Rick Santorum just stated, quite calmly and without any appearance of it being a "heated moment" or a "gaffe" exactly what the thought process of the modern Republican Party is:
Transcript below the fold.
"And so to those...too bad! We need for government to tell you how to spend that money. For government to tell you how you should allocate your resources. We don't believe in you. They're trying to get rid of health savings accounts. Why? They don't trust you, that you can provide for yourself. No, we have to have something for EVERYBODY. We can't have people having better health care than other...have access to better health insurance than other people; no! No, it all has to be the same! Is that America? The quality of resolve [ed - or "result?" garbled...]? Is that what built the greatest country in the history of the world? No. That's what's destroying most of the countries of the world."
Um...Rick, here's the thing.
We're not talking about being able to afford a better house or a nicer car because you make more money.
We're not talking about being able to afford a 4 star hotel or a beach home in the summer because you worked hard enough to get that promotion.
We're not talking about being able to afford a diamond necklace or a mink coat because you won the lottery.
We're talking about MEDICAL CARE. About being treated for CANCER, DIABETES or HUNTINGTON'S DISEASE.
And Rick Santorum thinks that people who make less money deserve lower-quality medical care (or none at all) than the wealthiest among us.
That pretty much sums up the GOP mindset in a nutshell.
UPDATE: I just wanted to make two quick updates, given the top-of-the-list status this diary has hit.
First, at least one person in the comments has repeatedly claimed that my headline is misleading--that Santorum is only supporting people of means' right to pay for extra health care, not saying that poor people shouldn't receive decent health care.
Of course, that's false as well, since the ACA doesn't prevent anyone from paying for extra if they want to; it simply sets a minimum floor of care...but that's only half of what he said.
He was specifically, and emphatically, mocking this concept:
"No, we have to have something for EVERYBODY."
Since he's vehemently opposed to everyone having something, that means, by definition, that he supports some people having nothing.
Nothing = no health care at all.
Strictly speaking, I was being generous in my headline. He was actually mocking the idea of everyone having ANY health care.
Second...and this is easy to miss in the video, but read the transcript...he tried to change the wording after realizing how terrible it started to sound:
"We can't have people having better health care than other...have access to better health insurance than other people!"
Did you notice that subtle change in wording half-way through the sentence?
He realized that mocking people having health care sounded really horrible, then changed it to mocking people having health insurance, which doesn't sound nearly as bad.