the house. This is a tax for a new social program and it makes their insurance policy cost climb. The $900 bill had been over $2,200 but the hospital knowing this person didn’t have insurance, a good job, or savings, “adjusted” the bill to $900.

      • Darlene Welch Williams

        Doctors and hospitals have always done this..they gouge the insurance companies and charge less for people that have no insurance. They really don’t care about your financial situation….they just want their money… As far as retirees having to pay for a 25 year old when there isn’t one in the house….all insurances do this. I pay property taxes for the school system where I live…I have no children in school. If there are a lot of car thefts or accidents where I live…my auto insurance goes up. If a major catastrophe happens and my homeowners insurance company has to pay out a lot of claims….even in another state..say due to floods or wild fires or tornadoes..my rates go up. THAT is the insurance game. We all pay for things that do not directly involve us. It is nothing new. You can also turn it around and say that 25 year old will pay for those retirees and their health issues too….

      • strayaway

        “Doctors and hospitals have always done this..they gouge the insurance companies and charge less for people that have no insurance.”

        True. Nothing has changed then except that insurance companies can now gouge taxpayers. That’ the downside of having an insurance company VP write the (un)ACA. Now we are forced to pay for even more things that don’t affect us. This is one reason why insurance rates have continued to climb.

      • Andy Kinnard

        No, no, no. Insurance companies NOW operate within a regulatory paradigm that mandates they use 80% of premiums for reimbursement. That, for those taking notes, is a MAJOR reform that forces insurance to pay for care (instead of taking profits, paying CEO bonuses, etc.).

      • strayaway

        Raise rates and the CEO’s can still get their fat bonuses and the 80% threshold can be met. If it can’t, company money can be diverted away from insuring people to more profitable ventures, here or abroad, because money if fungible.

      • Andy Kinnard

        No, there are also rules about retained assets (the “slippery” term used in place of “profits” in the insurance industry). Either way, 80% of whatever they get in premiums has to be used for reimbursement; there is no accounting magic that can make that simple formula go away.

      • strayaway

        I pointed out two ways. Raise prices; rising water lifts all boats, and get out of the business and invest insurance company money in something more profitable. They can’t be forced to stay in business. We aren’t Venezuela yet.

      • Andy Kinnard

        but they can’t just raise premiums willy-nilly anymore: The 80% rule keeps that in check (as long as we stay vigilant and don’t let them write loopholes). The motivation for both insurance companies and the public then becomes base rate price controls (through the market).

        True, they COULD decide to just close up shop (if the margins are too small — I think we’re a long way from that).

        I know, for me, this whole debate since 2007ish over the ACA has made me a better consumer of medical services. I demand more transparency from providers about costs, options, etc., do a better job of keeping my insurance company honest by calling in advance to verify approvals and ensure my understanding of coverage matches what they confirm at the time (and on and on). It has led to considerably better care AND some measure of price control (but is also akin to wrestling with an alligator).

        I think we actually COULD make a market-based solution for health insurance and health care work, but just about every citizen would have to be at least as vigilant about it as I am (and I have massive advantages having worked in health care for my whole adult life): That won’t happen. It would also require the legislative will to force through regulation about insurance industry transparency and ease of use which that industry would fight tooth and nail (not that single payer would be any easier): So, that won’t happen. It makes me sad, because, as liberal as I am, I’d prefer to see a civilization where selfishness didn’t rule the day and lead us into, as a nation — a people, ruining a market-based healthcare system that has generated massive advances (some of which saved my own life) in the span of a single human lifetime.

        So, single payer it is, and the salient question is: How do we get liberty-minded folk like yourself and liberal-minded folk like myself on the same page with it so we can get something GOOD done (instead of all the pissing on each other’s shoes that goes on now)?

      • strayaway

        I would like to see the federal government allow one state to adopt something as close to a Canadian provincial plan as possible. Consider it a pilot project. Clinton let a few states experiment with new welfare programs for instance. I would also like to se more experiments with medical freedom; $50 cash only clinics, allow the import of cheaper Canadian drugs, make some drugs non-prescription…

      • Andy Kinnard

        Yes to all that and, may I add, allow our existing Federal to shop across the border for drugs too.

      • Andy Kinnard

        I agree with the rest of what you wrote, but it is definitely NOT true that hospitals charge private payers (i.e., those without insurance) lower base rates. In fact, if you are a private payer, you had BETTER be on the ball about payment arrangements right from the word “go” (even though you’re probably in grave medical distress).

      • Andy Kinnard

        I don’t know how I missed this on first read: “…charge less for people that have no insurance.” No, they don’t; that’s illegal and black letter law. The reality is that insured people pay less: The practitioners have to charge the same BASE RATES to everyone (regardless of insurance status). From that base rate, the insurance companies have negotiated standard rates for each procedure with their in-network providers. It is THAT standard rate which becomes, essentially, the new base rate for insured patients. When you’re insured, it’s illegal for the practitioner to charge you for the difference between that negotiated rate and their base rate; so, as the patient, you JUST pay for the co-pay, co-insurance, and deductible which in ALL cases will be less than what the uninsured patient, AKA “private payer”, pays (even, in most cases, if the private payer has attempted to negotiate reduced reimbursement with the provider [because the insurance companies do a better job negotiating, in part because of their greater influence/size/power]).

      • Andy Kinnard

        Um, just so we’re all operating in the realm of reality: Paying for services you’ll never use is part of the whole “pooled risk” insurance paradigm.

      • strayaway

        Yes, but by making senior citizens pay for 25 year olds in their household or requiring them to pay for Georgetown students’ birth control supplies they don’t use, their costs went up. Might as well be honest about this and have added those costs to welfare benefits instead.

      • Andy Kinnard

        Those who are on welfare wouldn’t have seen premium increases; they’d be on Medicare. The plain and simple is that some people resent the new requirements but usually not for good reasons. All their secondary arguments intended to support their tainted position are just distraction (IMHO).

      • strayaway

        Of course those on welfare haven’t seen increases. Taxpayers and policy holders not on welfare share any increases of those on welfare.

      • hdtex

        You really aren’t that bright….Does it hurt? Living with fetal alcohol poisoning?

      • Stephen Barlow

        It IMPLIES NO SUCH THING!! NO ONE EVER SAID a for profit plan could be as cheap as a government plan. EVER!!!!

        People mispeak al the time. Bush said “30,000 waepons of mass destruction” and VERY GENUINELY IMPLIED they were all aimed at Americans, being smuggled into America… funny how you don’t have a problem with BUSH mispeaking on a daily basis for almost 3000 DAYS!!!!!

      • Stephen Barlow

        Just don’t get sick!!!

      • Andy Kinnard

        Tax vs penalty or fee, not vs insurance

      • strayaway

        I will rephrase: Remember that the Supreme Court said that this was a ‘tax’ rather than a penalty or fee in order to get around the Tenth Amendment since Congress is delegated with the power of taxation. Good news for Democrats and status quo Republicans! From now on, any bill having a tax meets the delegated power requirement of the 10th Amendment.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        What’s your problem with more people having insurance?

      • hdtex

        He’s Republican.

