Conservatives Are Standing on the Wrong Side of History

[haymarket]

Actually, the current political polarization is Libertarian vs. Authoritarian.

Conservatives, real one's, lean toward libertarian while progressives, regardless of their authenticity, are simple Authoritarians...

Let me take a really wild guess at something here.......... would it be that you lean towards libertarianism? :roll:

 

[Glen Contrarian]

You haven't presented any idea at all, so you have a lot if nerve asking for one. You wanted to pass that socialist POS, and you couldn't. Stop blaming republicans for all your woes.

I never said that I had any 'bright, new idea'. If you'll check back to my writing, I said that we need single-payer universal health care like that found in ALL the rest of the first-world democracies - because it works BETTER than what we have (as evinced by their national life expectancies that are mostly higher than our own) and costs their taxpayers FAR less than what we're already paying.

That was our best choice - my choice, if I could have had my way. Our government - thanks to a certain group of people who now believe that any sort of negotiation with the other party is an unforgivable sin - had only three choices with any real chance of passing: universal health care, Obamacare (which was a strictly conservative idea), and to leave everything as it was. While you might not like those choices, those are the ONLY ones that had any chance of passing...and it's not a matter of what you want or don't want - it's a matter of what you can and cannot do.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

While you are quite correct that bankruptcy does result from medical expenses, that is not generally from lack of insurance.

And then your reference says "Medical Expenses (42%) -
Recent studies have shown that 42% of all personal bankruptcies are a result of medical expenses. The study also reveals that 78% of those who filed had insurance."

If EVERYONE had medical insurance (or, more often, universal health care) - as is the case in ALL other first-world democracies (while paying FAR less in taxpayer funding than we ALREADY do) - how many people would have gone bankrupt due to medical expenses? We are the ONLY first-world democracy where people go bankrupt due to medical expenses!

In one fell swoop, we could prevent FORTY-TWO PERCENT of ALL bankruptcies - and (if the case of ALL the other first-world democracies is any indication) cut our taxpayer funding for health care in half! How is that not a good thing?

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Healthcare is easy to solve: go buy a policy.

Maybe remove the ban against buying across state lines.

That's it. Problem = solved.

Oh but that means you don't get your bloated nanny-state. Damn.

Wow! It was SO EASY! Why didn't I think of that????

Oh. Maybe it was because there's TENS OF MILLIONS OF AMERICANS who are living paycheck-to-paycheck who CANNOT AFFORD to just 'buy a policy'. And there are millions more who (before Obamacare) couldn't get insured due to pre-existing conditions (like my oldest son).

It's tragically funny how you call it a 'nanny state' when ALL the other first-world democracies provide universal single-payer health care - meaning that NOBODY goes bankrupt due to medical expenses - but at the same time their taxpayers are paying about half what we ALREADY pay in taxes to provide what health care we already provide. Gee, doesn't it make SO much more sense for taxpayers to pay twice the price for less health care for the population? Sure does, if you're a red-blooded patriotic Real American who hates lib'ruls and the guv'mint....

 

[ChezC3]

Let me take a really wild guess at something here.......... would it be that you lean towards libertarianism? :roll:

:yes:

 

[Tigger]

In one fell swoop, we could prevent FORTY-TWO PERCENT of ALL bankruptcies - and (if the case of ALL the other first-world democracies is any indication) cut our taxpayer funding for health care in half! How is that not a good thing?

Please explain how this would deliver the same or better care than I currently have with the PPO/POS plans I have availae at work without costing my another penny in taxes. Unless you can show me how I'm going to get Better care for less money I'm not even going to consider accepting any sort of Government care.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Please explain how this would deliver the same or better care than I currently have with the PPO/POS plans I have availae at work without costing my another penny in taxes. Unless you can show me how I'm going to get Better care for less money I'm not even going to consider accepting any sort of Government care.

One thing I've found about conservatives is that they tend to concentrate on the individual level, on what they see right in front of them. This in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing, but as a result they often have a tendency to miss the big picture, to not see the forest for the trees, as it were.

Liberals are the flip side of the coin - we tend to better see the big picture, but we often miss what's right in front of us.

