| |
How dumb are the Democrats?
|
|
|
|
How dumb are the Democrats?
|
How dumb are the Democrats?
|
Reputation:99
Level:Superstar
Since:Sep 16, 2006
|
|
ou can’t educate a Democrat. They’ve all been drinking the MSNBC and CNN Koolaid and can’t be shown the truth. When they get confronted with facts, they go run to the “Global Warming” or “Bush Lied, People Died” BS. Pick one issue and try to get a Democrat to logically think their position through and if you can get them to forget the party line and honestly evaluate an issue they will vote Republican.
Let’s set the war aside. I know Democrats love that issue because CNN and MSNBC have told them that’s important. Fact is both parties had the same faulty intelligence and both voted to go in. Withdrawing now isn’t in either country’s best interest.
We can skip over global warming too. I’ll concede that the Democratic Party has at least talked a better line when it comes to being champions for the environment. Not that I agree that global warming is completely man made or that the weather is going to change drastically in the next 10 years. Regardless, we should all do better to take care of the Earth. I’m pretty sure those jerks I see throwing trash out of their car windows all the time are Democrats though. Either that are the demographics being reported in the polls are wrong.
Let’s just take a look at health care. Both sides have acknowledged there is a problem with health care and there has been enough discussion to know where both sides are coming from. Neither party wants to see people suffer without health care so the question is how we ensure we have the best health care available for our citizens. The Democrats would like a National Health Care System. I’ll examine Obama’s idea since he is currently the front runner. Obama has posted his plan on his web site http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
Obama claims 47 million Americans are without health care (as opposed to the 55 billion someone posted here). Obama will offer “Guaranteed eligibility” provide “Comprehensive benefits” “Affordable premiums” and “Subsidies” (for folks that can’t afford his affordable plan?). Employers will be forced to make a “meaningful contribution” to the plan.
Now most reasonable folks recognize that this is going to cost money. After all, doctors, nurses, chemists, x-ray technicians, pharmacists, paramedics, laundry workers, janitors, security personnel, and others working in or for doctors and hospitals must be paid. The Democrats will argue that doctor’s are overpaid or that drug companies make too much money or someone in the system is making too much profit and should be regulated. If there’s so much money to be made though, why don’t more people go to medical school and make the big bucks? Why don’t those complaining about the money the drug companies are making open their own drug company and compete for those prescription dollars? The answer is easy if you think about it. The folks going to medical school are typically pretty smart, invest a large sum of money (usually going deep into debt) for school, sacrifice a large part of their lives in school and working long hours, and work long hours performing a difficult job. The cost of malpractice insurance, compliance with regulations and medical supplies makes it an expensive occupation too. The same is true for others in the health care field. If you increase the number of people that are receiving health care then you will need more doctors, nurses, etc… I don’t see a lot of doctors and nurses in the unemployment lines. The only way to get more is to pay more or make it a more attractive profession so that more people will want to work in health care. If you raise the pay of the workers (to attract more) then you are driving the cost of health care up. If you lower the requirements to become a health care professional then you are driving the quality of care down. Sure there are areas where better use of technology can help reduce costs; there are areas where better laws and regulations could help reduce costs as well; and focusing on preventative care would also help reduce costs. Maybe if you institute a fat tax you could reduce high blood pressure, diabetes, and other weight related disease. You won’t see Obama out campaigning on instituting a fat tax though since a lot of the voters would resent it.
But Obama has a plan to pay for health care. He will make employers pay for it. Of course those big bad employers will just take it out of their oversized profits. Obama will make sure of that. Companies like Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler can either take it out of their (non-existent) profit or they can raise the price of their products to compensate. An extra thousand bucks for a new Ford won’t make anybody else look at Toyota… Surely those big oil companies can be made to pay for health care; they made huge profits. Of course if producing gasoline were that easy or profitable then we’d all be opening our own refineries and making huge profits. But the Democrats won’t let us build any new refineries so we’re stuck… Driving up the costs that American businesses have to pay make them less competitive and in a global market we will lose jobs.
The best way to provide health care to everyone and maintain the quality is to make people care how much the care costs. Not to pay for it for them. If people went to the doctor and they needed an aspirin they’d think twice before paying $5 for it if they knew they were paying. They’d go across the street and buy a bottle for the same price. We need a system that requires the recipient to pay a portion of the costs. Perhaps 10% up to a cap of 10% of annual income? If you knew one doctor was going to charge $1000 for a procedure and another was $800 you might go to the cheaper one if you were paying a percentage of the costs. If most people went to the lower cost alternative then the prices would go down. We should require insurers to provide preventative care like annual checkups etc… as part of all plans and levy a large tax on any plans that don’t have a %10 co-pay (capped at some percentage of income). Use the tax on overly comfy plans to help subsidize insurance for those that can’t afford any (still with 10% co-pay). We should make care available to everyone by subsidizing it for low income people as needed. Folks that elect not to have insurance even with subsidies don’t get health care. I know that harsh but we can’t take care of people that won’t take care of themselves.
Vote GOP!!!
|
|
How dumb are the Democrats?
|
How dumb are the Democrats?
|
Reputation:94
Level:All-Star
Since:Mar 28, 2008
|
|
"Let’s set the war aside. I know Democrats love that issue because CNN and MSNBC have told them that’s important."
