Which would you vote for? 63 replies

Please wait...

Koehler

BF2142 rank in Avatar

50 XP

7th August 2006

0 Uploads

593 Posts

0 Threads

#51 12 years ago

i actually dont like any of the candidates, who is up for a revolution?




masked_marsoe VIP Member

Heaven's gonna burn your eyes

50 XP

16th April 2005

0 Uploads

8,063 Posts

0 Threads

#52 12 years ago
Afterburner;3554878Is there a Presidential candidate that supports the total removal of healthcare, public education, social security, and all other programs besides a defensive military, police departments, and fire departments? I'd vote for him.

The Libertarians will have one, as they have had since 1972.




Chemix2

Paladin: The Holy Knight

50 XP

16th March 2005

0 Uploads

3,789 Posts

0 Threads

#53 12 years ago

The military budget has cut enough decent programs like the Comanche, the XM8 and several jet designs, and relatively few are as "crazy" as robot soldiers, which by the way South Korea now has, albeit the roll around on treads and don't look like the Terminaaatoor, but they are military patrol robots that can actively track people across the terrain and if authorized, fire upon them with rubber bullets, something else, and live ammunition. Most of our military indeed goes towards overseas operations and garrisons, all of which allow our nation easy and immediate access to areas in time of war, we aren't withdrawing them any time soon short of a total pacificist becoming president and the entire congress being filled with pacificists as well.

National Medicare would result in two things other than increasing overall health, many companies would drop their medical insurance programs, leaving people with a totaly different way of dealing with medical payments, a person with no copay could become a person paying half, something which they can't afford. Also, we've see the problems it can create in Canada in it to reduce costs, only certain physisicians are available, these being the doctors that tell you you're okay and can go home for anything short of a missing limb. Chiropractice would be out of the question and forget about psychological help. Both Dems and Repbs would try and minimize this cost, the difference is, one would shout tax cut (while there really wasn't, atleast to the people who cared) and the others would claim it was an excuse to hike taxes.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#54 12 years ago
masked_marsoe;3555066The Libertarians will have one, as they have had since 1972.

I actually probaly will be voting Libertarian in '08 unless I find an even more economically conservative party...




Relander

Ambassador

50 XP

8th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,538 Posts

0 Threads

#55 12 years ago
Chemix2Most of our military indeed goes towards overseas operations and garrisons, all of which allow our nation easy and immediate access to areas in time of war

Though it can be questioned if garrisons in central & western Europe, South America or some central Asian countries (like Tadžikistan) have real value compared to expenses, especially due to development of carrier groups & modern, very long distance aircrafts.

National Medicare would result in two things other than increasing overall health, many companies would drop their medical insurance programs, leaving people with a totaly different way of dealing with medical payments, a person with no copay could become a person paying half, something which they can't afford.

Universal health care would be paid by tax money & budget cuts in other sectors, offering basic services where as most special operations could still be handled by private hospitals. Besides, good medical insurances are quite expensive and conditions very strict. Necessary analysis about more serious illness/hardship of a patient would be carried out by the public hospital and the results with recommendations would be sent for the private sector what actions needs to be carried out and Oliver Ordinary would know these too so he couldn't be swindled.

Currently Oliver Ordinary goes to a private clinic where a company doctor makes analysis and makes all kind of analysis & operations, "just in case" to maximize profits: healthy people don't bring dough into money vault. The huge bill is sent to insurance company who pays Oliver's health expenses and due to loss of money, insurance payments are raised & conditions made even higher.

This has a lot to do on the fact that the health care expenses in the USA are 2nd highest in the world despite of mostly private health care system. Nevertheless, I can't see how public health care system coupled with private sector could be much worse than how the things are now: private sector doesn't automaticly mean more efficiency and cheaper prices. This is not a question of choosing between two absolutes, but making a workable combination.




masked_marsoe VIP Member

Heaven's gonna burn your eyes

50 XP

16th April 2005

0 Uploads

8,063 Posts

0 Threads

#56 12 years ago
Afterburner;3555236I actually probaly will be voting Libertarian in '08 unless I find an even more economically conservative party...

I think you can't get any more liberal than the Libertarians. Not as an organised party.




Chemix2

Paladin: The Holy Knight

50 XP

16th March 2005

0 Uploads

3,789 Posts

0 Threads

#57 12 years ago

Relander;3556019Though it can be questioned if garrisons in central & western Europe, South America or some central Asian countries (like Tadžikistan) have real value compared to expenses, especially due to development of carrier groups & modern, very long distance aircrafts.

Universal health care would be paid by tax money & budget cuts in other sectors, offering basic services where as most special operations could still be handled by private hospitals. Besides, good medical insurances are quite expensive and conditions very strict. Necessary analysis about more serious illness/hardship of a patient would be carried out by the public hospital and the results with recommendations would be sent for the private sector what actions needs to be carried out and Oliver Ordinary would know these too so he couldn't be swindled.

