Facebook Slider


Optional Member Code
Get News Alerts!
Monday, 19 December 2011 13:47

No Medicare for Tea Party Advocates "Against Socialized Medicine," No Care At All

  • font size decrease font size decrease font size increase font size increase font size
  • Print
  • Email


How would you vote on this constitutional amendment?

Amendment to the US Constitution: Any Tea Party Member Over 65 Who Denounces "Obama Socialism," But Threatens the Government "Not to Touch My Medicare" Should Immediately be Removed From Medicare and Placed Into "NewtCare."

Preposterous, ludicrous, unlawful?

Yes, such an amendment to the Constitution would be all of the above.

But polling of the GOP right wing this year has shown about 70 percent or more of likely Republican voters support alternative realities that are no less absurd.

The strict constructionist wing of the Republican party has shown its fidelity to the nation's founding legal document by proposing more amendments to change the Constitution than you can shake a stick at.

Now, Newt Gingrich is running on a platform that includes a promise to defy Supreme Court decisions that he disagrees with should he become president. The Los Angeles Times reports:

Newt Gingrich says as president he would ignore Supreme Court decisions that conflicted with his powers as commander in chief, and he would press for impeaching judges or even abolishing certain courts if he disagreed with their rulings.

"I'm fed up with elitist judges" who seek to impose their "radically un-American" views, Gingrich said Saturday in a conference call with reporters.

Of course, true to the nature of this year's GOP cavalcade of narcissistic hypocrisy, Gingrich sidestepped a question about healthcare reform that hinted at the reality of his campaign of public policy molotov cocktails mixed with high-octane ego and ubiquitous double standards. According to the LA Times:

But the former House speaker demurred when asked whether President Obama could ignore a high court ruling next year if it declared unconstitutional the new healthcare law and its mandate that all Americans have health insurance by 2014.

Perhaps the best alternative is to let all the seniors on Medicare who are "anti-socialist-medicine" use "RonPaulCare" instead. It was at a September Republican debate that CNN's Wolf Blitzer pinned Paul down on what should happen to a young man without health insurance in dire medical need:

"But he doesn't have that [insurance]," Blitzer said. "He doesn't have it and he's - and he needs - he needs intensive care for six months. Who pays?"

"That's what freedom is all about: taking your own risks," Paul said, repeating the standard libertarian view as some in the audience cheered.

"But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?" Blitzer asked.

"Yeah," came the shout from the audience.

Yes, "PaulCare" it is for Republican seniors who want to get rid of "socialized medicine." No Medicare for that group. Give them the medicine that they advocate: no care.

That might return this alternate-universe voting bloc to some semblance of reality.