• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What Makes People Vote Republican?

Joe_Stocks

Back from the Dead
Hi GC,

But it does make some sense, if Republicans tend to be more "traditional" and Democrats more "socially-progressive."

I guess it just depends on how you look at it. But I don't call it 'socially-progressive' to believe that Americans are too stupid to get healthcare without the government monitoring every nook and cranny of the transaction. I call that regressive.
 

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
Hi GC,
I guess it just depends on how you look at it. But I don't call it 'socially-progressive' to believe that Americans are too stupid to get healthcare without the government monitoring every nook and cranny of the transaction. I call that regressive.

That's fine. Most disagreements in life stem from different definitions. :)

For instance, I don't see any progression in believing that an unregulated for-profit healthcare system is going to help American citizens get better healthcare. Rather, it seems based on turn-of-the-century laissez-faire capitalism.
 

T-Dawg

Self-appointed Lunatic
Hi GC,



I guess it just depends on how you look at it. But I don't call it 'socially-progressive' to believe that Americans are too stupid to get healthcare without the government monitoring every nook and cranny of the transaction. I call that regressive.

Was there some update to liberalism that I didn't hear about? I've never heard anyone say that the government should monitor every nook and cranny of the transaction... although most people (at least here) agree that they should be the ones making the transaction in the first place, if that's what you mean.
 

Darkness

Psychoanalyst/Marxist
Joe Stocks said:
Like I said before, I believe a person votes for the Democratic Party because he agrees with them more than the alternative. See, pretty simple. No mind reading necessary and no absurd caricatures.

And people say Conservatives over simplify issues. ;)

I vote Democrat over Republican because I believe their policies are more in line with my beliefs. That is just stating the obvious. What the article presented in the OP is doing is developing a theory as to why certain people vote the way they do.

Conservatives do value "in-group" association (i.e. Boarders, Language, Culture).
Conservatives do value "authority" (i.e. conservatives typically side with the police when a dispute arises).
Conservatives do value "purity" (i.e. marriage is a sacred institution).

However, I would argue that the Conservative-Liberal paradigm in the United States can be divided into Fundamentalism-Humanism (typically).
 
Last edited:

Joe_Stocks

Back from the Dead
Hi GC,

For instance, I don't see any progression in believing that an unregulated for-profit healthcare system is going to help American citizens get better healthcare. Rather, it seems based on turn-of-the-century laissez-faire capitalism.

Except that free market capitalism is recent idea in the grand scheme of ideas. The free exchange of goods and services is truly a progessive idea. The government or any other third party controlling who gets a certain good or service is quite old, old as time itself. Not very progessive at all.
 

Joe_Stocks

Back from the Dead
Hi TAL,

Was there some update to liberalism that I didn't hear about? I've never heard anyone say that the government should monitor every nook and cranny of the transaction... although most people (at least here) agree that they should be the ones making the transaction in the first place, if that's what you mean.

Obama and a lot of Democrats in Congress want a single-payer healthcare system. This means that that private exchange of healthcare is illegal. Government monitors every healthcare decision because they are paying for it.
 

Smoke

Done here.
Obama and a lot of Democrats in Congress want a single-payer healthcare system.
A single-payer system seems to be one of those things, like gay rights, that Obama said he believed in before he got elected but no longer thinks it's politically expedient to support.

This means that that private exchange of healthcare is illegal.
Nonsense. The existence of a single-payer system doesn't have to mean that all other options are illegal, and you can be sure that even if the US were likely to adopt a single-payer system (which it isn't), the existence of parallel private services would be a political necessity.
 

Darkness

Psychoanalyst/Marxist
Joe Stocks said:
Obama and a lot of Democrats in Congress want a single-payer healthcare system. This means that that private exchange of healthcare is illegal. Government monitors every healthcare decision because they are paying for it.

I will quote Senator Franklin. "You are entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts." Conservatives and Liberals constantly criticize policies and concepts they simple don't understand. If you think a single-payer system means that the private exchange of health care is illegal, you really shouldn't be involved in the debate until you learn some basic facts.

Joe Stocks said:
What does this mean?

Loyalty to your group, family, nation, as opposed to loyalty toward humanity in general.
 

Joe_Stocks

Back from the Dead
Hi Smoke,

A single-payer system seems to be one of those things, like gay rights, that Obama said he believed in before he got elected but no longer thinks it's politically expedient to support.

He is constrained by the American people. However, that is his end goal.

Nonsense. The existence of a single-payer system doesn't have to mean that all other options are illegal, and you can be sure that even if the US were likely to adopt a single-payer system (which it isn't), the existence of parallel private services would be a political necessity.

I do have to make a correction. For the vast majority of people getting healthcare privately would not be feasible. European governments restrict what pharmaceuticals are covered by the government. So, the government would be restricting the healthcare choices for the vast majority of people. Like Barbara Wagner in Oregon, the government-run healthcare plan would pay for the drugs to kill her, but not to keep her alive.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492&page=1


Obviously, people with the resources will be able to get the care they need. It's just the rest that get the shaft.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Joe_Stocks

Back from the Dead
Hi Darkness,

I will quote Senator Franklin. "You are entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts." Conservatives and Liberals constantly criticize policies and concepts they simple don't understand. If you think a single-payer system means that the private exchange of health care is illegal, you really shouldn't be involved in the debate until you learn some basic facts.

