| Are American Republicans basically just selfish ~ being against the idea of free health care for all? Yes or no. |
|
|
|
Asked 120 days ago
by Chipmonk  United States |
|
About
I'm short, cute, have four legs; my isn't Alvin and when I sing I don't sound like a tape recording played back at a faster speed (although *that* would be an improvement). :)
|
8 Points
|
It's not free if you have to pay for it in taxes. >_>
What if taxes would not be raised any higher than they already are? What if they eliminated fraud and overcharging from the present system? If people really made the government work for their money this could be possible.
It is my opinion Republicans are not basically selfish and that is why I opined "no" here. I am just interested in seeing what a majority will vote. :-)
This comment was deleted.
[-7 points] 120 days ago by deleted user ReplySo you mean you are telling me that you don't believe Obama is, "The One" to bring about the Change (in our lifetimes, in the near future)?
Don't talk to him, it only encourages him.
This comment was deleted.
[-7 points] 119 days ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[-5 points] 119 days ago by deleted user ReplyWhere do you get the idea that this will be free??? The money has to come from somewhere. Either taxes are raised to maintain the current level of health care, or the level of health care is reduced in order to provide it for free. There is no magic money supply to pay for "Free Health Care for All".
When has the government ever eliminated fraud and overcharging out of any of its programs. When they create any new program (bureaucracy) an automatic increase in funding is written in the bill. They never take out any money, they only increase the spending.
Are Republicans selfish? I think in general all people are a bit selfish. That being said I wonder what philosophy is really more selfish in nature?
The Republican philosophy is more self responsibility and self dependency and less reliance on the government.
The Democrat philosophy is more reliance on the government and less personal responsibility and less self dependency.
A case can probably be made either way depending on your point of view.
Not correct. The Republican philosophy is that costs come out of the commons, profits go to individuals.
That may be YOUR take on the Republican philosophy, but then again your opinion is WAY biased.
This comment was deleted.
[-6 points] 119 days ago by deleted user ReplyLOL, C'mon....dont you think that deep deep down, below that misguided angry communist shell she is probably a pretty good person??
Not communist, anarchist. Get it straight.
I don't know....communist sounds cuter and cuddlier. Anarchist sounds scary and mean, not sexy at all.
O comon...just think of Tank Girl!
Yet another of the political misperceptions fostered by the American myth as taught in high school. Most brands of anarchist are committedly non-violent.
And I could care less if you think I'm cuddly.
What about cute?
This comment was deleted.
[-6 points] 119 days ago by deleted user ReplyBut profits don't all go to individuals. Part go to pension funds and other common undertakings. And a lot go to taxes.
But profit going to people who have created, invested in and run something useful, a hospital say, is entirely a good thing. It is called capitalism. The greatest system promoting the common good that has ever been devised.
Sweetie, you need to read a newspaper, Looting pension funds has been the capitalist sport of choice throughout the 80s and 90s.
Very little of it goes to taxes. That share has been steadily dropping, as a percentage of taxes collected, for decades. Hell, one year GM paid less in taxes than an individual LINE WORKER, for christsake.
And also the greatest system for destroying it. REad Dickens sometime, if you won't open your eyes to what is happening today.
Dauguy, I'm an anarchist too. Read what he said. Democrats want more economic restrictions, Republicans want social rights restrictions. If you are an anarchist, you should see that without government there wouldn't be universal healthcare, unless you were a communist, which would be perfectly fine.
Depends on the flavor of anarchism. I lean more towards libertarian anarchism and/or anarcho- syndicalism.
BTW, nice to meet you. Good to see someone who hasn't fallen into rigid party line thinking.
Welcome!
I don't think all US republicans are selfish - just mistaken. It should not be beyond the inventive Americans to devise a system that suits them.
Health care demands increasing resources everywhere. Pretty well every other country has concluded that somewhere near adequate health care for all cannot be provided without state participation. There are lots of different ways of doing this.
Even an ultra conservative like me thinks it right that everyone in Sweden gets health care - and that if one wants something extra one can always see a doctor at one's own expense.
*KISSES* to my favorite conservative!
OF course they are selfish.
Definition:
"concerned chiefly or only with yourself and your advantage to the exclusion of others"
I hate they way you worded this question - "free health care for all". Hell, even I'M against that.
It shouldn't be free, it should be paid for with tax dollars instead of insurance premiums.
This comment was deleted.
[-6 points] 119 days ago by deleted user ReplyCongress put off dealing with this issue and now, even before the recession, the cost has become prohibitve. It just costs too damm much and that's what we seem to be in denial about. We don't have the revenue to support universal health care. And using labels like "Republican" to make any meaningful statements about this issue, or any other, is a waste of time.
This comment was deleted.
[-6 points] 119 days ago by deleted user ReplyHow come every other developed country, from South Korea to Germany, has found it possible to afford universal health care? I've seen figures suggesting that the US Gov spends more per capita NOW on health than many other countries. But it seems to spend those dollars in a very ineffective way.
So why do you think by increasing the inefficient system things will get cheaper? My fear is that thing will get 10 times worse which is why I am against the idea anyway. Our government already has its finger in the health care industry with Medicare and Medicaid. Both of those are failures at best. Fix them FIRST! Turn Medicare and Medicaid into something that I WANT and then we will be in position to pass universal health care. Until then I really don't want to be forces to subsidize another huge government boondoggle.
You obviously know more about the US debate than I do. But I thought the idea was a new system not simply expanding the one now in operation?
Yea, Im sure the idea is to establish a new system, but my point is that at one point Medicare and Medicaid were new systems, now they are broken and cant (apparently) be fixed. So when this all inclusive Universal Health Care system goes bad how do you expect the US government to fix that when they cant fix partial systems like Medicare and Medicaid? I personally am not ready to pony up enough tax money to cover up all that additional waste, corruption and bureaucracy.