Do Republicans Care More About Property Than Human Lives? (2 Viewers)

Do Republicans Care More About Property Than Human Lives?


  • Total voters
    54
I voted yes but in reality that is not the whole story. I do believe Republicans care about "worthy" people. People in power like Trent Lott (as in the piece) or people with money like Wall Street bankers or anyone with enough wealth to line their campaign chests, then yes they care. If you are an everyday American, sorry buddy , you are out of luck. Stop your whining. What did you expect anyway - help and support from your own government when disaster destroys your world? What a laugh! The funny part is as this set of worthy people becomes smaller and smaller, the Republican Party is writing their own death warrent.
 
Wow, I crack one joke and I'm destined for alcohol induced liver failure coupled with bankrupting my fellow American's by claiming Medicaid and declaring personal bankruptcy. Who is stereotyping who?


I believe Jonsey was making a joke and I was using it as an opportunity to extend an analogy. I'm sure neither of us meant anything by it.
 
at least you watched it. the core of the argument is that republicans supported a public insurance option for houses after Katrina, but refuses do the same for medical insurance. why is it more important for property to be covered rather than people?
La Citizens is an insurance of last resort. It is mandated that the premiums are at least 15% higher than the average premiums of other insurers.
I have State Farm my premiums would be double under La Citizens.

If the public option were set up under the same model, then I would support it. It's not. It is almost the exact opposite. It will be a sink hole of tax payer dollars.
 
So, the government is very good at running some things, but not others? How do you know which ones they are good at and which ones they aren't good at? So, using socialist ideal to have a military, police force and firemen is okay, but it's not okay for health care? What is the difference? Why are they so good at one, but you think they will be so bad at the other?

No the government isn't very good at running anything, including defense. It just so happens they seem to run that better. Kind of like being the tallest pygmy in the forest. However, for the most part, government simply tries to fund defense and leaves the development to the privately owned defense contractors. Even at this, the government still manages to buy very expensive hammers and toilet seats!
 
I agree. I'm just wondering why we would let them poorly run one thing, but not let them poorly run another thing? What's the difference? In both instances lives are at stake.

Edit: And, I'm not sure there is no possible profit in a military. There are mercenaries that make money at it all over the world. Isn't the real reason we have a government controlled and operated military because it works better that way because their loyalties are not for sale?

One's constitutionally mandated and the other is not.
 
One's constitutionally mandated and the other is not.

It's not mandated. The Constitution only gives the Congress the power to raise the money and appoints POTUS CIC if there is one. Nothing in the Constitution would prevent the military from being formed by hiring mercenaries and nothing would prevent us from choosing not to have a government run military. In fact, part of the point of the 2nd Amendment, along with allowing us to be armed in case we need to revolt, is to have weapons in the hands of citizens in case we need to call up a militia to defend the country.
 
No the government isn't very good at running anything, including defense. It just so happens they seem to run that better. Kind of like being the tallest pygmy in the forest. However, for the most part, government simply tries to fund defense and leaves the development to the privately owned defense contractors. Even at this, the government still manages to buy very expensive hammers and toilet seats!

But the government has control over the funding, decides who gets the contracts, decides when drafts are necessary and decides when to use the military. In fact, they make life or death decisions for members of the military all the time. So, given that they apparently are good enough to do this, what is the difference in letting them deal with health care?

For the record, I'm not a big fan of them doing either one, but if we are going to have to government running some things, it seems to me we have to look at all the options of things that they might actually be decent at running.

Edit: Then again, I just took a close look at your avatar and that makes it pretty clear that you aren't going to want to have a real conversation about this issue since you've already made up you mind about anything that Obama has or will do.
 
I cant tell a lick of difference about what values a person puts on life based upon their party affiliation. Strength of affiliation though is a whole nuther thing. Once a person gets to drinking too much donkey or elephant Kool-Aid they start talking like they hope a just and vengeful God would strike down members of the opposing party.

Democrats and Republicans are OK. Righteous Democrats and Republicans start to seem dangerous when they are so tightly wrapped that they accuse their foils of being less than human.
 
Actually this gets said a lot but it isn't true. Both parts of it.

The first part -- that everyone has a public option called an 'emergency room' -- is wrong. Sure, it works for a broken arm, or if you are in a life-threatening accident and are rushed to the ER, or are having chest pains and it is determined to be an emergency. ERs have and do turn away patients for non-emergency issues. And they won't treat issues like cancer or other diseases -- they will treat symptoms of the disease, but they cannot do chemotherapy or perform an operation to remove a tumor. They can't do things like physical therapy for someone who lost a limb or is paralyzed or had a stroke. They don't cover extended care for things that aren't easily fixed. So yes, many things are available at an ER. But many things still are not and cannot be dismissed with a "oh, people without insurance get free care at the ER!"

The second part -- the taxpayer pays for it -- also isn't true. The other people who go to that hospital pay for it with increased medical care costs, but "the taxpayer" doesn't.

just curious but do you consider medicare and medicaid a "public option" ? granted those on medicaid, and many on medicare dont really have an option.

there are gov. options in place paid for by taxpayers, and as u stated the amount paid vs what doc\hospitals charge is made up by others who pay cash and insurance companies to a certain degree.
 
It's not mandated. The Constitution only gives the Congress the power to raise the money and appoints POTUS CIC if there is one. Nothing in the Constitution would prevent the military from being formed by hiring mercenaries and nothing would prevent us from choosing not to have a government run military. In fact, part of the point of the 2nd Amendment, along with allowing us to be armed in case we need to revolt, is to have weapons in the hands of citizens in case we need to call up a militia to defend the country.

Technically correct, the constitution does mandate the federal government provide for the common defense, in whatever way they choose I imagine. Last time I looked, it did not mandate providing healthcare. And let's not use the general welfare clause, because that refers to enumerated and specific functions, not anything the pol's want it to be.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom