Republicans

[manlymatt83]

I have a question. I grew up in a small, New Jersey town. I'd say most people in my town were fairly Conservative, as I defined it at the time. Many people went to Church, many people were religious, and for the most part, I felt it was a fairly wealthy area. When I graduated High School, I went to a really liberal College - but I didn't really know what that meant at the time. I took up a Political Science minor and began taking classes. Most of my classes taught the same thing: Global warming is bad, big business ruins the world because they all dump their waste in foreign countries, that we as a first world country cause less developed nations to be dependent on us (dependency theory) or that we try to make them like us (modernization theory?).

My education never really touched on social issues like abortion rights, gay marriage, etc., so I'll leave the social issues out of the picture. But where it did leave me is with a liberal bias: who wouldn't want to help the poor countries? who wouldn't want to stop big US business from dumping trash in costa rica? who wouldn't want to pay more taxes so that we can all have a fair life? After all, it isn't people's fault that they don't have a job, it's the big business's fault for not providing them and being greedy with money... /brainwashed

In any event, I've been reading a lot on the health care bill lately, and I find it quite odd that almost every democrat is in support of it, and every conservative is against it. My democratic friends into politics will argue that the republicans aren't supporting it because "they want to keep the corrupt health care companies going so that they can put more money in their pockets". Surely that isn't the entire truth - is it? Is every republican in congress voting against this bill simply because they don't want to lose the massive amount of profits they are making?

Or something else I learned: big pharmaceutical companies don't want to make HIV drugs cheaper for poor people overseas because it will hurt their bottom line. True?

I personally hate all the spending we've been doing lately. It's ridiculous. But I once remember hearing something from a friend that "The republicans spend and spend and spend, and then the Democrats come in once a decade and clean up the deficit". If that's the case, then why does it seem like the deficit is getting larger and larger?

The point of this thread isn't to rant or flame. The point is to show you where my bias education has left me, and why I've begun to question things I've been told or taught. Can someone clarify?

 

[spidey07]

You're not going to get a clear answer because your friends are quite simply misinformed. The senate bill forces more customers to insurance companies, that means MORE profits for those evil insurance companies.

Sounds like they bought the lie hook line and sinker, it's all those evil insurance companies faults and profits are evil.

The reason rebuplicans are against it is because it's against one of the parties founding principles - free market.

 

[blackangst1]

I have a question. I grew up in a small, New Jersey town. I'd say most people in my town were fairly Conservative, as I defined it at the time. Many people went to Church, many people were religious, and for the most part, I felt it was a fairly wealthy area. When I graduated High School, I went to a really liberal College - but I didn't really know what that meant at the time. I took up a Political Science minor and began taking classes. Most of my classes taught the same thing: Global warming is bad, big business ruins the world because they all dump their waste in foreign countries, that we as a first world country cause less developed nations to be dependent on us (dependency theory) or that we try to make them like us (modernization theory?).

My education never really touched on social issues like abortion rights, gay marriage, etc., so I'll leave the social issues out of the picture. But where it did leave me is with a liberal bias: who wouldn't want to help the poor countries? who wouldn't want to stop big US business from dumping trash in costa rica? who wouldn't want to pay more taxes so that we can all have a fair life? After all, it isn't people's fault that they don't have a job, it's the big business's fault for not providing them and being greedy with money... /brainwashed

In any event, I've been reading a lot on the health care bill lately, and I find it quite odd that almost every democrat is in support of it, and every conservative is against it. My democratic friends into politics will argue that the republicans aren't supporting it because "they want to keep the corrupt health care companies going so that they can put more money in their pockets". Surely that isn't the entire truth - is it? Is every republican in congress voting against this bill simply because they don't want to lose the massive amount of profits they are making?

Or something else I learned: big pharmaceutical companies don't want to make HIV drugs cheaper for poor people overseas because it will hurt their bottom line. True?

I personally hate all the spending we've been doing lately. It's ridiculous. But I once remember hearing something from a friend that "The republicans spend and spend and spend, and then the Democrats come in once a decade and clean up the deficit". If that's the case, then why does it seem like the deficit is getting larger and larger?

The point of this thread isn't to rant or flame. The point is to show you where my bias education has left me, and why I've begun to question things I've been told or taught. Can someone clarify?