Again, neither one of these is necessarily a bad thing, but it just goes to show that just as conservatives rightly know that we need to listen to them, it is also right that conservatives need to listen to us - we must work together. Sadly, in my experience, most conservatives think the world would get along better without liberals, whereas most liberals rightly realize that we do indeed need conservatives around and that conservatives do indeed need us (and NO, not just for something to laugh at).

That said, your entire post is right for YOU on the individual scale, but in the BIG picture, the experience of ALL the other first-world democracies shows that single-payer health care - the government-run (or -insured) health care you hate so much - gives better results (hence the higher national life expectancies) for half the cost in taxpayer dollars.

 

[AngryOldGuy]

I'm not even going to consider accepting any sort of Government care.

You say that as though you are going to be given a choice. The way you will be 'offered' gubbermint healthcare is either that your employer will drop your coverage or the premiums will simply skyrocket beyond your ability to pay, either way yer gonna be standing in line with everyone else at the exchange beggin' for a subsidy.

 

[Jerry]

Wow! It was SO EASY! Why didn't I think of that????

I don't know, but the fact that you didn't calls your inteligence into question.

If you want healthcare, go buy a policy. And yes I know that people can divelop problems which aren't covered. I may be one of them, and that's one reason why I joined the military and deployed. Now, no matter what, I will always have some kind of medical coverage for the rest of my life.

If you're to lazy to divelop a career and smart with your money, then maybe were better off as a planitary species if you're not around.

#Darwin

Oh. Maybe it was because there's TENS OF MILLIONS OF AMERICANS who are living paycheck-to-paycheck who CANNOT AFFORD to just 'buy a policy'.

I'm living paycheck-to-paycheck and I bought a policy. I'm nothing special, if I can do it anyone can.

And there are millions more who (before Obamacare) couldn't get insured due to pre-existing conditions (like my oldest son).

That's a consiquence of not having him insured *before* something happened. Own your irresponsability.

It's tragically funny how you call it a 'nanny state' when ALL the other first-world democracies provide universal single-payer health care - meaning that NOBODY goes bankrupt due to medical expenses - but at the same time their taxpayers are paying about half what we ALREADY pay in taxes to provide what health care we already provide. Gee, doesn't it make SO much more sense for taxpayers to pay twice the price for less health care for the population? Sure does, if you're a red-blooded patriotic Real American who hates lib'ruls and the guv'mint....

I like your total lack of source material. It means you're lying.

 

[Misterveritis]

Really? A more correct use of language does not automatically denote a better education. It denotes a likelihood, but nothing more. Besides, there's far more to know nowadays than ever before - yet we're still trying to cram all the additional knowledge we've gained in modern human civilization into a mere twelve years (not counting college). IMO we need to add at least two or three more years to everyone's education - instead of K-12, it should be K-15 or so.

Or move to year-round schools, with the focus on how to learn instead of what to know.

Return the right to choose to parents and eliminate government run schools as the only option. Let parents purchase education for their children based on the parent's desires rather than on the desires of some progressive educator whose primary interest is increasing their own power.

 

[Misterveritis]

Wow! It was SO EASY! Why didn't I think of that????

Oh. Maybe it was because there's TENS OF MILLIONS OF AMERICANS who are living paycheck-to-paycheck who CANNOT AFFORD to just 'buy a policy'. And there are millions more who (before Obamacare) couldn't get insured due to pre-existing conditions (like my oldest son).

It's tragically funny how you call it a 'nanny state' when ALL the other first-world democracies provide universal single-payer health care - meaning that NOBODY goes bankrupt due to medical expenses - but at the same time their taxpayers are paying about half what we ALREADY pay in taxes to provide what health care we already provide. Gee, doesn't it make SO much more sense for taxpayers to pay twice the price for less health care for the population? Sure does, if you're a red-blooded patriotic Real American who hates lib'ruls and the guv'mint....

Maybe the best solution is for all of you takers to move to one of those other utopias.

 

[Misterveritis]

One thing I've found about conservatives is that they tend to concentrate on the individual level, on what they see right in front of them. This in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing, but as a result they often have a tendency to miss the big picture, to not see the forest for the trees, as it were.

