Great, another one post wonder. Netiquette requires that you reply to your own thread, but that wasn't in your interest, was it?
I have no health insurance either. Kerry is nothing but hot air, and even then he's lying about the temperature.
Bush (tonight in Phoenix):
"You can't be for patients, doctors, AND trial lawyers! My opponent made his choice, he put John Edwards on his ticket!"
"I support tort reform for medical malpractice suits."
1 -- You do not have a right to health care.
2 -- You do not have a right to health care.
3 -- You do not have a right to health care.
The answer is no, you will not be able to sway people to vote for Kerry by espousing communist idiocy (I would say theory but communism has been proved to be stupid as crap in every country or state it has been tried). Kerry sucks balls and if you by into the notion that his economic policy and social strategy will accomplish anything less than destroying our countries values and furthering the erosion of our very foundation, than you are either retarded or a European... possibly both or maybe just from Quebec.
When you take a sledge hammer to the foundation of a structure you create voids... spaces that have to be filled.... with what? What will fill the voids of religion and morality once Kerry's secular ideology sufficiently pock marks our very slab of national heritage? What will fill the people's soul once religion is constantly assaulted and replaced with secular ideas of marriage? What? Buddhism? Jainism? Come now don't be stupid... the religions are non aggressive... what is the most aggressive religion? What is washing Europe's secular void with the idea that all religions are deserving of death but one?
There is a lot more at stake than some socialist u-freakin'-topia.... use your noggin' or go dig a pit for all of our futures.
The answer is no, you will not be able to sway people to vote for Kerry by espousing communist idiocy (I would say theory but communism has been proved to be stupid as crap in every country or state it has been tried). Kerry sucks balls and if you buy into the notion that his economic policy and social strategy will accomplish anything less than destroying our country's values and furthering the erosion of our very foundation, than you are either retarded or a European... possibly both or maybe just from Quebec.
When you take a sledge hammer to the foundation of a structure you create voids... spaces that have to be filled.... with what? What will fill the voids of religion and morality once Kerry's secular ideology sufficiently pock marks our very slab of national heritage? What will fill the people's soul once religion is constantly assaulted and replaced with secular ideas of marriage? What? Buddhism? Jainism? Come now don't be stupid... the religions are non aggressive... what is the most aggressive religion? What is washing Europe's secular void with the idea that all religions are deserving of death but one?
There is a lot more at stake than some socialist u-freakin'-topia.... use your noggin' or go dig a pit for all of our futures.
If you want to buy other peoples health insurance than vote for Kerry.
While your at it, why not buy them food and other "essentials"?
Just because you made life choices others didn't have the time or energy for why should they suffer?
You know, even if you do vote for Bush there isn't anything stopping you from buying those essentials for others anyway. No need to wait for the election... Just start writing checks...
This is a big issue for me personally. Medical care is not an option if you are uninsurable. But, a big reason it cost so much is legal fees paid by doctors and hospitals. John Kerry and John Edwards especially are not going to do a thing about that. They are the legal profession's best friend.
Like I said, health care is a bid issue with me. I just don't see John Kerry as being the solution. I see him as a big part of the health care problem. He is just playing the issue and offering no specifics that I can see.
And lets not forget, Kerry has had 30 years as a Senator to do something about it - far more time than Bush has had. Where has he been on the issue? Again, in the pocket of the trial lawyers.
The solution to that problem is simple: re-elect Bush. We'll get more tax cuts. More jobs will be created. More people will be employed. And lo, they'll have health insurance as one of their fringe benefits. Problem solved.
And remember...people may have a right to health care, but that doesn't mean they're entitled to free health care...the same as I have a right to keep and bear arms, but that doesn't mean the government is supposed to supply me with free guns.
Think about it.
Another DU'er to FreeRepublic. Welcome.
I like to put liberals on the right path, so I'll break it down:
There are three types of health care systems:
1. A consumer-based system where everybody pays as they go
2. A corporatist, employer-provided system we know have
3. a single-payer government provided system
We currently have #2 for the most part, with #3 for seniors. It's a flawed system and actually a historical fluke: companies started paying workers with health care benefits during WWII to get around wage freezes. Employees liked health care, and government noticed, so they started allowing companies to deduct money spent on health care from their taxes. But it's a truly flawed system wherein the consumer does not decide what kind of health care he recives, nor does he have ANY regard for how much healthcare he consumes (he's not paying for it!). Furthermore, "employment mobility" is stifled because people are afraid of losing coverage and big businesses have an unfair advantage over small businesses by (large group plans are cheaper per worker than small plans).