In reference to the bolded, on the surface it would seem so; however, it is now the Democrats who are receiving the majority of health care related donations and $$$. So thats not it. It started primarily in 2007 as explained in this article: http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/05/28/health-industry-donations-favor-democrats-over-republicans/

From Jan. 1, 2007 through March of this year, people and political action committees in the health sector have contributed $42 million and to Democratic candidates for congress and the presidency, compared with $34.6 million to Republicans, Dow Jones Newswires reports.


Then theres this, reported last fall http://rawstory.com/2009/09/democratic-opponents-of-public-option-faulted-for-health-industry-ties/:

Five Democratic members of the Senate Finance Committee who voted on Tuesday to shoot down a proposed public option for the health care reform bill -- a measure which polls show is favored by 81% of Democrats -- are coming under close scrutiny for their ties to the health care industry.

Joan Walsh of Salon took Baucus to task for his vote, writing, "So let's get this straight: Baucus admits the public option would 'hold insurance companies' feet to the fire,' but he voted against it? Is there any clearer evidence that Baucus is in the pocket of the health insurance industry?"
Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) comes in second on the Intershame list, with about $4 million in health industry donations, and Kent Conrad (D-ND) is third at around $3 million. Like Baucus, both Lincoln and Conrad have former chiefs of staff who are now health industry lobbyists.

 

[rudder]

The bill also grants the IRS new powers to fine you if you do not prove you have insurance on your 1040. They also now have a charitable program that will be funded by increased taxes. The bill is crap. We need healthcare reform not healthcare redo of the whole system.

 

[Robor]

You're not going to get a clear answer because your friends are quite simply misinformed. The senate bill forces more customers to insurance companies, that means MORE profits for those evil insurance companies.

Sounds like they bought the lie hook line and sinker, it's all those evil insurance companies faults and profits are evil.

The reason rebuplicans are against it is because it's against one of the parties founding principles - free market.

LOL... Pie in the sky.

 

[MotF Bane]

LOL... Pie in the sky.

No kidding, the Republicans haven't followed free market in ages.

 

[MotF Bane]

Manlymatt, I was told growing up that it was the Democrats that spend and spend, and the Republicans came in to clean up the deficit. Polar opposites, and yet the truth of it has become, with the exception of Clinton, both parties gleefully rack up the deficit.

Your "liberal" bias of help the little country, pay more taxes, it's big businesses fault just... doesn't make sense to me. Not at all. I guess that's formative thinking?

If you hate the absurd deficit spending, you don't really fit to either of the dominant two parties.

 

[werepossum]

For this particular bill there are three main reasons that Republicans are opposing it uniformly. First, this bill is crap, both House and Senate versions; it is designed to do nothing more than to stress the existing system and move us to a proper single payer socialized medicine system. Second, it's good politics. Most Americans do not support either this bill or socialized medicine at the moment, so opposing the bill provides a political boost to their party. This increases each Republican's re-election chances (Priority #1 in Washington) as well as increasing the chances that their party will win back power (Priority #2 in Washington.) Third, passing this sort of reform in this economy will do a great deal of damage to the economy in coming years as we try to recover both from the recession and from the record spending over the last decade. With three strong reasons to oppose it, there is absolutely no reason for any Republican to support a bill from which they were kept completely out of writing and given little chance to even amend. And if they had any doubts, Ben Nelson's predicament will harden their resolve. Unfortunately Obama and the Democrats do not need a single Republican vote to pass this monster, merely for political cover for the consequences.

As for the core issue of relative spending, Republicans have historically been more responsible than have Democrats, but when they had all three chambers (White House, House of Representatives, and Senate) they also engaged in record spending from 2001 - 2006, so it's hard to know how much of the Republicans' fiscal responsibility is from core principal and how much is from lack of opportunity. We saw in 2007 that Democrats (who regained control of the House and Senate in the 2006 elections) are still worse in overspending - their only claim to fiscal responsibility is their intent and willingness to raise your taxes to pay for the new spending, thereby moving government's deficit to your deficit - but we don't really know to what extent the Republicans are better. For instance, the Republicans were great under Clinton, but we've not yet seen that they can be trusted with a friendly president. I do generally consider the Republicans to be the lesser evil.

 

[ShawnD1]

But where it did leave me is with a liberal bias: who wouldn't want to help the poor countries?

I'm the most liberal guy on the forum and I still think Africa should go fuck itself.

Most of my classes taught the same thing: Global warming is bad, big business ruins the world because they all dump their waste in foreign countries, that we as a first world country cause less developed nations to be dependent on us (dependency theory) or that we try to make them like us (modernization theory?).

That's because these are all factually true to some degree. Global warming is bad because we don't know where it leads (I don't really care about this issue). Big businesses really do dump waste unless regulations tell them not to; that was the whole point of creating the EPA. First world nations do tend to make poor nations depend on them to some extent; it's impossible to keep your country completely isolated.

A conservative will say global warming is not a big deal. A retard will say global warming is not happening.
A conservative will say EPA policies can be loosened a little bit. A retard will say the EPA doesn't need to exist and companies are fully capable of policing themselves.

 

[Cogman]

My education never really touched on social issues like abortion rights, gay marriage, etc., so I'll leave the social issues out of the picture. But where it did leave me is with a liberal bias: who wouldn't want to help the poor countries? who wouldn't want to stop big US business from dumping trash in costa rica? who wouldn't want to pay more taxes so that we can all have a fair life? After all, it isn't people's fault that they don't have a job, it's the big business's fault for not providing them and being greedy with money... /brainwashed

Funny, most hippies have this notion that big businesses pollute horribly and that little businesses cause no pollution. This is completely backwards. Do big buisnesses produce more waste? Yep. However, generally speaking, big businesses produce more products for the amount of waste that they produce. They produce more waste because they generally serve more people.

As for fair life. What do you consider fair? Should everyone have exactly the same thing regardless of talent or effort? Or is fair getting what you work for? I have no problems with people giving to and starting up charities, I have a problem with people telling me what is fair and then FORCING me to be fair. There are more then enough people that live solely off of government stipends despite the fact that they are capable of doing work themselves. (Heck, their "job" is trying to figure out how to scam the government and other charities out of money).

Helping the poor is a good thing. Throwing money at them fixes nothing. Sure, I feel bad for joe who can't get a job. If we had a system to help the joes that are really incapable of getting jobs. Our current system is broken beyond belief, we help thousands who are otherwise healthy and able to work. It doesn't help to give them money, just look at the english console areas (one in every city). They literally have a huge portion of their population that is living entirely off the government, in government funded housing. That is were government welfare ends up almost inevitably.

In any event, I've been reading a lot on the health care bill lately, and I find it quite odd that almost every democrat is in support of it, and every conservative is against it. My democratic friends into politics will argue that the republicans aren't supporting it because "they want to keep the corrupt health care companies going so that they can put more money in their pockets". Surely that isn't the entire truth - is it? Is every republican in congress voting against this bill simply because they don't want to lose the massive amount of profits they are making?

Or something else I learned: big pharmaceutical companies don't want to make HIV drugs cheaper for poor people overseas because it will hurt their bottom line. True?

Perhaps. If they are going to lose money on it, they won't do it. If they could drop the price and sell it, and still make a profit on it, then they would do it. Perhaps their biggest fear, though, is that they sell it at a discounted price to these poor countries, only to have some scammer, buy as much of it as possible, and sell it back to the US citizens at a slightly discounted price.

Rich people aren't the only greedy ones in the world.

I personally hate all the spending we've been doing lately. It's ridiculous. But I once remember hearing something from a friend that "The republicans spend and spend and spend, and then the Democrats come in once a decade and clean up the deficit". If that's the case, then why does it seem like the deficit is getting larger and larger?

And pigs fly. I HATE what the republican party has become, they use to be the party of conservative spending. Cutting costs ect. Now their spending habits are exactly the same as the Democrates, Spend now, tax later.

However, to say that the Democrats have come in and "Fixed" things is pretty laughable at best. Our current white house setup is a great example of that. Heck, you'd be hard pressed to find a Democrat plan that hasn't turned into a sinking hole of debt. Medicare, Social security, Welfare, ect..

The point of this thread isn't to rant or flame. The point is to show you where my bias education has left me, and why I've begun to question things I've been told or taught. Can someone clarify?

Both parties have their big issues. Both parties focus way too much on social issues. Republicans used to be the party of wise spending, not any more. The neocons have lead us into a huge financial hole. However, the bleeding hearts of the democrats really hasn't made things better. They are spending money like it was going out of style

I can understand the liberal way of thinking, I just feel that the way they approach it is backwords. Rather then just trying to transfer money from the wealthy to the poor, why not try and get the poor to become productive? Heck, make them fold napkins for their living, I don't care, but don't just give them money.