Currently Oliver Ordinary goes to a private clinic where a company doctor makes analysis and makes all kind of analysis & operations, "just in case" to maximize profits: healthy people don't bring dough into money vault. The huge bill is sent to insurance company who pays Oliver's health expenses and due to loss of money, insurance payments are raised & conditions made even higher.

This has a lot to do on the fact that the health care expenses in the USA are 2nd highest in the world despite of mostly private health care system. Nevertheless, I can't see how public health care system coupled with private sector could be much worse than how the things are now: private sector doesn't automaticly mean more efficiency and cheaper prices. This is not a question of choosing between two absolutes, but making a workable combination.

Health insurance paid for by employers is often better than your run of the mill discount insurance. For example there are companies in the US such as, Wegmans (imagine half grocier store, half gourme food shop and resteraunt, and all the size of a walmart, and just as cheap) that offer great healthcare benefits while other things might not be so great. Now if there was universal healthcare like you suggest, the employers would drop the insurance plans with the employees and people getting "specialty work" would go untreated. People don't have a pile of money at home with a goal to just not spend it, people try to live off what they have, which can be as much as a few hundred dollars and as the price of medicine jumps, "specialty cases" keep getting less and less able to pay their bills. Also the line can be drawn very squigily as to what is considered non-private. And doctors in this system could even easily be bought out by pharmasutical companies and private specialists to tell people to go to them for help or buy their drugs. In the end, most of the cases that would end up in "specialties' would be the ones that one would actualy use healthcare for, you don't pay out nearly half your paycheck to pay for just check ups do you?




WarHawk109

From the Austrian School

50 XP

21st July 2003

0 Uploads

2,926 Posts

0 Threads

#58 12 years ago

Another thing about "universal" health care; the wait.

In Canada people can die waiting for treatment. They can go blind, they can get hooked on meds, and if their injury affects their work, they can lose their job, not have any money, and have to put a mortgage on their home. It happens all the time here. It's not a problem that can simply be fixed with more money, the entire system is inefficient, because it's centralized by the government.

Health care costs in the US could be drastically reduced if they reformed tort law. So much money goes into court fees it's not even funny.




Relander

Ambassador

50 XP

8th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,538 Posts

0 Threads

#59 12 years ago
Chemix2Health insurance paid for by employers is often better than your run of the mill discount insurance. For example there are companies in the US such as, Wegmans (imagine half grocier store, half gourme food shop and resteraunt, and all the size of a walmart, and just as cheap) that offer great healthcare benefits while other things might not be so great.

However most people don't get excellent health care insurance by an employer but have to pay it for themselves and not everybody has a job, and a lot of people act as an enterpreuner.

Now if there was universal healthcare like you suggest, the employers would drop the insurance plans with the employees and people getting "specialty work" would go untreated.

There would be not much need for those insurance plans anymore and what do you mean by "speciality work"?

Also the line can be drawn very squigily as to what is considered non-private.

I can't see how this is the case, there's just two distinct choices: whether you go to private health clinic or public one.

And doctors in this system could even easily be bought out by pharmasutical companies and private specialists to tell people to go to them for help or buy their drugs.

It would be against the law, somewhat expensive for enterprises to bribe and I believe that most US doctors are decent law-abiding citizens.

you don't pay out nearly half your paycheck to pay for just check ups do you?

True, but still quite a lot and it doesn't justify the case that private doctor makes many analysis and orders drugs & operations just to maximize profits. Even a system where just very basic health care & analysis would be handled by the public sector would be better than the current one which is not just very expensive but also puts a lot of people in disadvantaged position.




Chemix2

Paladin: The Holy Knight

50 XP

16th March 2005

0 Uploads

3,789 Posts

0 Threads

#60 12 years ago

Most doctors regaurdless of nation do what gets them money, and it's nothing that can be sued for, because loopholes would be found out by armies of lawyers hired to do so. There are good doctors, but few and far between, and I have seen my fair shair of cheats and charlatins. The first question asked to any person, nomatter their condition is not anything to their benefit, it's what sort of insurance they have, or how much money do they make if they have no insurance. The emergency room is reserved for those who can pay enough to be an emergency.

As towards the squigly line, you go to a public one, and to cut costs, most things beyond vacinations or check ups are handled by private doctors, who then are able to charge even more, and there is no insurance to help you then. I know a great deal about corruption having lived very close to it my whole life, and I know how much the moral integrity of people stands up to the mighty dollar, and moral integrity is priceless, literaly, it makes no money and aside from your concious and mixed popularity, having no moral integrity doesn't have a down side.

Most of America is employed, beleive it or not, during the Great Depression, only 25% were unemployed, and yet the nation was in poverty, we see much brighter times today.

As towards how many people can get such good insurance from their companies, indeed, not that many can, but what of those that can, and use it for their problems, their pay alone would do nothing towards paying medical work and as towards speciality work, it just means work done by a private doctor because it's too "special" a case for a public one. Like if you were in the middle of a multi-year process of dental work, if your insurance was suddenly dropped, you'd be dropped by your dentist and what work done would be useless if not detrimental to your long term health.

The current system sucks, but until the government is at a state where it will actualy try and help people where they need it, I have no faith in it's ability to support where private companies already do.