      • Lance Sherer

        Please see the VA and it is 100xs better than what these idiots put together. nothing has worked yet. they still dont know what people have paid or if people are really qualified for subsidies or not. it is a joke.

      • Andy Kinnard

        The “tax vs penalty” issue was the only question at hand and, IIRC, isn’t really a 10th amendment issue. It’s not like the court set 10th amendment precedent here; they just made a decision on the theoretical makeup of the bill’s penalty provision. So, your last assertion is totally without support.

        I’ll let you in on a secret: I do NOT understand why Roberts went the way he went on that. It was totally unexpected to me. I think the whole distinction is 100% academic and utterly without consequence (other than it’s satisfying an obscure legal requirement). It also does nothing to ease the state’s rights fundamentalists’ objections to the whole concept of more Federal government.

        However, I will say that regulating health care (which is the vast majority of the PPACA) was already well within the purview of the Feds. So, I think the state’s rights argument is baseless anyway (aside from my usual objections to that whole political point of view).

        At any rate, I agree, the decision was pretty much BS. The distinction is bizarre and of no consequence (other than its legal ramification) to the arguments against the ACA.

      • strayaway

        Obviously, the Court didn’t consider the 10th Amendment unless its delegated power to to tax sufficed. However, a Constitutional amendment was required to allow an income tax. This new tax and program regulating a sixth’s of the economy received a different treatment. I’ve come across others who have no idea why Roberts went the way he did seemingly reversing himself.

      • Andy Kinnard

        No, brother. New taxes are levied all the time. It doesn’t take an amendment. Medical industry regulations aren’t a new thing either.

      • strayaway

        You’re right. New taxes are levied all the time. However, quant as it presently seems, federal taxes were derived largely from fees and tariffs prior to the Wilson’s (D) income tax. Because that was a major new form of taxation not mentioned in the Constitution proposed to tax up to 4% of income, it was deemed necessary to amend the Constitution to allow it. But you are right. Since Democrats and many Republicans pretty much ignore the 10th Amendment, Congress has pretty much been passing new taxes willy nilly recently. Imagine how little legislation would pass if Congress, or should I say courts, required an amendment on every issue comparable to the prohibition amendments as recently as 1920. My guess is that the (un)ACA or a lot of other legislation since FDR corporatist presidency wouldn’t have become law without an amendment for cover. Sometimes, I respond to what the Constitution actually says rather than how things are done.

      • Andy Kinnard

        Considering 10th amendment interpretation and state’s vs federal balance of powers issues to be well-settled law is NOT the same as choosing to “ignore the 10th Amendment”.

      • strayaway

        Priests, among other things, “interpreted” scripture for the masses who couldn’t understand why some passages didn’t mean what they said and always to the clergy’s advantage. The 10th Amendment is straight forward. There aren’t many ways to “interpret” it. Our secular priest class does its best though to defend their status quo. “Settled law” trumping the Constitution. Maybe that will work. I mean, what would the raison d’être of the national Democratic Party and much of the republican Party even be if the 10th Amendment were taken literally? So much corruption would have to come to an end. Regulating the entire national health care system? Sure, that must be a delegated power found in their somewhere.

      • Andy Kinnard

        Interstate commerce covers a lot of ground, and, no, I will not debate with you legal concepts that have been settled for approximately 140 years. State’s rights fanaticism and things like state nullification are arcane topics adhered to by only the MOST extreme right wingers.

        We tried a weak Federal government prior to the Constitution’s being written; it didn’t work.

      • strayaway

        Interstate commerce only affects commerce between states. If a policy is sold only within one state that is intrastate commerce and should be beyond the reach of those who would define intrastate and interstate to have the same meaning. I’m apparently a dictionary fanatic. I am aware of a Roosevelt court ruling that a farmer who fed his own wheat to his own cows all within the same state was prosecuted for violating interstate commerce. But then what could we expect from Roosevelt’s court? I never bring up nullification. That was a cheap shot linking me to something I never bring up. If applying dictionary meanings to words to understand their meaning is something a right wing fanatic would do, that seems preferable to being a sheep wanting to believe words mean something other than their dictionary meanings. Why, it’s “settled law”! Baaa!

      • Andy Kinnard

        IIRC, the court decided that, essentially, any industry or business that does business across state lines (whether they offer the same product in each state or not) can be regulated by the Feds. These are very early decisions, and our country’s gone a LONG way down this road whether you agree with them or not (and, no, I’m NOT confident I could sufficiently argue for the current status quo); it would be disastrous in the extreme if we were to revert to a weak Federal government (in adopting your interpretation of the 10th).

      • strayaway

        I realize courts get the last word no matter what the wording of the Constitution. The guns are behind the court so we all have to go along with what courts rule. Corporations are people! I am not nearly as afraid of observing the 10th Amendment though. It really didn’t start getting thoroughly ignored until the time of Roosevelt (setting aside Lincoln) and the Country prospered. I would prefer the Constitution to be the underpinning instead of layers of self serving ruling. That, however, is the beauty of even an ignored Constitution because when government drifts too far away, it is still there to be discovered to right the ship of state.

      • Andy Kinnard

        You are right. That’s about the time the country got really big, and we’ve done nothing but grow bigger. You’d probably see that as an argument for your side, and I see it as an argument for mine 😉

      • Lance Sherer

        See VA… and car insurance is based on risk categories so i pay based on the risk that i incur. this is the inverse. i pay based on other peoples risk and people with higher risk pay less. Its called a pyramid scheme and in any other business model, people would go to jail over it.

      • Andy Kinnard

        No, Lance, you STILL pay based on your own risk pool.

      • Lance Sherer

        that is not true!! Why do you think they need young folks to be a part to make sure this cashflows? In addition, I dont need insurance for pregnancy and neither does my grandmother so why do we both pay for that risk pool when we dont belong in it?

      • Andy Kinnard

        It’S still regular, commercial insurance whose rates are based on the risk pool into which customers fall. Nothing about that is new or different this year.

      • Lance Sherer

        Insurance is based on state by state cost not deferred over a nation. The states regulate insurance not the feds. If you want to see how effective the feds are at healthcare, please review the VA system.

      • Mrs_oatmeal

        The POTUS wasn’t holding anyone hostage. Now they want to sue him over this. Waaa! Waaa! Waa!

      • strayaway

        I’m not sure which post I mentioned ‘hostages’ in but Wah-wahs are associated with trumpets so you must be be a talking Democrat. Without the lisp, you probably mean Baaa, Baaa, Baa.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Extortion is NEVER acceptable from a Republican. Look how well your shutdown went! LMAO!!

        It’s all the REDS know how to do.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Actually they DID complain, but were willing to Appease the BEGGINGublicans and what happens? The RED sue for getting EXACTLY what they BEGGED for!!!

        Talk about them being the ULTIMATE two faced lying machine…

      • strayaway

        It is based on Romneycare. You are correct. However, even Romney pointed out that one big difference is what the 10th Amendment cites as a state vs. federal delegated power. The Supreme Court got around this by deciding that the (un)ACA was not insurance. It was, the Court claimed, a tax. Since Congress has the power to tax, the Court reasoned, it could legislate anything it wanted, call it a tax, and would thereby be 10th Amendment friendly. Vermont since tried to have a single payer plan but the (un)ACA thugs told Vermont that it would have to include all the provisions of the (un)ACA thereby permitting most cost savings. It could have a single payer plan but would have to keep the trial lawyers, insurance companies, bureaucracies, and big pharma that made pre (un)ACA and post (un)ACA health care expensive in the US.

      • Curtis Scarbrough

        This is part of the reason the entire country needs to go single payer. It would make things infinitely less complicated. Added bonus, you wouldn’t have arguments about companies covering birth control, or other medical procedures they disapprove of, due to religious reasons.

      • Lance Sherer

        LOL the VA is single payer, how is that working out for ya?

      • Curtis Scarbrough

        It would be working great if republicans weren’t voting to cripple the VA.

      • Lance Sherer

        The ACA was no compromise you idiot lol. No republican had input or voted on it. I love the liberal idea of compromise. You take an idea, don’t get any input, screw it up and call it a compromise. Hilarious

      • Curtis Scarbrough

        Never mind that Obamacare is based largely on Romneycare.

      • Lance Sherer

        Several things are funny about that: one is that it was state sponsored so the state decided what would work for itself ; it was not federally dictated- are you confused about the difference? Two. So you had a model and yet still could not make it work and still don’t have the back end complete and still done know who owes and who doesn’t and still can’t correct those who have inconsistencies? Wow that just adds to the incompetency. Three do u honestly think the ACA will be any better than the VA system? We had that for years AND had a moral incentive for vets that will be lacking with just normal folks. Four- it doesn’t look or operate anything like Romney care so exactly how is it based on his plan? Oh and his plan was working and obamas has never and will never work- guess having a guy who actually ran a business and not just did fundraising does matter.

      • Lance Sherer

        And I really kinda feel sorry for ole Obama. When all you have done is be a community organizer, your ill equipped to actually deal with real world stuff that business men and KGB agents And Mossad agents have to deal with. I can see why he runs to fund raising every time. It’s tough dealing with the real men of the world. I bet it hurt his feelings that Putin didn’t give two hoots about his post election flexibility lol.

      • Marty Holden

        LOL, yet there he is, and here you are. You’re even less qualified to comment

      • Lance Sherer

        I didnt present myself as though I was and he did when he wasnt. So, what is your point?

      • Bill Hesler

        and you think either Bush was a real man ?or Reagan ?

        Reagan was a traitor who gave weapons to our

        Enemies and that came back to bite us later, he was the
        first president to steal from our social security ,he started trickledown
        economics !and I bet you are blaming Obama for Ebola too but Bush let over
        20,000 people die in our country from a disease he wouldn’t acknowledge or let
        research be done and he sure didn’t close our borders (it was Aids )Bush
        started a war but never got his man and that was over oil and he caused a major
        debt .Don’t worry Clinton got rid of it then the real idiot took over Bush who
        started two wars ignored warnings of 911, ignored a major disaster called
        Katrina and took more vacation time than any president in history and before
        you scream Benghazi Bush had 13 embassy attacks and 60 people die under him but
        the republicans never bring that up or the debt he caused he and Cheney should
        be brought up on treason Obama has had his hands full dealing with their
        mistakes so when has a republican ever helped do anything but hurt this country
        with their greed and lies and wars ?

      • Lance Sherer

        I literally lol when ideas ur post. U mentioned debt??? Obama is at 18 trillion. He almost doubled all the other American presidents debt in a mere six years. What a spectacular failure!!! Not even his allies trust or believe in him any more. Lol. How incompetent does a man have to be before you acknowledge that he is the worst president in American history?

      • Bill Hesler

        did he start a war ?did he start two wars ?does war cost money to run ?our debt is actually lower than that at this point and still going down Bush started the debt and the war he started insured it would rise ?grow up stop blaming Obama for what the republican party has done to this country

      • Curtis Scarbrough

        Tell the millions of people who have insurance now that didn’t before that the ACA doesn’t work. And we wanted a single payer system. We compromised by going with the system we have now.

      • Lance Sherer

        What do you not understand about it cant be a compromise if we did not dialogue or agree? Also, there are as many of the middle class who lost their insurance who WERE paying for it as those who now have insurance that the TAXPAYER is paying for so yes I am certain they are happy about it.

      • Curtis Scarbrough

        The reason people lost policies is because those were crappy policies that did not adhere to the requirements set forth in the ACA. So, if you lost your insurance because of the ACA, it was probably not worth keeping anyways.

      • Lance Sherer

        that is the point. who are you to decide that the policies that someone wants to buy is crappy. I am certain that all those Vets would love to have another kind of insurance and be able to go to another hospital…but they have healthcare that qualifies as ACA—ooooops. Idiotic argumentation!

      • Stephen Barlow

        almost half the committee writing it were RED Menace heros. you saying they could actually KEEP their mouths shut WITHOUT duct tape and barbed wire?

      • Stephen Barlow

        Hillary, with a Democratic House and a HARD majority in the Senate might just revise ACA to include single payer options.

        How about medical loans like student loans? @ 2% like the banks get, only the balance after 10 years (or death) is written off, the way BANKS write off bad loans ANNUALLY?

      • Stephen Barlow

        The only thing bad about the VA is Republicans DEFUNDING IT and welshing on their commitment to TWO MILLION AMERICAN TROOPS pressed into service for a criminal war based on LIES!

      • Marty Holden

        pssst dumbass, it IS working. It isn’t going anywhere, and even if you win the senate, you have no chance at 2/3rd maj. So even IF you manage to repeal it (by no means certain), you don’t have enough for a presidential over ride and you won’t have enough to convict on impeachment. You won’t get the big chair in 2016, so you’re stuck. None of what you want happens. Your conservative bosses know this, but they won’t tell you. But you go ahead and keep sending them cash, OK sweetums.

      • Lance Sherer

        LOL why do you think it is working? They dont know who owes and who doesnt, the data is a security risk, the exchanges arent working, and they dont even have the backend payment system working yet. HAHAHA. What business would be considered a success if they still couldnt get paid? ONLY IN A LIBERALS DREAM WORLD. The VA is the best the feds can do and its a nightmare.

      • Bill Hesler

        the republicans have screwed the Veterans over time and time again not the Democrats who shoot down everything to help the Vets I know I work in a VA!

      • Stephen Barlow

        YOu poor deluded patient. Aren’t you so glad the REDS included prescription and mental health care in the ACA so you can get the help you need?

      • Stephen Barlow

        You are an idiot liar. History recorded in words PROVES you an idiot liar.

      • Lance Sherer

        LOL yeah history records that the Obamacare roll out was a nightmare, they still arent sure who is qualified for subsidies or not, and dont have the backend payment system set up yet. Oh that doesnt even take into account that every honest assessment even by the OBO, is that it has negatively affected healthcare cost.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Yet the RESULTS are 115% SUCCESS. imagine what the enrollments will be by Christmas! 5 million? By April 1, 10 million? The rollout is anciant history and has long since been corrected.

        Dubya’s rollout of Part D medicare took THRE FRIGGIN’ YEARS to get right. more than 1000 days, not less than 60. AND Georgie didn’t have the entire Democratic Party OBSTRUCTING his progress!!!!!

        I’ll give mr President the benefit of ANOTHER 1000 days before I search for ways to insult him for helping EIGHT MILLION American women and children get healthcare.

      • Lance Sherer

        more than 8 million lost their insurance. Most of the 8 mill that got new insurance are not paying for part or even most of it. So lets think about your logic: 8 million (actually more) people who were paying for insurance where dropped so that 8 million who WONT pay for insurance could be picked up….yep that would be a success in the liberal world. LOL

      • Andy Kinnard

        Where do you get these blatantly incorrect “facts”? These things are easily searchable.

      • Lance Sherer

        Search away… a large portion of folks have lost insurance who were paying for insurance. The feds dont even know which ones who signed up are eligible. LOL Almost to a person, folks that i know have had their premiums go up. Thats a good thing?

      • Andy Kinnard

        Those who lost coverage were dropped by their insurance companies, period. This has nothing to do with Obamacare except for the companies not bargaining in good faith and closing out grandfathered policies just to accept people into new, non-compliant policies they KNEW would only be good until the regulations kicked in.

        Your anecdotal experiences are not as good as aggregated data on enrollment and the reduction in uninsured overall. Obamacare is working whether you want it to or like that it is (or not).

      • Lance Sherer

        and in the real world, people dont get 1000 days of failure before anyone makes a decision. Only in the liberal world is that possible

      • Andy Kinnard

        You DO realize that you’re making Stephen’s point FOR him, right?

      • Lance Sherer

        how? by pointing out that people gained insurance who dont pay for it; people lost insurance who were paying for it; and those who retained insurance almost to a person is paying a higher rate because of ACA…that is making his point for him?

      • Andy Kinnard

        …by affirming that W’s 1000 days was unreasonable.

      • Stephen Barlow

        The standard of care for the VA is excellent. I understand YOUR PEOPLE, just yesterday in fact, blocked their 4th Veteran’s bill in three years. Which most likely explains WHY the administrative staff @ ALL VA facilities are over whelmed.

        They are $100 BILLION DOLLARS UNDERFUNDED!!! Solely thanks to the GOP. Who incidentally manufactured the REASON 40,000 WOUNDED veterans NEED HEALTHCARE they can NOT GET when they need it.

        What magnificent patriots you are!!! All about funding fighters that don’t fly and chemical weapons we’ll never use, but NOT A PENNY for those who VOLUNTEERED to keep your freedom FOR you.

        Any other garbage you want to author?

      • Lance Sherer

        Garbage? Your opinion that the standard of care is not reflective of reality from vets nor nurses nor the media. The standard of care is excellent? LOL My mother retired from the VA as a nurse and she has talked for years of how deplorable and frustrating it is. She was always so disappointed that the system treated the vets the way they did. Watch the news, what is happening at the VA is NOTHING new. If you want to know why legislation has not passed, ask Harry Reid why he has so many bills on his desk and wont bring even one to the floor. There is your log jam my friend. And are you a vet? if you are, your opinion is an anomaly among vets.

      • Stephen Barlow

        WHEN has a REDpublican since Ike EVER kept his word or NOT lied outright about being a crook?

      • Curtis Scarbrough

        I’d say back when republicans were still liberal.

      • Stephen Barlow

        it was also based on good faith promises WELCHED on by ever single RED but one.

      • Curtis Scarbrough

        That’s why we shouldn’t negotiate with terrorists.

      • Sherri G

        The second and all future bills regarding the budget had MORE than just the delay in there….XL pipeline, tax breaks, social program cuts including to social security and veterans, and all things vetoed by OBama the last 3 years. It was pure blackmail and the Man in the White house said NO.

      • Stephen Barlow

        And I am GLAD he did. He should Veto the Transportation Fraud So we can Fool the Voters Bill too!

        Then explain how Republican mismanagement of the Trust Fund under Bush and By the Boehner House and McConnell caucus in the Senate TO A JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS.

        The President can call one once a month and Address the Nation and they are OBLIGATED TO ATTEND. I would have one EVERY Friday @ 7PM Eastern time during the non recess recesses.

      • strayaway

        The second bill only tried to extract a one year delay in implementing employer mandates and, a smaller provision I didn’t mention before, end the new (un)ACA tax on medical equipment. The narcissistic Fool in the White house could not abide by that until he did it himself. Meanwhile parks were closed, priests weren’t allowed to say mass for free, and middle class Americans were otherwise punished and the press blamed Republicans. It worked out pretty well politically for Obama. The Obama inspired children’s crusade doesn’t seem to be working out as well.

      • erik thorne

        So now the Republicans want to sue because he gave them the one year break on the employee mandate they wanted?

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Yeah, pretty much. The GOP wouldn’t be happy if they wuz hung with a new rope.

      • strayaway

        You aren’t responding to anything I wrote. I never mentioned suing. Are you sure you are responding to the right person?

      • erik thorne

        You mentioned the employee mandate.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        The Republicans do want to sue. Do you not read the news?

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        You know, you might get a little more sympathy if you stopped referring to it as the (un)ACA.

      • strayaway

        If the trial lawyers, big pharmaceuticals, insurance companies, and bureaucrats were removed as they are in Canadian provincial single payer plans, I might be able to remove the (un). Canadians pay 40% less for their health care and live longer. Until then, I would be lying to call this ‘affordable’. It is no more societally affordable than than what it replaced.

      • Andy Kinnard

        You get the ball rolling on that in the right wing, and we’ll be happy to support you. Can’t just be OUR side doing the heavy lifting.

      • strayaway

        I would be ok with a stand alone single payer plan similar to those of any Canadian province like Vermont was attempting to create. A forty percent reduction in health care costs is appealing. That, of course, isn’t a right wing position but it is consistent with the 10th. Amendment. If ‘right wingers’ thought about it though, governments in the US spend more on health care per American than is spent on Canadians and that is before Americans buy health insurance policies. That means that government spending, and the size of government would be reduced by just adopting any Canadian Province’s plan. Right wingers should be thrilled at that prospect.

        The federal government could best help by allowing more medical freedom to states and individuals.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        “The federal government could best help by allowing more medical freedom to states and individuals.”

        Right…because unfettered capitalism is always about helping individuals.

      • strayaway

        There are clinics across the Country offering $50 office visits if no insurance is involved. Without all the paperwork, more has to be charged. I don’t think that the (un)ACA has helped allow that. Some medicines could be made non-prescription to cut costs. Our government tried to make it illegal to purchase Canadian drugs through the mail at a much reduced price. Patients should be able to elect to try experimental drugs or EU approved drugs without interference from the federal government. Just a few ways a little more freedom would cut costs. What we have now is cronyism and/or corporatism that make health care more expensive. Two medical things not covered by insurance, Lasix and plastic surgery have become cheaper while other medicine has gone up. That is worth noticing.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        A $50 clinic isn’t going to cover my $75,000 chemotherapy or my $100,000 heart attack.

        You erroneously assume charges are related to the actual cost of health care. They aren’t; they are arbitrary and based on likely-third party reimbursement. I’m an OB/GYN. I could charge $50,000 to deliver a baby but no one except someone filthy rich or stupid would pay me that.

        Lasix is cheap because it’s been around forever and there are generic versions. Ever wonder why albuterol inhalers are so expensive ($30-60 each)? It’s because when they switched propellants, they made sure there were no generics.

        You’re not going to cut the price of anything in health care without a single-payor. The reason you can’t get drugs from Canada or, in my business, the Mirena IUD directly from Finland has more to do with the
        pharmaceutical industry’s lobbyists. Get big money out of politics and things will change.

      • Andy Kinnard

        Nice unexamined right-wing pablum in that last (copy pasta) sentence .

        The rest I’ll agree with. I would only ask why you object to such plans conforming to Obamacare coverage requirements (which seems to be your only objection that prevents implementation)?

      • strayaway

        Allowing Vermont to have the single payer system of its own design, $50 cash basic Doctor office visits, uninsured lasix and plastic surgery, allowing terminal patients to buy experimental, EU or Japanese drugs not allowed her, allowing Americans to purchase much cheaper Canadian medicine, and allowing more medications to be purchased without prescriptions are off the top of my head examples of medical freedom.

        Re conforming. First, in my opinion, the federal government is not constitutionally delegated with any such power. Second, the (un)ACA keeps the trial lawyers, health insurance companies, big pharmaceuticals, and bureaucrats at the health care feed trough making the “affordable” part impossible at least when compared with any Canadian provincial plan. Keep those people at the trough and health care remains 40% more expensive than in Canada. I listened to the Canadian Consul from Chicago on public radio. He said that limiting doctor lawsuits to $10,000, at the time, meant that doctors, hospital, and other medical practitioners didn’t buy liability insurance and pass on that cost to patients. That meant good-bye to the trial lawyers and insurance companies. Under single payer, Canadians didn’t buy health insurance either. Since a given operation was reimbursed at a set rate, one person in billing could replace a wing of the hospital full of office workers trying to work out three way deals between patients, insurance companies and government payers. That tort reform, he said, was more responsible for keeping costs down than anything else. There were a couple of other things he mentioned including paying for med school students’ educations and each province buying medicine in bulk. I have Canadian relatives. They still have some problems with waits but seem generally pleased with their single payer plans. Why would they want to pay 40% more to receive worse coverage with an (un)ACA plan? I would propose any state adopting any provincial plan almost word for word.

      • Andy Kinnard

        I could support a plan that encompasses those characteristics. I still don’t see why compliance with ACA regs would be SO onerous for VT.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        And the only way to do that is with a single-payor, which isn’t likely to happen because there are too many powerful interests making too much money off the current system.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Let’s see, the GOP voted 50 times to repeal the ACA, so why cooperate. And I think there is more to the story, because Republicans are notorious for putting stupid amendments into bills (like expanding sanctions on Iraq). The Senate “F*&k you” came around the time the House was threatening to shut down the government.

      • strayaway

        Most of those 50 times was to repeal parts of the (un)ACA. I am unaware of other Republican amendments. That is possible. However, Democrats made no attempt to respond with any compromise of their own. They had some time but instead let the clock run out on keeping the government open.

      • Andy Kinnard

        …because the time for compromise passed with the vote on the bill.

      • strayaway

        Every country, every border, and every currency eventually disappears. Laws are much easier to reverse or change.

      • Andy Kinnard

        There are certain protocols that have been followed for ages in your governing bodies that allow business to get done. One of them is that debate and compromise on a single law/bill are confined to that period before the vote. The assumption is that, once passed (i.e., reflecting the will of the people), EVERYONE works to make it all WORK, not works EXCLUSIVELY to reverse the law.

      • strayaway

        I make no such assumption. A recent debt ceiling, objected to mostly by Democrats, was overturned for instance.

      • Andy Kinnard

        It wasn’t overturned. It was raised much like has been done numerous time under numerous POTUSs and Congress.

      • strayaway

        The Budget Control Act of 2011 certainly did mandate sequestrations which Congress and the President agreed to before they overturned it. Now the sky is the limit. Happy days are here again.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        The GOP was not interested in compromise.

      • Mrs_oatmeal

        Ted Cruz announced weeks before the government shut down that was what the Republicans wanted to do. Michelle Bachmann stated that she hadn’t seen Republicans that giddy in years! Her words not mine. If you remember, the Republicans threatened the shut down if they didn’t get what they wanted at the expense to the American taxpayers.

      • strayaway

        Ted Cruz has one vote out of 100. He doesn’t speak for anyone and doesn’t control the Senate which is dominated by Democrats who refused to compromise on even these small points and let the government close. Republicans shut down nothing. The Republican House passed a bill that the Democratic Senate refused to compromise on. Then after the shutdown, President Obama used an executive order to do what the flaming idiot Senate Democrats had refused to compromise on.

      • Andy Kinnard

        1. Ted Cruz most definitely speaks for the Tea Party caucus and seems to be their point man for political grandstanding. The TP caucus has most definitely set the agenda in the House; there shouldn’t even be debate about that.
        2. KXL is no small point (nor were the other things mentioned by Sherri G)
        3. In particular, the medical device tax was crucial both to the fiscal feasibility of the ACA but also as an issue of fairness (and I say this as a Hoosier whose state would be negatively impacted by said tax).
        4. Finally, it seems that, in the end (and this is the primary point), Obama did exactly what the GOP SAID they wanted (i.e., delay the mandate). The problem seems to be that he effectively stripped off all the poison pills and bullshit the House had tacked on. It seems a shallow reason to complain (much less impeach).

      • strayaway

        I’m not aware that there were all sorts of poison pills. If there were, I wonder why the Senate didn’t strip them out and send the bill back to the House rather than letting the government shut down. Surely, the medical devise tax won’t be applied to anyone with incomes of less than $200,000. After all, President Obama promised not to raise their taxes.

      • Andy Kinnard

        It’s a medical device tax on manufacturers, not individuals; so, your question is hopelessly broken by a false premise.

      • strayaway

        Manufacturers pass hidden taxes along to individuals using said medical devices by raising costs accordingly. Also, an extra tax on one product line distorts the market. The hospital or individual with a limited budget, for instance, puts off a purchase or spends their money on something with more utility for the buck. The result of instituting this medical devices tax is higher taxes for even those making less than $200,000/year and less new medical equipment which I think translates into slightly lower quality medical care.

      • Andy Kinnard

        It’s not an “extra” tax. It’s a recinding of a tax exemption. It’s fair may be passed on to customers somewhat but only if the market tolerates it. Rarely are these devices bought without insurance coverage (which negotiates prices that won’the be automatically increased to accommodate the tax). I understand your concern about theoretical price impacts, but, following that logic, all business tax would be eliminated (which is patently unfair to the People).

      • strayaway

        Obama promised no new taxes on people earning over $200,000/year. But you are right. He didn’t say anything about not increasing de facto taxes by a different name. I’m tempted to start in with lawyer jokes. Most people don’t care whether the extra money they have to pay for medical equipment because of the (un)ACA has a label on it saying “Obama’s new tax” or that it is a “rescinding of a tax exemption”. No one cares. Either way, it’s more money they have to spend for medical care. They will just say something about the passed along extra costs walking and quacking like a duck.