As well, not everyone needs a car, a home, ect. stop trying to force banks to do otherwise. Half the reason we went into this recession was because of sub-prime loans pioneered by non-other then the democrats. It isn't a god given right to get a loan.

That is my opinion on the situation.

 

[Descartes]

I'm not sure what's worse, the constant skepticism of companies in America from the left or the blind faith in companies from the right.

Republicans are not all bad people that want to see others suffer, despite what it may seem like on these forums. Democrats are not all tree-huggers, anti-capitalists that want to see everyone lifted to the same standard of living, despite what it may seem like on these forums.

Let's excuse those on the fringes, the extremists that really do fit the mold described above. In the realm of normalcy people generally want to see others succeed and be happy, healthy and safe in this country. The disagreement, that is argued to pathetic ad nauseum, is how this is achieved.

And so that's where we are. Free market solutions (to simplify it a bit) inevitably lead those more liberal-leaning folks to think it's all exploitation at the top. The reality is that these companies and their leaders (save for a few) have no conspiratorial plan to exploit anyone, and the fact that some are left disenfranchised is simply a consequence of private enterprise.

Insurance companies are not bad, nor are pharmaceutical companies. The heart of the entrepreneurial spirit is first innovation, second profit; take away either and you have nothing. If there's an addressable market, you better believe someone will fill it.

Our country has lost its vision, and the parties that represent the people are largely the cause. The skepticism placed on corporate America from the left hurts just as much as the degradation thrown at our democratic President from the right.

I'm rambling and I have no real point. I say the same thing in all my posts, hoping for some balance. It's always a partisan issue for some. It's win-the-game-at-whatever-cost, and few even seem to understand the core philosophies upon which their reflexes are based.

In the words of an often inflammatory Neal Boortz: Americans hate freedom. It took me a while to really appreciate the truth in that, but it applies to republicans and democrats.

 

[JS80]

I have a question. I grew up in a small, New Jersey town. I'd say most people in my town were fairly Conservative, as I defined it at the time. Many people went to Church, many people were religious, and for the most part, I felt it was a fairly wealthy area. When I graduated High School, I went to a really liberal College - but I didn't really know what that meant at the time. I took up a Political Science minor and began taking classes. Most of my classes taught the same thing: Global warming is bad, big business ruins the world because they all dump their waste in foreign countries, that we as a first world country cause less developed nations to be dependent on us (dependency theory) or that we try to make them like us (modernization theory?).

My education never really touched on social issues like abortion rights, gay marriage, etc., so I'll leave the social issues out of the picture. But where it did leave me is with a liberal bias: who wouldn't want to help the poor countries? who wouldn't want to stop big US business from dumping trash in costa rica? who wouldn't want to pay more taxes so that we can all have a fair life? After all, it isn't people's fault that they don't have a job, it's the big business's fault for not providing them and being greedy with money... /brainwashed

In any event, I've been reading a lot on the health care bill lately, and I find it quite odd that almost every democrat is in support of it, and every conservative is against it. My democratic friends into politics will argue that the republicans aren't supporting it because "they want to keep the corrupt health care companies going so that they can put more money in their pockets". Surely that isn't the entire truth - is it? Is every republican in congress voting against this bill simply because they don't want to lose the massive amount of profits they are making?

Or something else I learned: big pharmaceutical companies don't want to make HIV drugs cheaper for poor people overseas because it will hurt their bottom line. True?

I personally hate all the spending we've been doing lately. It's ridiculous. But I once remember hearing something from a friend that "The republicans spend and spend and spend, and then the Democrats come in once a decade and clean up the deficit". If that's the case, then why does it seem like the deficit is getting larger and larger?

The point of this thread isn't to rant or flame. The point is to show you where my bias education has left me, and why I've begun to question things I've been told or taught. Can someone clarify?

I can't tell if your brain is wired to be a ri'tard or if you're just brainwashed. It sounds like you're very naive and sheepish considering you grew up in richie rich land.

From an optimist's view, in short, very cut and dry, Democrats think people are too stupid and need government to provide for them, Republicans think people are smart enough to take care of themselves.

From a cynical point of view, there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans (in government), they will all simply act to consolidate more power and they will pretend like they are catering to their respective groups in order to achieve it.