Are you KIDDING me. Just set it aside because it's NOT important. I saw people die there you dirty S.O.B. You just spit on me and every man and woman who served there. I didn't read the rest of your spew because you know crap. I know I signed up for this, but people like you who cast us aside without giving two cents sicken me. You look at an active and tell him that to his face... then, when you wake up with a few less teeth in the hospital, you'll realize the ignorant idiot you really are Dan.
|
|
|
How dumb are the Democrats?
|
How dumb are the Democrats?
|
Reputation:92
Level:All-Star
Since:Feb 8, 2008
|
|
Well said coach, Dan the Fox news( GOP network ) watcher, wants to tell us that every other news source out there is all liberal. They really just can't handle the truth about their incompetent republican party , so they just bury their heads in the sand and pray to S. hannity and fox noise. Most Republicans don't care about anyone but themselves, which is why it's no skin off their back if 4000 or 10,000 or 30,000 americans die in a war that shouldn't have been started, or that 55 million people don't have health care, or that the middle class is being dismantled , or the 3 trillion dollar deficit created over bushies admin. Just as long as they get their frickin tax cuts that's all they care about. I have health care , I own a home, a nice car , i have a good job as do most democrats, we just care about what happens to people who are struggling ,the environment ,the economy and soldiers getting killed to line the pockets of halliburton and the military corporation. You know, we're bleeding hearts ,as opposed to heartless. If you want to fight terrorism ,look no further than the fear mongering republican party.
|
|
|
How dumb are the Democrats?
|
|
|
How dumb are the Democrats?
|
How dumb are the Democrats?
|
Reputation:97
Level:Superstar
Since:Aug 17, 2006
|
|
MPO
I'd love to hear your imput on this as weel. as well as any other democrats!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
immigration legislation was put forth by your party!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
How dumb are the Democrats?
|
How dumb are the Democrats?
|
Reputation:99
Level:Superstar
Since:Sep 16, 2006
|
|
I hate to say it but coach provided a great example of why we can’t move forward in this country. When you can't intelligently debate the issue you resort to ad hominem arguments.
You missed the point about the war entirely. We could debate the war but both democrats and republicans voted to go in based on the same faulty intelligence. Hindsight is 20-20 so saying now we shouldn’t have gone in has no value or credibility. You can say that Bush doctored intelligence or whatever but there have been no credible accusations and with a democratically controlled congress and a liberal leaning press you would have known if there were any proof of Bush officials manipulating intelligence reports.
Besides, the war argument would come down to an exit strategy. Should we abandon Iraq to fend for themselves or stick it out until they have stability. For your information I served in the military for 20 years and retired from active duty. I am deeply troubled and offended when some self-righteous SOB pretends to have served in the military, trashes the leadership, and advocates surrendering, allowing our men to have died and suffered in vain. We must do what’s right for Iraq and America and help the Iraqi’s end the sectarian violence going on there. They had relative stability (under a cruel dictator) before we went in; we should help them re-establish stability before we leave.
UK Blue again resorts to ad hominem arguments. I haven’t found a liberal (democrat) yet willing to discuss issues and try to resolve them on an intelligent basis. Just those wanting to scream that because I’m not a democrat I am “selfish” and “heartless”. I believe that most liberals and socialists are big-hearted people wanting to take care of everyone especially those that can’t take care of themselves. I applaud your unselfishness and your sentiment for mankind. Rather than scream that republicans “don’t care” perhaps you could spend a few minutes trying to understand what we are saying. It’s not that we don’t care; it’s that we don’t believe the liberal solutions are the way to achieve our common goals.
I remember the cold war; we won. The Soviet Union was a great experiment in socialism. They could not compete with the free market system we enjoy here in the United States. The standard of living for all suffered under socialism. People in the U.S. that we considered poor were living above what would have been considered middle class in the Soviet Union. When people are provided all their needs and wants without having to put forth an effort or produce anything, many will not put forth an effort or produce anything. While fruit does grow on trees you need someone to plant those trees, care for those trees, harvest the fruit, and distribute them. We live in a society where people are given many opportunities. Those that are willing to work hard are rewarded for their work. Those that don’t go to school, learn a needed skill, become a valuable commodity, and work hard aren’t rewarded as highly. This encourages people to work hard and raises the standard of living for all of us.
The democratic montra of take from the rich and give to the poor is old and tired. I give plenty to charity; far more than the average American and we as American’s are the most generous nation on earth. I resent the liberals telling me that the government should raise my taxes and forcibly take more of the money that I work for so that they can wastefully spend it on their pet projects. The government steals my money and spends it on “art” displays where the “artist” puts crosses in animal urine. They steal my money and spend it on “midnight basketball” so that kids will have a safe place to play in the middle of the night. They steal my money and build bridges to nowhere in Alaska.
There is a place for the government in providing for people that truly cannot provide for themselves. However, we must keep in mind that the government has proven time and time again (both democrat and republican) that they are not the most efficient way to accomplish anything. Take for example the Katrina victims. There is plenty of blame here for both parties and federal, state, and local authorities to share. I only bring this up to demonstrate the lack of efficiency in government. The government paid hundreds of millions to put Katrina victims in hotel rooms where many spent over a year. The cost of some rooms was well over $100 per night. For $100 per night for 365 nights (what we paid to keep these families in hotel rooms) for a year, we could have bought them $360,000 homes. How is that the best use of our money? At the end of the year they still had no place to call home and we'd spent more than enough money to build them very nice homes almost anywhere in the country. I’m pretty sure that civilian charities did a better job here.
So, this brings me back to health care. Do any democrats really want to talk about health care and how “socialized medicine” is going to be good for us? Where is the line between what will be covered and what is not? What about an experimental treatment that cost $500,000 and has a 10% success rate? Do we cover this for a 95 year old man? Do we cover it for a 9 month old child? If we spend the $500,000 for this procedure it reduces the money available for other things. You can vacinate a lot of children for $500,000. Do we cover the very expensive treatment for people infected with AIDS? What if they were having unprotected sex or using dirty needles to become infected? What if it's a child that got it from a blood transfusion? Who makes the rules? Who decides what is covered and what isn't? Do you really want the government deciding for all of us?
|
|
|
