What Makes People Vote Democrat?

Post Reply New Topic

That is not hypocrisy, that is tactics.

ruveyn

Oh, how I wish people from different countries would speak up more often about this. We could use all the help we can get around these parts!

Nothing is free, you are paying for it in taxes...

I have absolutely no problem with that, and neither do most citizens of other, more civilized countries, as far as I've noticed.

Yeah and your systems are going broke, doctors are not allowed to use certain treatments and healthcare is rationed. It is a good system as long as you stay extremely healthy, but we have a much better cancer survival rate than you do.

But commercial, for profit health care, is rationed. At least with a government system, the people can vote on it rather than having it dictated to them by corporations over whom they have no voting control.

It seems to me that health insurance should never be for profit. A for profit system makes providing health care against the company's profit interests.

That explains the situation where government told a woman they wouldn't provide her cancer meds, but they would pay for her to commit suicide. It was a drug company that came to her aid concerning the cancer meds.



Actually it is, but this works best when a business is handling insurance for the employees so the risk pool is increased.

So you agree that mandatory purchasing of health care is a good thing since it would greatly increase the risk pool? If the government demands that every citizen obtain some kind of health insurance, purchased from a not-for-profit organization, and handled through a single payer system, there would be the economy of scale and lower costs for all since more people would be paying in.

While it does in theory, the problem is it violates the United States Constitution and expands the powers of the government to the tyrannical levels.

The Republicans suggested letting health insurance companies compete with each other across state lines, and allowing small businesses to get together and jointly purchase health insurance with the same purchasing power as a large business. That is well within the bounds of the commerce clause on interstate commerce.

Furthermore, single payer doesn't work in the fact that you can't effectively sue the Federal Government over the decisions of unelected officials. An insurance company however, does not want to be sued or ending up on the evening news. If word gets out of them crossing the line on average citizens whom were just diagnosed with something, then their competitors would have a field day (you know there are over 1,000 health insurance companies in the U.S. but only 3 are allowed to compete in California), furthermore the small businesses may jointly leave that insurance company, which would cause them all kinds of problems financially. If the market in California suddenly opened up for 997+ insurance companies, I think the 3 currently there would either try to improve their service and change their behaviors or they will end up getting run out of business.

And I am happy to. I once watched an interstate transfer, involving air transport and closing down two main streets and followed by a major heart operation. You know what his bill was? Zero, no clipboard, no insurance check, nothing. I am happy to pay a part of his operation because I know he will pay his part in mine.



This is a massive generalization. I will address in parts.



No, Australia is presently doing pretty well. I am not sure who you mean by 'your', I can only address my own state's system, if you want to compare my country with other socialized health systems then I will compare your country to states with limited or no state funded health care (who's statistics would be worse, I wonder?).

I would be careful of calling someone else's country 'broke'. The Australian economy which supports our health care system is in fine shape. Our economic growth rates are roughly comparable, but the key performance indicators in Australia are much better.

Unemployment, Australia 5.4%, United States 9.8%

Federal Debt (Total): Australia $139bn, United States, $13.89 trillion



Not really, all treatments are available for critical patients under the public system. As to non-critical care, if you want to be treated by the public system there is a waiting list and it depends on the treatment, this does not preclude most people from paying for noncritical care through a private heath fund (that is heavily subsidized). As to emergency rooms, any citizen or approved noncitizen (anyone who is issued a medicare card, permanent noncitizen residents etc) can go to ANY public hospital and receive treatment at ZERO cost (paid through taxation). There are also GP super clinics that provide Zero cost consultations with doctors, without any appointment (the Doctor is actually paid more, if he spends more time with you). Our system is not perfect, it has its issues, but I know where I would rather get sick.



Well no. It depends on the study you use to prove your position. Australia and the United States have often traded places at the tops of the lists in relation to overall cancer survival. Australia, Japan and Canada invariably top the survival rates lists. As to your contention that it is MUCH better; this is just patently false.

I am a big admirer of the United States, for many reasons, but I would rather get sick in Australia.

You're either confusing Ron with his son Rand or misrepresenting his position position. He actually thinks ALL spending should be earmarked. Earmarking does not mean wasteful spending, it just means the specific allocation of funds by congress for specific projects. The money is already appropriated so if the money is not specifically earmarked than the administration(the executive branch) is free to spend however they want with essentially 0 accountability or transparency. Dr.Paul believes that spending should be done by the congress and not some unelected bureaucrat.

Any so called fiscal conservative that rails on earmarks as the reason for our out of control debt is being disingenuous at best. Rand Paul, his son and senator-elect, has taken a more political stance on the issue having to get elected. What most people don't seem to understand is that getting rid of earmarks does not reduce the deficit one cent and even if it did, earmarks only make up about 1% of the budget. It's irrelevant in the grand scheme of things compared to the real elephant in the room being the warfare-welfare state. It's a lot easier to say politically that you want to cut this unnamed so called wasteful spending than it is to say you want to make specific cuts to the military, social security, whatever.

The problem with earmarks isn't so much wasteful spending but that they have been used to essentially bribe members of congress to vote yes on difficult votes. Ron Paul votes no on all appropriation bills so that's obviously not an issue with him. He relays the requests of his constituents because he believes they should get back as much of their tax money as possible.

we pay for foreign military misadventures with our tax dollars, why is this to be preferred to paying to help our OWN citizens at home, in a similar manner to EVERY other western nation? why all guns for the military-industrial complex and no butter for mr. american average joe? your priorities are very sad.

the cancer survival rate of the american uninsured [hence untreated] is inferior to every other nation which cares enough for its own citizens to afford them universal health care. BTW, there IS rationing in america, based on the most unfair criterion of socioeconomic class- working poor=no health care versus bankrupcy. only the homeless/indigent get any kind of a break. american social darwinism is an embarrassment. btw, it's funny you should describe the canadian system as "a good system as long as one doesn't get sick"- when that is the precise description of the present american system for the working poor.

I'm from Canada and I hate this system. I pay so many taxes, and for what?

I'd rather pay for what I actually need, when I need it.

i would trade places with you, anytime at all.

That's probably because you describe your occupation as "lazy bum".

That's the problem, it makes people lazy and do next to nothing while the government (which gets money from me) takes care of them. It's disgusting.