Definitions of Liberal and Conservative

crashfrog writes:"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?

Theodoric writes:I am not asking you to reply with the quote button. I am asking you to reply with the reply button, not the general reply button.But since you have decided to be different and not be courteous to other members of this board I will let it go.Now do you have anything to see that actually addresses the topic?Do you agree or disagree that a simple definition of liberal and conservative is not possible?

crashfrog writes: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?

Theodoric writes:Ok so we agree that it is a common courtesy issue, but you evidently don't feel you want to be courteous to other people on this board. Nice thing to know about you.Now again I ask, do you have anything to say that actually addresses the topic?Do you agree or disagree that a simple definition of liberal and conservative is not possible?I have let the other subject so please do the same.

Do you agree or disagree that a simple definition of liberal and conservative is not possible?

crashfrog writes:I don't believe I've done that in any post to you.

ringo writes:From a Canadian perspective (though I'm sure many Canadians would disagree with me):A liberal believes that healthcare should be universally available to eveybody regardless of their ability to pay.A conservative believes that healthcare should be universally available to everybody regardless of their ability to pay but those who do have the ability to pay should be allowed to go to the front of the line.A barking-mad, howl-at-the-moon ultra-conservative believes that healthcare should be in the private sector.

ringo writes: Simple answer: because the private sector fails to provide it universally. The government does what the private sector can't or won't do.

Rahvin writes:The private sector has failed, utterly.It's a matter of incentives, Tram:A private health care corporation has very little incentive to provide excellent health care, and a very large incentive to deny care regardless of need. Every time the company must pay out for a claim, that money is a direct subtraction from their profit. A private company has no free-market incentive to provide care for a cancer patient, for an HIV patient, for an MS patient, etc - these individuals can never ever pay in premiums what it will cost to treat them. Under a free-market health care system the incentive is to let these people die.Public health care disregards income or the amount of money required to treat an illness. Under public health care, cancer patients and HIV patients and MS patients are treated, according to their need. Rather than being answerable to stockholders, the system is answerable to the people it serves in the form of the voting public. The incentive, rather than to make profit, is to efficiently and effectively disperse the allotted funds to provide the maximum level of care to all citizens.The ethical differences between these two systems are blatantly obvious.Economically, we have examples of private health care costs in the US and public health care costs everywhere else to compare with. In every example, individuals in the US pay more while receiving less in terms of people covered and problems covered. There could be no more clear evidence that the private system is utterly inferior in every way, ethically, economically, and even in terms of achieving the basic goal of providing health care.There is no excuse or reason whatsoever to support private health care given the evidence available. NONE. At all.Afraid of the costs? Public care costs less for everyone in every case everywhere. In teh US it costs something like $800,000 for a heart transplant - in the UK, it's more like $50,000.Afraid of lowering the quality of service? You can;t get much lower quality than the people who have no coverage at all because of a "pre-existing condition." Even excluding them, the US has worse metrics in terms of longevity, infant mortality, and other relevant statistics than nations with public health care. The stories of long wait times are myths, urgent needs receive urgent care, you won;t wait months for an immediately necessary procedure, and waiting exists in the US too!THERE IS NO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PRIVATE HEALTH CARE THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SIMPLE FACTS OF REALITY.

ringo writes: My original point was that that's about where our Conservative Party stands. Anybody more conservative than that is pretty much unelectable. If doctors opt out of the system (like some game show where they grab all the cash they can), that diverts resources that could be used for the greater good.At the present time, Canadians can go to the U.S. to buy preferred treatment. Doctors can go to the U.S. too if they want to feed their greed.