responding to J9K's post.
(tried a private message, but couldn't fit this into the PM size limit and didn't want to break it into multiple PMs. Sorry to all the forumers who've had to plod through my similar rants before...)
J9K, you read my mind with the word vitriol. It was the exact word that came to my mind as I re-read my post.
I've said before that I'm neither Republican or Democrat. I'm conservative and believe that the federal government should operate strictly within the powers delimited by the exact letter of the Constitution. If that is not adequate to meet emerging needs of the nation, then the Constitution should be amended through appropriate ratification by the States. We should not be making end-runs around the Constitution through Supreme Court judicial activism - either liberal or conservative.
I firmly believe that much of the perceived philosophical difference between the two major U.S. political parties (The Republicrats) is nothing but a dog & pony show put on by both sides to trick people into polarizing to one of the two parties, when the reality is that, over and above those philosophical differences, both parties are above all else committed to preserving the status quo of an illegally manipulated two-party system that acts in collusion to prevent any other party from acquiring political power.
That said, I do think there's a very real and very important difference between mainstream conservative (as opposed to radical conservative) and radical liberal political philosophy. This is not a strictly Republican vs. Democrat issue, as there are certainly some liberal Republicans and some conservative Democrats. But in general, I'm sure you'd agree that more conservatives polarize to the Republican party and vice-versa.
I would not ever attempt to try to persuade anyone who holds diametrically opposite views. Like the saying goes, "I may not agree with your opinions, but I'll fight to the death to preserve your right to voice it," as long as your opinion doesn't involve "performance art" consisting of immersing anything in human excrement.
As you pointed out in your post about the Paid Prescription bill being voted down by Democrats because of the difference of opinion in having SocSec paid prescriptions administered by the private sector versus creating yet another federal bureaucracy; yes, as a Conservative, I favor smaller Federal government, and therefore favored passage of the bill in its current form.
Your claim that we'll still foot the bill as taxpayers is true, to an extent. But by privatizing the administration of this process we place responsibility for the spending of those tax dollars in the hands of corporations who are (especially now, with new regulations on corporate fiscal responsibility) held to a MUCH higher standard of accountability for how they run their business than the Federal government. It's the old and very correct saying that, "if anyone ran their private business the way the federal bureaucracy runs the government, they'd be out of business and probably in prison in very short order."
It's the textbook difference between government conservatism & liberalism. I favor a smaller federal government. I trust my government at the state and local level more, because at those levels, the elected officials are more likely to understand and share more of my own needs.
I think that people who favor a larger government at the federal level are either elitist, in that they don't trust state or local government or especially the average American with the freedom to determine how they ought to be allowed to conduct their lives, or they're so intellectually underdeveloped that they think they need a big brother / big mother federal government because they truly can't be make those responsible decisions for themselves.
People who favor a large, powerful central government are denying the precedents of history and the common sense idea that "A Government that can Give you everything and Do everything For you, is also powerful enough to Take everything away from - and Do anything To you."