Liberals are the flip side of the coin - we tend to better see the big picture, but we often miss what's right in front of us.

Again, neither one of these is necessarily a bad thing, but it just goes to show that just as conservatives rightly know that we need to listen to them, it is also right that conservatives need to listen to us - we must work together. Sadly, in my experience, most conservatives think the world would get along better without liberals, whereas most liberals rightly realize that we do indeed need conservatives around and that conservatives do indeed need us (and NO, not just for something to laugh at).

That said, your entire post is right for YOU on the individual scale, but in the BIG picture, the experience of ALL the other first-world democracies shows that single-payer health care - the government-run (or -insured) health care you hate so much - gives better results (hence the higher national life expectancies) for half the cost in taxpayer dollars.

I believe another way to say this is conservatives believe in individual freedom and liberty for everyone. Liberals(by all of the names you give yourselves) believe that everyone belongs in a group and that liberty can only be found in the collective.

 

[Tigger]

You say that as though you are going to be given a choice. The way you will be 'offered' gubbermint healthcare is either that your employer will drop your coverage or the premiums will simply skyrocket beyond your ability to pay, either way yer gonna be standing in line with everyone else at the exchange beggin' for a subsidy.

Nope. I'll be being fitted for a pine box. I will DIE before I take a penny-worth of Government healthcare. That includes Medicare.

Try again.

 

[AngryOldGuy]

Well tigger medical insurance IS NOT required to live.
I've not had any since 90 and I'm not dead yet so yeah that'll werk

 

[Tigger]

Well tigger medical insurance IS NOT required to live. I've not had any since 90 and I'm not dead yet so yeah that'll werk

With certain of my health conditions, I will not survive more than 3-4 years, at best.

 

[Tigger]

That said, your entire post is right for YOU on the individual scale, but in the BIG picture, the experience of ALL the other first-world democracies shows that single-payer health care - the government-run (or -insured) health care you hate so much - gives better results (hence the higher national life expectancies) for half the cost in taxpayer dollars.

Lets look at that Big Picture.....

No matter how much people like to think it is, Healthcare is NOT, and never has been, an innate Right. It's a Privilege. Always has been and always should be. Therefore, to force anyone to pay for medical care either for themselves or anyone else, directly or indirectly, in 100% Immoral.

 

[AngryOldGuy]

Healthcare is NOT, and never has been, an innate Right.

well it is now :boohoo:
the right you have now is to pay for everyone else's stuff, Comrade

 

[AngryOldGuy]

Maybe the best solution is for all of you takers to move to one of those other utopias.

dude that's an awesome plan we could all pitch in and help ship them there :applaud

 

[Tigger]

well it is now :boohoo:
the right you have now is to pay for everyone else's stuff, Comrade

Honestly it's quickly reaching the point where I'm looking at just divorcing myself of the system entirely. Quit the job. Move to the middle of nowhere. Find an a ti-government militia group to join and just go from there.

 

[AngryOldGuy]

send me a postcard if it works out I'll join up too

 

[Glen Contrarian]

If you want healthcare, go buy a policy. And yes I know that people can divelop problems which aren't covered. I may be one of them, and that's one reason why I joined the military and deployed. Now, no matter what, I will always have some kind of medical coverage for the rest of my life.

Ah. So you know what socialized health care is like, then - because that's what military health care is - it's SOCIALIZED health care...and it's saved my life and my wife's life more than once.

If you're to lazy to divelop a career and smart with your money, then maybe were better off as a planitary species if you're not around.

Um, you really should pay attention to the squiggly red lines that appear under certain words - they're there for a reason.

I'm living paycheck-to-paycheck and I bought a policy. I'm nothing special, if I can do it anyone can.