      • Andy Kinnard

        I’m in favor of a more fair tax code. That means lifting exemptions and loopholes. You don’t have to like it, and you’re obviously free to make whatever only-ideology-supported arguments against fairness, but you SHOULD realize that’s what you’re doing — arguing against fair taxation.

      • Stephen Barlow

        How are they going to manage to SUE the President for something they are putting in their own bill for the 25th time?

      • strayaway

        I thought they were suing the president for overstepping his authority using executive orders or are you referring to something else?

      • Stephen Barlow

        By executively ordering the mandate extension they are asking for in the budget and asked for when they botched the shutdown and before that during the Debt limit hostage crapfest.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Funny? Isn’t that compromise made BY the President EXACTLY what Boehner’s frivolous empty threat lawsuit is all about? Republicans getting exactly what they BEGGED for.

      • Stephen Barlow

        We scream when the Reds WELCH on deals and agreements.

        We scream when the Reds LIE in the press.

        We scream when the REDS deny tax dollars to the tax payers and send it into lost cause wars justified by FRAUD and felonious criminal conduct of a whole Administration.

        We Scream when REDS deny women Constitutional rights under the blatant LIE that “it’s for their own good and protection”.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        AMEN BROTHER!

      • MrLightRail

        NO you don’t..You whimper. The damn Democratic Party is all Pussies when it comes to attacking the stupidity of the Republicans.

      • Stephen Barlow

        SPeak for people you know. I have a 4×8 billboard ‘tally of lies’ in My back yard, which is right on the only US Highway for50 miles in every direction and ALL the traffic in this part of nowhere drives right by it.

        Every morning, I make the changes. and adjust the total. “Over 1,239,475 lies told by Republicans since “Mission Accomplished”.

        My precinct voted 78% for RobMe and 81% for McAsshat.

      • katiekees

        You are refreshingly brilliant. kt

      • Stephen Barlow

        Thank you darlin’. You made my day. I get so many ‘hates replies, mostly from three RED stalkers who are so into getting trashed by Me I am SURE they read me After their pants are around their ankles.

        Most others would just ‘upvote’ something.

        Thanks!

      • Stephen Barlow

        The city council passed an ordinance about the size of political advertising within town limits. No more than three signs, none bigger than 6 square feet.
        SO I made 3 perfect 2×3 boards.

        NOW they are painted on both sides and can be read like Burma Shave ads from both directions.

        (Of COURSE it’s Red and Blue with White letters.)

        1)

        Total
        GOP
        LIES

        2)

        ONE
        MILLION

        3)

        ,577
        ,698

        I have made a set of wooden #’s like they use on Little League Score boards to make the changing easier.

        I am EXPECTing 2 million by November 4th

        and 5 million+ by the day Hillary become obama’s back up and the BLUE Army takes back the House AND majority in the Senate.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Didn’t see that happen during the PPACA debates. Nor the WAR debates, nor the Education and Food Stamp and Farm Bill and Vet’s Bill debates either.

        I think you are just ashamed of half of the GOP and like any child who KNOWS he is WRONG, you are saying “Well, Her Mom & Dad let her wear makeup and sell blowjobs under the school steps!”

      • hdtex

        That’s pure BS and you know it!

    • Stribbie

      I just wonder what a Constitution of a “Red” nation would look like? No minimum wage, no right to vote unless you owned property, legal blatant racism and assassination legal to stop border crossings? Do you think this would be a valid nation?

      • Stephen Barlow

        Without TAXES, how would they pay their politicians? Would they get minimum wage AND “tips” from lobbyists?

      • Altreg01

        It would be a Christian Taliban nation, look at any hardline islamic nation like Iran and change the religion to Christianity. To them thats heaven on earth.

      • Bill Grant

        It would be a fly-by-night nation that would last less than ten years before it collapsed and they came crying back to the US for re-admittance.

      • Lance Sherer

        Fly by night? And come running back? Lol that is funny. Have you taken a gander at all the cities that have high crime failing schools and are bankrupt? They have progressive/ liberal mayors….broke and failing philosophy…why would we run back to u?

      • Bill Grant

        Well, Im going to point out that I was born in the south and was a long time resident until my part of the state took a wide swing into the mental asylum called the Tea Party. First, the red states would lose their government welfare, you know the whole thing were red states get more government funds than they give. Secondly, individuals would love their government welfare as well and the southern states would not enact any to replace it since they hate poor people (which there are tons of poor whites in the south they might want to help, but no other colors)…which by the way, the majority of the highest welfare-laden counties in the country are in the south in predominantly white, predominantly republican counties, and you’d also have tons of people that, if the state seceded, would lose all their other US-government benefits, including social security, disability, and government pensions. Thirdly, I know that most of the state legislatures would pass regressive legislation such as making Christianity the only acceptable religion, deregulating everything, and taking away pretty much all rights from anyone who isn’t a white, christian heterosexual, so you’d have most of the highly educated people leave as well as most companies who are actually interested in having happy, educated employees and a safe working environment leave your “new country” in addition to all the now “undesirables”, so there goes tons of tax dollars right there. In essence, forming a country of the kind that conservatives would make, would have an economy that would quickly crap out on you and no person, corporation, or country of any self respect would want to deal with a poor, facist, theocratic government that you’d have…you’d be left with companies that only want to exploit uneducated, unprotected workers that they could pay only a fraction of what they were worth and have them working in dangerous environments.

        Now that I’ve pointed all that out, I guess I understand why you people wouldn’t want to come back….you’d finally have the theocratic shit-hole that conservatives want where the church and the wealthy run absolutely everything and everyone else is just fat, dumb, and happy doing EXACTLY what they are told…because, legally, they would have no other option.

    • Stephen Barlow

      The answer is more like how Andy Jackson handled the Seminoles and Cherokees.

      We map out a strip of America, all along the Rio grands for 100 miles and then FENCE in everything from the base of the Sierras to the base of the base of the Wasatch Mountains. All the way up to Canada. then we round up ALL the RED Seditionists and ‘gift” them their own ‘Union.

      They don’t have to pay taxes, only tariffs on goods crossing the border and will need a felony free passport visa. They will have to provide all their own utilities and schools and whatever they like. BUT, they can NEVER come BACK to America for more than 24 hours.

      It’s be the Republican Reservation and they can arm everyone to their hearts content, marry 14 YO wives, enslave blacks and hispanics and they won’t even have to use US paper dollars. They can define their own Gold Standard if they like. They can broadcast sermons and services 24/7,

      However, NO train travel, truck travel, plane travel past the checkpoints. No American corporation will be allowed to do business with them, and they will be embargoed in perpetuity with an irrevocable treaty. Since WE are their defense and they are not paying for it through taxes, these are the terms.

      The Interstate highways through the Republican Union will be militarily protected us soil for 15 miles on each side. If any vehicle i=on American soil it fired upon or attacked, it will be a mandate for all the black helicopters they collectively imagined to drop from the skies on a search 7 destroy mission that will ONLY end when the shooter and his commander are turned over to US authorities.

      And for their protection, they can have any border and immigration policy they want, but ALL frequencies will be jammed or blocked along the three borders, no American communication in, no Republicans garbage out.

      Then maybe Congress will get to work again.

    • DerpDestroyer

      They would certainly “come out much stranger”, as your silly theory claims.

    • FD Brian

      if the red states formed their own union they’d have to build a wall to keep all the people from leaving.

    • Lance Sherer

      LOLWhat do you think would happen if you withdrew from the republican part of country? You would have Chicago and DC and NY everywhere. You would be left with a welfare state my friend. Crime? Where is it? Death by guns? where is it? Blame it on who ever but until you take responsibility, you cant change it. I never met a person who was preoccupied with a person in the past and blamed a person in their past who did very well with their future. Any counselor will tell you that. If you could ever take your racist glasses off, then maybe we could have a conversation about race.

      • Fletcher Mendus

        Crime? Gun violence? Highest percentage in the red states. That is a fact that can be looked up and verified.

        Taxes? Income? Welfare. Once again, the facts that can be checked and verified show that red states pay less in taxes than they receive back. The blue states pay more in taxes than they receive back. I think you are picturing the welfare states incorrectly.

        Where did I blame a person in the past? Although I could put a lot of blame on ‘trickle-down’ or voodoo economics. It would fit right in there.

        And how did race come into it? I did not mention race once, nor did any of the other commenters on here. What was the point of talking about racist glasses? And where did that even come from?

    • cecilia

      They would have to pay all the nice intelligent people who happen to live in these creationists wacko-zones to move out.
      And then, once all the nuts were in one place build a HUGE wall around it all to prevent the nuts from leaving.

    • TheOrthFace

      I agree with Fletcher. I’m surprised at the surprise. The survey wasn’t “Mississippians”. It was republican Mississippians and, frankly, they were presented with the scenario of defending what is unquestionably their homeland. If the situation were reversed I would surely fight for a northeast or New England state against a union that was trying to foist a set of policies that were anathema to me by force. Imagine a dick cheney/max boot/grover norquist led government for a second. Yeah, I’d secede with Vermont.

  • Ronald Mack

    Fletcher Mendus, I agree 100%.

  • suburbancuurmudgeon

    They consider themselves to be the only “real Americans.”

  • bluesman

    what do we expect from a state that is constantly at the bottom in education

  • Altreg01

    A decade ago before Dubya found his true calling of painting selfies in the bathroom if you criticized the gubiment their rallying call was “‘Murica, love it or leave it”. Now that DEMOCRACY has switched up the leadership of the White House all these buffoons want to secede. What they dont understand is that’s exactly how a democracy works, a govt is FAIRLY elected, if your side doesnt win it doesnt mean you throw hissy fits, cry like a baby, and threaten a revolution. It means you come up with a better candidate for the next election and WIN back the presidency. Unfortunately they know they will never have a decent candidate so they are falling back on plan B, gerrymandering the hell out of states they own and also a heavy dose of voter suppression and any other back handed tactic they can think of. For conservatives an election isnt about winning the most votes, its about preventing the other side from voting.

  • OldCowboy

    I think the time has come to not simply allow, but to require the states of the Old Confederacy to leave the Union. Let’s see how the fare on their own.

  • SluttyMary

    That whole Tea Party in the Boston bay was a terrorist act against the royal crown. Just sayin… It was liberals who revolted not conservatives…. have you thanked a liberal today for your freedom?

  • erik thorne

    Are these the real Americans Sarah Palin was talking about?

  • Nilan25

    Secede. These hand out states are a burden to the nation. Pig ignorant and totally unproductive, most of the Red states would die without government handouts.

  • Lance Sherer

    LOL to the author: honestly, when was the last time you actually heard a white person use the N word? You don’t- ever. While blacks do all the time Cause you irrationally freak out about it while you dont give two hoots about 80 of your brothers killing each other in Chicago. You would rather scream against the KKK who havent killed anyone in 30 years than scream against a gangster who kills every day- one reason is that actually takes courage! HERE IS THE CRAZY CRAZY CRAZY THING ABOUT THE CURRENT RACIST OBSESSION- THE WHITE PEOPLE THAT ARE HATED ARE SO ANONYMOUS THAT RACE BAITERS ARE OBSESSED ABOUT PUTTING A FACE TO IT TODAY AND MUST LABEL EVERYTHING AS RACIST IN AN ATTEMPT TO REMAIN RELEVANT. I honestly see much more racism in the black community both toward whites and toward their own community than I do in the white community. That is the truth. What we dont like is crime and welfare and drugs and excuses. And so we move away from those things. That is not about race….unless YOU make it about race. The irony is that wealthy blacks dont like those things either…well poor blacks dont either…why arent they racist? LOL

    • Lesha

      I found your comment to be quiet hilarious. All black people DO NOT use the N-word. I find it very offensive for it to be used so loosely in conversation or used at all. And most black people are NOT concerned with the KKK. Everyone knows they’re racist…and then you have the closet ones. I would respect a klansman because I know upfront who I’m dealing with. But a closet racist more than likely have some kind of hidden agenda. Until someone records them saying a racial slur and in jeopardy of losing their job…let’s face it…Racism still exists but it’s nothing compared to what it used to be. While I don’t consider myself to be in the “wealthy blacks” category, I would say most black people hate crime, poverty, and drugs. Blacks are not racist against each other…lol that would mean we hate the color of our very own skin…our mothers and fathers. So your statement is false.

    • Ali

      Some people in the south still refer to blacks as ‘niggers’. And I have personally heard it in every day conversation when I’ve been down there visiting. But you are right, racism works, and is working, both ways.

      • Ali

        Sorry, to clarify, I meant to say white people still use the word.

  • Wayne P.

    William Faulkner said in 1956 ” … I’d fight for Mississippi against the United States even if it meant going out into the street and shooting Negroes.” So, there’s a long tradition of that sentiment in Mississippi.

  • rejectrepublicanlies

    These folks think they’re exhibiting “Southern Pride.” In reality, they are seditious, failed separatist racists.

  • BDS

    Wake up people. Our country is being destroyed by these DC politician and BO right before our very eyes. What’s wrong with wanting to stand up against them? People are just sitting by.. watching this happen, doing nothing. ! Wait and see and give him 2 more yrs. in office to finish the job.

    • kissyface

      our country is being destroyed by the hatred on the right. PRESIDENT Obama will go down as one of the best recent presidents if not the best

  • golfdawg11

    If the Southern states seceded, they would quickly go bankrupt and be wastelands. As was noted in a recent panel discussion, the state of Mississippi gets about 49% of their budget from the Federal government. 24% of Mississippi residents are on Medicaid. One person made the statement, and it’s absolutely true, that the state of Mississippi is a ward of the US government. As much as the residents hate the US government, they would be broke without Federal dollars. Their economies would die. This is the plain and simple truth. Now, as during the Civil War, most of the Southern states would fall quickly into disrepair and neglect from the lack of an independent economy. I agree with many, if they truly want to start their own nation, let them. Put tariffs on everything sold to them from the TRUE United States. Let’s see how long they would last.