 

[Lemon law]

Descartes makes an excellent point with, "Republicans are not all bad people that want to see others suffer, despite what it may seem like on these forums. Democrats are not all tree-huggers, anti-capitalists that want to see everyone lifted to the same standard of living, despite what it may seem like on these forums."

But still our OP and his somewhat liberal biased education is 100% correct in assuming, if the current GOP behavior of universal opposition to everything continues, that the GOP is a heading for the scrapyard of obsolesce.

As the start of the political primary season and midterm elections are only 10 months away, congress must face voters who will ask why can't you deliver us the progress we need and voted for?

If the GOP answer is bring back the days of GWB, the ole GOP is heading for their third in a row biannual election dope slap. Here to the GOP who have managed to fail to learn anything since 2004. But have yet to go forth and spend all the political capital they earned then.

 

[Hacp]

I have a question. I grew up in a small, New Jersey town. I'd say most people in my town were fairly Conservative, as I defined it at the time. Many people went to Church, many people were religious, and for the most part, I felt it was a fairly wealthy area. When I graduated High School, I went to a really liberal College - but I didn't really know what that meant at the time. I took up a Political Science minor and began taking classes. Most of my classes taught the same thing: Global warming is bad, big business ruins the world because they all dump their waste in foreign countries, that we as a first world country cause less developed nations to be dependent on us (dependency theory) or that we try to make them like us (modernization theory?).

My education never really touched on social issues like abortion rights, gay marriage, etc., so I'll leave the social issues out of the picture. But where it did leave me is with a liberal bias: who wouldn't want to help the poor countries? who wouldn't want to stop big US business from dumping trash in costa rica? who wouldn't want to pay more taxes so that we can all have a fair life? After all, it isn't people's fault that they don't have a job, it's the big business's fault for not providing them and being greedy with money... /brainwashed

In any event, I've been reading a lot on the health care bill lately, and I find it quite odd that almost every democrat is in support of it, and every conservative is against it. My democratic friends into politics will argue that the republicans aren't supporting it because "they want to keep the corrupt health care companies going so that they can put more money in their pockets". Surely that isn't the entire truth - is it? Is every republican in congress voting against this bill simply because they don't want to lose the massive amount of profits they are making?

Or something else I learned: big pharmaceutical companies don't want to make HIV drugs cheaper for poor people overseas because it will hurt their bottom line. True?

I personally hate all the spending we've been doing lately. It's ridiculous. But I once remember hearing something from a friend that "The republicans spend and spend and spend, and then the Democrats come in once a decade and clean up the deficit". If that's the case, then why does it seem like the deficit is getting larger and larger?

The point of this thread isn't to rant or flame. The point is to show you where my bias education has left me, and why I've begun to question things I've been told or taught. Can someone clarify?

Welcome to the real world dude. Everyone, when they were younger, had a more idealized view of what should happen. Then you learn that every company is moving to china because people there are willing to work for 100 dollars a month. The United States simply doesn't have the money to help poor countries, get into two wars, and still remain competitive.

What is the solution? Lower the minimum wage, bust the Unions, cut government spending and lower taxes. You'll find that more companies will be willing to stay in the US and even reinvest in manufacturing plants here instead of in China if they have the right incentives. Ow ya, get rid of Nafta. You know its bad when Coors Light isn't made in the US but in Mexico.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Descartes makes an excellent point with, "Republicans are not all bad people that want to see others suffer, despite what it may seem like on these forums. Democrats are not all tree-huggers, anti-capitalists that want to see everyone lifted to the same standard of living, despite what it may seem like on these forums."

But still our OP and his somewhat liberal biased education is 100% correct in assuming, if the current GOP behavior of universal opposition to everything continues, that the GOP is a heading for the scrapyard of obsolesce.

As the start of the political primary season and midterm elections are only 10 months away, congress must face voters who will ask why can't you deliver us the progress we need and voted for?

If the GOP answer is bring back the days of GWB, the ole GOP is heading for their third in a row biannual election dope slap. Here to the GOP who have managed to fail to learn anything since 2004. But have yet to go forth and spend all the political capital they earned then.

If anyone gets dope slapped in 10 months...I'm pretty sure that it won't be the Republicans.

 

[Moonbeam]

Republicans destroyed the country. All the rest is just talk and propaganda.