The little devil on the left shoulder, #3, is also driving up costs. Did you know medicare only pays for 90% of the bill? And what do you think the hospital does to pay for the other 90%? Pass it on to non-medicare recipients in the form of $8 aspirins, for example.
You see, both candidates want to move us away from #2. However, Kerry wants to move us towards #3 while President Bush wants to move us towards #1 with his "medical savings accounts".
The president wants to enlarge Medical Savings accounts and down the road reform the corporate tax structure so employers aren't encouraged to give employees health care they really don't need.
Simultaneously eliminating corporate taxes and the welfare that goes along with it (the two are roughly the same amount) while expanding President George W. Bush's Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) to all Americans would (1) eliminate the tax incentive to "pay people in benefits" (2) allow Americans to save for their own high-deductible health insurance. This would lead to a truly consumer-driven market.
There is very little cost awareness among insured consumers of health care services. If the cost of consuming a good is relatively low, consumers will generally consume more of them! This is especially true if a consumer gains little financially from minimizing their consumption. This is precisely the case in the healthcare industry, and it should be fixed by making American consumers, already cost-conscious in other facets of life, become cost-conscious about healthcare costs. This can only be done by making consumers pick their own healthcare plans.
Vote 4 Dubya!
If you are undecided after the last 20 years of Kerry — vote for Kerry, but you have to live with the consequences. You decide.
2 -- Mr. Heinz Kerry is not a good man.
3 -- Mr. Heinz Kerry is not a good man.
Listen, up Lep. Don't be a socialist. Don't support a bad man. This one aint rocket science. You can choose a good man with socialist lite politics (Bush) or you can choose a bad man with Marxist underpinnings (Teresa's B--ch somepeople call John Kerry.)
Finally, take a look at my tag line and understand... Socialists are only in america because us good guys have too few stones. We are growing em though. If you want to be on the wrong side of CWII, that's your problem. I'd suggest you understand that there simply is no moral obligation to tolerate socialists amongst us. It sucks that you have to vote for the lesser of two socialists, but, ya gotta. Or ya gotta get your ass to Canada, Cuba, Norway or someplace.
Okay, I'm done and I can't believe I've wasted this much energy on your dumb ass.
This is true of welfare, it's true of Social Security, and it will be true if the U.S. government gets in the business of socialized medicine.
You want socialized medicine? HILLARY CARE thrilled you? You want the government to takes even MORE money out of your paycheck and make you wait,maybe even until you die,for a medical procedure,as happens in England and in Canada?
What's so attractive about Kerry? You like what President Bush has done in response to 9/11,but are thinking about voting for a man,whose response to 9/11,Afghanistan and Iraq,is that he would fight a more gentle war on terror? Do you not understand that Kerry's SECRET PLANS to end the WOT,is pulling out ALL our troops,doing a LAST HELICOPTER FROM NAM remake,and open up this nation to even worse terror attacks?
Original poster joined a few weeks ago with only a few posts in that time. Seems pretty clear to me:
http://www.angelfire.com/space/usenet/
All of us here know that the middle of the road is a good place to be flattened -- 'swing voter' indeed.
The choice isn't really that hard. John Kerry is saying what you want to hear so he can win your vote. Will he deliver on his promise? Not likely.
There is a balance of powers in this country and the President does not make laws. Even if Kerry wins the Presidency, his party won't have control of the Congress.
What you have to be afraid of is the control of Presidency on Foreign Policy and the Judiciary. If John Kerry is elected he is going to overhaul our foreign policy tying ours more directly to the United Nations, and that will compromise our security in regards to taking care of threats before they materialize. If John Kerry is elected, he'll nominate judges to the Supreme Court who knowingly and willingly use judicial power to "make" laws.
The damage John Kerry, as President, can do to our nation is pretty significant, and it is only balanced by the Republican presence in the Congress.
On the other hand, George Bush knows about the health care lapse, and John Kerry and John Edwards both blocked Bush's attempt to begin to reform our health care liability system, which contributes to the high cost of health care and health care insurace. And then to say these people don't have access to health care is incorrect. Not only are there publicly funded clinics for people without health care, but emergency rooms are required to treat patients, regardless of their ability to pay.
The Democrats are playing fast and loose with statistics, with the truth, and with your emotions. Check the facts behind everything a political campaign tells you, regardless of the Party affiliation. But especially check the facts behind the claims of the political party you like.
Disclaimer: I haven't read all the replies so maybe you've already touched on this.
What is John Kerry's message about doing something about people who have no health insurance?