The state of the union

Any criticism of the way things are must necessarily be predicated upon a set of expectations, derived arbitrarily or otherwise, that make allowances for the existence of better alternatives. Thus it follows that the alternative which is to be pursued by the leadership of an organization should be one that has measurable and lasting benefits for their respective constituents. Why then do the republicans continue to propose alternatives which have demonstrably negative consequences? This question would be entirely unproductive if the one who poses the question is not willing to concede the existence of an objective reality of some sort. I do concede the existence of objective reality and will critique the proposed republican alternatives to some prominent democratic initiatives according to the standard necessitated by the existence of an objective reality.

1. Health care
The republicans are almost categorically opposed to the type of health care reform which would allow for the government to interdict health insurance entities from denying people coverage based on preexisting conditions. Their reasons for this opposition, simply put, are to allow for the insurance industry to generate the maximum amount of profit possible. This position seems righteous enough doesn't it? I mean who is the government ( an entity formed by the people to act on behalf of people for the purpose of pursuing the peoples best interest) to interfere with a corporations ability to make a profit? This position is laughable when pitted against an objective hierarchy of values that categorically deems sustaining human life as a higher priority than generating profits. That is why the democrats proposed a bill that would unburden the insurance companies from the unwanted task of canceling the coverage of cancer patients because their treatment is too costly. Let the government handle it. There will never be a clause in a corporate charter which directs the corporation to execute a principle purpose of promoting the general welfare of the people. That sounds more like the constitution to me. A document that was authored by individuals who intended for government to be a benevolent and empathetic entity. What set of values could possibly prioritize the welfare of an artificial entity over real human beings? This is my chief concern when I think about the state of the union: a large segment of our population embraces a core value system which prioritizes the general idea of profits over the general idea of helping people live long healthy lives. The type of value system that calls for the unnecessary eradication of human lives for the sake of maintaining hegemony. The type of value system that places the Q4 earnings of oil companies over maintaining a sustainable environment. The systemic shortsightedness of the republican party, their passionate embrace of illogicality, and their complete inability to care for the welfare of those who are not "able" to create a decent standard of living for themselves concerns me to no end.