Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,877 Year: 4,134/9,624 Month: 1,005/974 Week: 332/286 Day: 53/40 Hour: 4/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Definitions of Liberal and Conservative
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1495 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 7 of 46 (613945)
04-29-2011 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Tram law
04-29-2011 12:22 PM


Neither party cares about rights and individuality.
Neither party cares about the little guys any more.
No, I am not being facetious or sarcastic in any way. These are my own personal beliefs.
"Pox on both their houses" political cynicism is cute in 20-year-olds, but it's not supportable by anyone who actually pays attention to politics. There are actually legitimate differences between the parties - differences that, yes, do actually matter to "the little guys." Of course, most of what affects "the little guy" is a function of precisely the local politics you probably have never paid any attention to. Quick, without looking it up - who's the municipal comptroller for Weed, CA?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Tram law, posted 04-29-2011 12:22 PM Tram law has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Tram law, posted 04-29-2011 1:34 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1495 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 11 of 46 (613950)
04-29-2011 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Tram law
04-29-2011 1:34 PM


I've never paid much to my town's politics.
Kind of my point. Like most people you've committed a fundamental attribution error about the effect of politics on your own life. Like all those people who complain about "Barack Obama's bank bailout."
I guarantee you, though, that issues of zoning, finance, and other local political issues matter far more to the state of your community than the actions of anybody in Washington. Especially in CA. But, like most people, you've ceded control of those political entities to highly-motivated business concerns and retired elderly. Do you think they have your interests at heart?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Tram law, posted 04-29-2011 1:34 PM Tram law has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Tram law, posted 04-29-2011 1:45 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1495 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 14 of 46 (613954)
04-29-2011 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Tram law
04-29-2011 1:45 PM


And I would appreciate it if you would please stop calling me kid.
I don't believe I've done that in any post to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Tram law, posted 04-29-2011 1:45 PM Tram law has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Tram law, posted 04-29-2011 1:54 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1495 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 37 of 46 (613989)
04-29-2011 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Tram law
04-29-2011 9:13 PM


Well, here's the thing though, how can such a health care system be run, without resorting to something that might resemble a Socialist style program, without enough profit to run efficiently run healthcare?
We've covered this in another thread, but the short answer is that the system can be run as a monopsony, where private doctors provide care and are paid by a single government-run insurer funded by contributions from everybody.
How can you keep costs down without stepping on people's rights as well?
Monopsony bargaining power, and the refusal to pay for procedures that aren't necessary or effective.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Tram law, posted 04-29-2011 9:13 PM Tram law has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1495 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 40 of 46 (613994)
04-30-2011 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Phat
04-29-2011 11:51 PM


Re: Finally A Decent Reply
I am not opposed to having the option available for a man to go to a private physician, should he so be able to afford. (Why is that even an issue?)
There are some provinces in Canada where out-of-pocket payment for health care isn't allowed; I think that's wrong, but the pushback you're getting might be Canadians trying to justify their more restrictive system.
Even with a single-payer system I think there's a place for supplemental insurance or even out-of-pocket payment. If there's a problem with rich people cutting the line, then you don't have enough doctors and its time to re-evaluate your immigration laws.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Phat, posted 04-29-2011 11:51 PM Phat has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024