  • Heather

    I’ve lived in Mississippi my whole life; and, to be completely honest, I’m not surprised by this at all. It makes me sad because there are some fantastic things in our state… however being progressive is not exactly our forte at the moment. I hope it changes. I would love to see my beautiful state finally gain some common sense.

    • DavidD

      Don’t lose heart Ms.Heather I’m from Texas so i know how you feel.Don’t listen to the people who think it’s a liberal value to hate on all of us just because where we live.
      Some i think are just frustated but some just have to feel like they are just better than us to make them feel better about themselves.
      I’ve been to Mississippi and yes it is a beautiful state with many fine people in it just like all the other states in our country.Just because folks live their lives different from other folks don’t make them bad most the time just different.As long as it ain’t harmful to other people we should respect that.
      I won’t break faith with that country no matter what the hatemongers from the left or the right say.It was founded on ideals that are just as relevant today as was then and the struggle will continue to realize those Age of Enlightment ideals .My personal feeling is that those ideals are best reilized through Social Democracy but as long as other folks are going in that direction I’m proud that they let me tag along.
      Suns going to shine on our back porch someday.I’m an old man and many the ideals I had forty years ago are getting stronger everyday.We will overcome.

  • Mr President Sir!

    You don’t live here and you don’t understand. For most of those people it has absolutely nothing to do with racism or allegiance to Country. It has every thing to day with pride and the more you try to run us down the more we will stand up and tell you to go to Hell!

    • DavidD

      For a lot of us that’s true.There are plenty of mean SOB’s down here for which that is not true but traveling all around this country i know there are lots of mean SOB everywhere.
      Most people are pretty nice once you get to know them and I have enough sense when I’m far from home that folks have different ways about them and Thats allright.I would be a fool to expect them to change their ways to suit me.
      When people down here see somebody decked out in some Confederate regalia we usally avoid them because they are usally looking for trouble.
      We respect our kin thats gone before us but have no desire most of us to emulate past bad public policy.Slavery had to go.Lincoln was right and most of us are content to leave the Confedarcy in the graveyard where it belongs.
      People from both the left and right seem to want to dig it up to get attention and power that otherwise no one would give them.
      They are opportunist and scoundrels and both should be condemmed.
      We are one country,indivisable and if we are true patriots that should be our standard of conduct.
      There is enough trouble without digging up old trouble.

      • Mr President Sir!

        I completely agree with you David. That is the point I am trying to get across to Mr Clifton. His continuous attacks on Mississippi and Southern pride is only helping to further alienate the people of the South. The statements by our fellow liberals that the Red states should be allowed to secede only make them look as backward as the conservatives do. That is a poorly thought out hypocritical comment as no State is all Blue or all red.
        Allen Clifton continuous attacks on Mississippi and our Southern heritage is a problem we don’t need. It is only making it more difficult for those of us trying to get our State as well as the entire South more blue when Blue with comments like those on here. The past is the past slavery is dead and gone symbols are open to interpretation. Let’s leave it in the past and look forward progressively to our future. In other words stop rehashing old fights that only make the present fights more difficult.
        Doesn’t that make sense?

      • DavidD

        Thank you for your kind reply.

  • Thomas Marks

    We all should have been covered in 1948 when Harry Truman put forth the single payer plan….. But Noooooo … after all he was a democrat… 50 + years of nonsense…

  • BkDodge42

    The story does not link to the Public Policy poll and only to another article that also does not cite the poll. One article said that it was a poll released on July 15th dealing with the Mississippi Senate race. Looking at the polling information there was no question about supporting a new confederacy. Unless you can cite the actual polling release, this story seems to have been made up, but that doesn’t surprise me at all.

  • BkDodge42

    29% in the poll of only Republicans indicated that they would side with the Confederate States not the 37% that is claimed. Most people on this site would not know how or be inclined to actually look up the poll that is being referred to in order to see for themselves the actual numbers. Only 16% would support South seceding
    from the United States and forming its own from the United States and forming its own country. I have no idea where the author comes up with the 37% figure that he claims.

  • BkDodge42

    Only 29% of Republican voters said that they would side with the Confederate States and 50% said that they would support the United States with 21% unsure. Most people here on this site would not bother to look at the actual poll to see for themselves but would instead just take Alan’s comments even though they are wrong. Only 16% would support the South succeeding from the United States and forming their own country.

    Just follow along blindly as many already do here.

    • nowhere1111

      OK, 16% is still pretty amazing! (I should probably check your veracity too)

  • Truth

    Your math is incorrect…only 57% of people eligible to vote actually voted. So it is a fact that only 29% of the public elected the government. 37-38% didn’t vote and close to 28% that voted did so for the losing party. So technically almost 70% of eligible voters of the United States didn’t vote for the government which is governing them. This number doesn’t include the 12 million illegal immigrants who are also living in the United States and also people under the age of 18 and felons. So its probably close to only 24% of the people living in this country actually elected the government. These numbers are not exact but they are way closer to truth than your 60% number you threw out there. 62 Million People voted for the President. 264 Million people didn’t.
    The 2nd Amendment is for protection from lots of things. One of them being a tyrannical government.

  • John Kellum

    Interesting, but perhaps you should have done a bit of research. There are these things called history books that (sometimes) contain actual facts (as opposed to political spin). The Civil war was not about slavery, it was about weather or not the federal government had authority over the state governments. I think most people would agree that we have to much government at this point. A little light reading:

    “By the latter part of 1864 the CSA was moving toward ending slavery. In fact, there are indications that the Confederacy would have ended slavery even if it had survived the war, as prominent historians like J. G. Randall and David Donald have acknowledged (see Randall and Donald, The Civil War and Reconstruction, Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Company, 1969, p. 522).

    Critics will reply that the CSA only began to move toward emancipation as an act of desperation in the face of imminent defeat. If so, this proves that Southern independence was more important to Confederate leaders than was the continuation of slavery, that when push came to shove they were willing to abandon slavery in order to achieve independence.””

    Next point, it is possible to be a patriot and love ones country without loving the system governing that country. That doesn’t make a person a “Traitor”.
    Lastly, did you forget that the United States was founded by a group of people who were fed up with a tyrannical government, who rose up in armed rebellion against that government? The Second Amendment WAS intended to protect the individual right to arms, as a check against the government becoming too powerful and abusive (like the one they had just revolted against). The current government finds this fact inconvenient and so tries to change it but that IS what was intended.

  • Brent Feiker

    still dwelling on the mid term elections. so much for forward progressives.

  • Andy Riley

    Ok. ?? The founders of the US were terrorists and traitors. There was no civil war. It was a war of naked aggression by the US against another nation. Please read some history, and some Jefferson. Sheesh.

  • Jim

    I’m not sure why the author is surprised. I live in Texas too.

  • Nay KnowledgeisPower White

    So, white people really want to go back to a time when we were slaves and had to obey them?

  • WaChinYu

    The civil war against the Constitutional United States of America has been going on for some time now. The Rebels are the Progressives who wish to overthrow the established government in favor of some socialist utopia that they fantasize about.