 

[Acanthus]

Welcome to the real world dude. Everyone, when they were younger, had a more idealized view of what should happen. Then you learn that every company is moving to china because people there are willing to work for 100 dollars a month. The United States simply doesn't have the money to help poor countries, get into two wars, and still remain competitive.

What is the solution? Lower the minimum wage, bust the Unions, cut government spending and lower taxes. You'll find that more companies will be willing to stay in the US and even reinvest in manufacturing plants here instead of in China if they have the right incentives. Ow ya, get rid of Nafta. You know its bad when Coors Light isn't made in the US but in Mexico.

There is of course an alternative.

Cut off all trade with nations that have gross human rights violations. (Child labor, wages below $2/day, etc)

Tax all imports from nations with wages below the US minimum wage inversely with the disparity. Ex: China institutes a minimum wage of $1 an hour. US min wage is $8 an hour. This is 12.5% of the minimum wage of the U.S. Therefore, all imports from china should be taxed at 87.5% upon entering US ports.

It's not a complicated subject, people just don't want to stop exploiting others.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Republicans destroyed the country. All the rest is just talk and propaganda.

And Democrats are making it great once again... Got it.

 

[werepossum]

There is of course an alternative.

Cut off all trade with nations that have gross human rights violations. (Child labor, wages below $2/day, etc)

Tax all imports from nations with wages below the US minimum wage inversely with the disparity. Ex: China institutes a minimum wage of $1 an hour. US min wage is $8 an hour. This is 12.5% of the minimum wage of the U.S. Therefore, all imports from china should be taxed at 87.5% upon entering US ports.

It's not a complicated subject, people just don't want to stop exploiting others.

Hmm, I like that. A lot.

 

[WHAMPOM]

You're not going to get a clear answer because your friends are quite simply misinformed. The senate bill forces more customers to insurance companies, that means MORE profits for those evil insurance companies.

Sounds like they bought the lie hook line and sinker, it's all those evil insurance companies faults and profits are evil.

The reason rebuplicans are against it is because it's against one of the parties founding principles - free market.

In your world view doesn't free market = thieves market. No! Well blinders.

 

[spidey07]

Hmm, I like that. A lot.

Evil Nationalist!

 

[boomerang]

No sense talking or asking. We're getting this bill crammed down our throats regardless. 60% of the people don't want the bill and we're getting it anyway. Our system of representative government no longer exists.

You have a choice to accept what's happening or fight. Neither one carries any guarantees. We now have the same form of government our people have fought in numerous wars to free others from. But nobody will be coming to our rescue.

Edit: OP, you've heard the left berate the right here. The left owns the White House and has control of both houses of Congress so it's become a national pastime to strut, cluck and crow.

Here's a little something to chew on. The example again is the health care bill.

Polling shows that 60% of the people don't want the bill in its current form. Yet 60% of the Senate voted for it and 39% voted against it. Now remember the left told you the right is bad and evil. Based on the facts I just presented to you, what do you think? Which at this particular moment in time is in sync with the wishes and desires of the people?

 

[MotF Bane]

There is of course an alternative.

Cut off all trade with nations that have gross human rights violations. (Child labor, wages below $2/day, etc)

Tax all imports from nations with wages below the US minimum wage inversely with the disparity. Ex: China institutes a minimum wage of $1 an hour. US min wage is $8 an hour. This is 12.5% of the minimum wage of the U.S. Therefore, all imports from china should be taxed at 87.5% upon entering US ports.

It's not a complicated subject, people just don't want to stop exploiting others.

Sounds good. Don't some countries also tax our exports (as their imports)? We should tax their exports (our imports) equivalently. I don't know if any of these are really practical though.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Ow ya, get rid of Nafta. You know its bad when Coors Light isn't made in the US but in Mexico.

Any way we could have Mexico keep all the Coors Light??

 

[BoberFett]

You're not going to get a clear answer because your friends are quite simply misinformed. The senate bill forces more customers to insurance companies, that means MORE profits for those evil insurance companies.

Sounds like they bought the lie hook line and sinker, it's all those evil insurance companies faults and profits are evil.

The reason rebuplicans are against it is because it's against one of the parties founding principles - free market.

Dislike Democrats all you want, I won't argue there because Democrats are extremely unlikable.

But if you believe Republicans support the free market you've bought their lies hook, line and sinker too.