I do have to make a correction. For the vast majority of people, their healthcare decisions will be restricted. Many European governments restrict what pharmaceuticals are covered by the government.

And here in Oregon, the government-run healthcare plan would only cover drugs that would put Barbara Wagner to death, but the government -run plan would not cover the drugs that would keep her alive.

Death Drugs Cause Uproar in Oregon - ABC News

Loyalty to your group, family, nation, as opposed to loyalty toward humanity in general.

Does this apply to Ned Lamont running against Joe Lieberman in the 2006 election for Senate in Connecticut? Was Lieberman not loyal enough to the Democratic Party?
 

Smoke

Done here.
He is constrained by the American people. However, that is his end goal.
Assuming his convictions were genuine in the first place and haven't changed, he is constrained by ideologues, venal politicians in the pay of insurance companies, and his own lack of balls.

Like Barbara Wagner in Oregon, the government-run healthcare plan would pay for the drugs to kill her, but not to keep her alive.
Many people with private insurance have found that their insurance didn't cover Tarceva, too -- and we're not even talking about people with no insurance. The Oregon Health Plan paid for 3 years of cancer treatment that would have been completely unavailable to Barbara Wagner under a free-market health system. The plan offered to pay for pain medication, hospice care, physician-assisted suicide, and other options. It declined to pay for Tarceva, a drug that buys a very small percentage of patients a very short interval of extra time. She didn't choose physician-assisted suicide and was not pressured to do so. She also didn't choose hospice care or any of the other options available to her under the plan.

Ms. Wagner obtained a promise of free year's supply of Tarceva from the manufacturer, which all the Tarceva anybody ever needs since it doesn't work for more than a year even in the happiest cases. Despite receiving the Tarceva, she died on 18 October 2008 - two months and twelve days after the date of the story you linked to.

Meanwhile, the Oregon Health Plan has been made to regret informing Barbara Wagner of the full range of options available to her, and has adopted a policy under which that will no longer occur.
 
Last edited:

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
Hi GC,
Except that free market capitalism is recent idea in the grand scheme of ideas. The free exchange of goods and services is truly a progessive idea. The government or any other third party controlling who gets a certain good or service is quite old, old as time itself. Not very progessive at all.

Well, yes. Progression is often movement towards an older form. What matters is movement.

The acceptance of homosexuality, for example; it's been accepted as a norm in other cultures at other times, but for us in this culture and age, it is considered progressive (and as old as time itself).
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Foreign systems don't have nearly the restrictions on drugs, procedures, &c that the pencil pushing guardians in the American insurance industry enforce. Talk about getting between you and your doctor....
 

Darkness

Psychoanalyst/Marxist
Joe Stocks said:
I do have to make a correction. For the vast majority of people, their healthcare decisions will be restricted. Many European governments restrict what pharmaceuticals are covered by the government.

And here in Oregon, the government-run healthcare plan would only cover drugs that would put Barbara Wagner to death, but the government -run plan would not cover the drugs that would keep her alive.

So, in the equation we have some drugs restricted under public insurance plans and some drugs restricted under private insurance plans (my family's private insurance will not pay for allergy treatment medication that allows me to eat without feeling like vomiting). The difference is that under a single-payer system everyone would have some basic insurance, whereas under the private system 40 million Americans are without insurance.

Joe Stocks said:
Does this apply to Ned Lamont running against Joe Lieberman in the 2006 election for Senate in Connecticut? Was Lieberman not loyal enough to the Democratic Party?

Is not Lieberman an Independent?
 

Joe_Stocks

Back from the Dead
Hi Smoke,

Meanwhile, the Oregon Health Plan has been made to regret informing Barbara Wagner of the full range of options available to her, and has adopted a policy under which that will no longer occur.

What a tepid reaction, where is the liberal outrage? If a private insurance company did this you would be screaming bloody murder, but when the government of Oregon does it it is no big deal.

And I cannot believe you are missing the larger point here; the government gives Barbara a menu of choices. Barbara herself cannot make these decisions, she must hope the government is nice enough to let her live.
 

Joe_Stocks

Back from the Dead
Hi Seyorni,

Foreign systems don't have nearly the restrictions on drugs, procedures, &c that the pencil pushing guardians in the American insurance industry enforce. Talk about getting between you and your doctor....

While you don't have to tell me about the dysfunction of our current public-private monstrosity of a healthcare system as foreign governments go ...

Cheaper Doesn't Mean Better. Ask a Canadian (diabetes depression anxiety cholesterol job) - Mombu the Medicine Forum

To save funds, Canadian health officials delay the introduction of new and more
expensive drugs. As a result it takes considerable time for new and more
expensive medications to make it into the medicine chests of Canadians. Some
never do. One hundred new drugs were launched in the United States from 1997
through 1999. Only 43 made it to market in Canada in that same period. Canadians
are still waiting for many of them.
 
Top