"If I can do it, anyone can" - falser words were never said. Sorry, guy, but there ARE many people out there who don't have the opportunities than you've had - the very fact that you're on a computer says that much. Also, are you white? If so, that's a huge advantage, too - though there's a whole lot of people in the right-wing echo chamber who'd try to tell you otherwise. What's more, you're a guy - which means that it's a lot less likely that you'll wind up as a single parent. AND you've just pointed out how you're covered with health care, whereas there's many millions who - before Obamacare - weren't covered and couldn't be covered. So stop with the "if I can do it, anyone can" - because you've got certain advantages that many millions of other people simply don't have.

That's a consiquence of not having him insured *before* something happened. Own your irresponsability.

He had severe rheumatic fever while I was on active duty, so he was covered at the time. Once he was on his own and no longer my dependent, health insurance agencies wouldn't touch him...before Obamacare. So HOW, exactly, is this due to 'irresponsibility' on my part?

Here's a clue - it wasn't. So stop with the crass assumptions and false accusations.

I like your total lack of source material. It means you're lying.

No, I was not lying - I was WRONG. Do you understand the difference between the two? But according to this conservative blog, percentages of bankruptcies due to ill health are 10-11% in Canada and 5% in England.

Now compare that to about 50% here in America. Hm. 11% in Canada, 5% in England, 50% in America. Gee, which system is working out better for the people, hm?

When all your health care is paid for, exactly how do you go bankrupt due to medical expenses? Oh, there's the small fraction who can't get treated locally who do come to America to get health care they can't get in their home countries...but even in 2009 there were 1.6 MILLION Americans going out-of-country to get health care they couldn't get - or, more likely, couldn't afford - here in America. I did this in 2006 by getting dental work done overseas that cost me about one-sixteenth what it would have cost stateside. A friend of mine went to Thailand to get an operation that she couldn't have here, that allowed her to have children. Now she has two children.

Compare that to an estimate in Forbes' that about 60-85,000 people come to America every year for health care.

LOOK AT THAT - the number of Americans LEAVING America for health care is up to FIFTEEN TIMES GREATER than the number of people coming TO america for health care. Golly gee whillikers, I think we just blew a favorite conservative talking point outta the water!

So FAR fewer people in Canada and especially England go bankrupt due to illness or medical expenses, and FAR more Americans go out-of-country for health care than there are foreigners coming here for health care. You see the references above...but I'm sure you'll find some way to ignore them, too.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Or move to year-round schools, with the focus on how to learn instead of what to know.

Return the right to choose to parents and eliminate government run schools as the only option. Let parents purchase education for their children based on the parent's desires rather than on the desires of some progressive educator whose primary interest is increasing their own power.

I strongly agree with having year-round schools - I've advocated this for several years.

Public schools are not and have never been the ONLY option. If parents want to send their kids to private schools, they can - they simply have to pay for it.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Maybe the best solution is for all of you takers to move to one of those other utopias.

Did you ever - even ONCE - ask yourself why it is that if socialized Democracy (like that found in ALL first-world democracies) is SO bad, why is it that ALL first-world democracies ARE socialized to a very significant extent? I mean, if the level of socialism all first-world democracies is really that bad, we should all be third-world nations...and those nations that have weak governments, low effective taxes, and little or no regulation should have taken over as first-world nations.

But it didn't happen that way, even sixty years after WWII, and eighty years after FDR's New Deal.

Why is that?

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I believe another way to say this is conservatives believe in individual freedom and liberty for everyone. Liberals(by all of the names you give yourselves) believe that everyone belongs in a group and that liberty can only be found in the collective.

If you'll ask almost any liberal, he or she would tell you that both are right, that we need both the individual freedom and liberty and also the success that comes with socialized efforts (as is shown by the simple fact that ALL first-world democracies are socialized democracies). In other words, we want it the 'Goldilocks' way, in that there's neither too much nor too little of one or the other.

But if you really want total individual freedom and liberty - no rules, regulations, nobody can tell you what you have to do - then go to a third-world nation, for there's many of them where you do indeed have a greater degree of individual freedom than that which is found in first-world democracies, including America.

 

[Misterveritis]

Ah. So you know what socialized health care is like, then - because that's what military health care is - it's SOCIALIZED health care...and it's saved my life and my wife's life more than once.

No. It isn't. It is part of the arrangement the government has with you as part of your employment agreement. You pay for it with your service.