Do Republicans Care More About Property Than Human Lives? (1 Viewer)

[ThisIsNewOrleans!]

I don't know about Republicans but, depending on the property versus the human life in question, sometimes I do.

Agree with that part.. May be a few exceptions.

 

[HTSF]

You want me to address the video. Here it is. You already have a public option. Nobody can be turned away if there life is in danger do to lack of insurance. People go to the emergency room all the time.The tax payer already pays for this. The myth that people will die because they are not protected is just that a myth. The problem is with rising cost not protection. The gov't has proved time and again that they are the last people I want running anything.

 

[SWJJ]

not every republican agreed with the so called "public option" of property insurance.

the logic in his arguement is flawed for many reasons.

The statement you made is rash and generalizing. Besides it ultimately did nothing to help the property insurance situation and property insurance is more expensive than before the Public option he referes to.

He thought he was playing gotcha with the republicans but if you really know what happened with the louisiana citizens porperty insurance , it makes the case AGAINST a PUBLIC option.

" Do Republicans Care More About Property Than Human Lives? " is a ridiculously broad and baseless accusation or a shock thread title for your "discussion" here.

 

[AeonSaar]

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?

 

[St. Widge]

I hate threads like this. they always end up with me getting banned ......

Then perhaps the problem isn't always with the thread?

As to the topic, I doubt that most Republicans feel this way. Most average Republicans probably really think it's about the government being inefficient and not wanting the government standing between them and their health care. Of course, they likely support other large government programs like the military and don't realize that now an insurance adjuster who's sole job is to make money for the insurance company stands between them and their doctor. But, they don't value the property of the insurance company over human life.

However, Republicans in the Congress probably value the donations of insurance companies over human lives, much like Democrats in Congress probably value the money of their contributors over anything else.

 

[St. Widge]

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?

Because they inconsistently pick and choose which big government programs they like based on their own selfish interest. Just like the average Democrat does.

 

[SWJJ]

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?

Its not its about the failures of the government dumping money into a problem without an effective plan.


Why make the same mistakes over and over and on something as critical as health care.

but hey instead of discussion solutions and ideas, lets be mad at republicans for not supporting our flawed ideas, in spite of them once coming up with a similarly flawed plan!


Brilliant.

But I completely expect all the "anti-republicans" to come +rep you to death simply becasue you reeks of :Liberalesmad:


Yay another partisan on the EE we all win!!!

 

[AeonSaar]

I understand that donations play a significant role in political decision making. However, it do find it strange that there is an automobile insurance mandate and a homeowners insurance mandate, but none for personal medical. It does, at least superficially, make it seem as if property is valued as a higher priority than human life.

I have always found hard to believe people are willing to spend massive amounts of money on war and corporate subsidies (and bailouts), but fail to pay for the general medical wellfare of its own citizens.

How am I not suppose to perceive this as placing a higher priority on property rather than life.?

 

[AeonSaar]

Because they inconsistently pick and choose which big government programs they like based on their own selfish interest. Just like the average Democrat does.

That is probably why the insurance and drug lobby seems to like Baucus's bill so much. I get the feeling that the only 'reforms' that will be passed will either favor one collection of large corporate entities or another.

 

[SWJJ]

I understand that donations play a significant role in political decision making. However, it do find it strange that there is an automobile insurance mandate and a homeowners insurance mandate, but none for personal medical. It does, at least superficially, make it seem as if property is valued as a higher priority than human life.

I have always found hard to believe people are willing to spend massive amounts of money on war and corporate subsidies (and bailouts), but fail to pay for the general medical wellfare of its own citizens.

How am I not suppose to perceive this as placing a higher priority on property rather than life.?

Homeowners mandates are to protect the property for the mortgage company who REALLY owns the property.

If you own your own home outright, there are no mandates forceing property insurance on you.

Automoble insurance is only required to cover your LIABILITY notinjury to yourself.

There is a HUGE GAPING WHOLE in your freaking arguement.

There are no mandates forcing you to insure yourself (in purely your interest) at all.

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

The gov't has proved time and again that they are the last people I want running anything.

i will let my friends in the military- as well as my police and firefighter friends-- know that you feel that way.

 

[St. Widge]

I understand that donations play a significant role in political decision making. However, it do find it strange that there is an automobile insurance mandate and a homeowners insurance mandate, but none for personal medical. It does, at least superficially, make it seem as if property is valued as a higher priority than human life.

Superficially yes, but not in reality. The mandates for auto insurance is a selfish motivation. People don't want other people to not have insurance when they hit them and if everyone has insurance, it spreads the risk and makes each individual have to pay less for insurance. Yes, the same thing theoretically applies to health insurance, but people look at that selfishly as well. It doesn't directly affect their lives so they dont' want to pay for it. It's not about valuing property over lives, it's about valuing things they want/need over things other people want/need.

As for homeowners's insurance, I'm not aware of any place that it is mandated by the government. But, mortgage companies do mandate it's use.

 

[St. Widge]

The gov't has proved time and again that they are the last people I want running anything.

So you support a privately funded militia over a government funded military correct? And, you want only privately employed firemen and policemen correct?

 

[bearze34]

Where does this opinion come from that Republicans are this monolithic group of money grubbing human rights haters? Could it possibly be that there are different opinions on how to achieve the same goals? Of course there are hard-line Repubs. just as there are hard-line Dems. Both are not representative of the mainstream of the country. I would rather they just raised the taxes of everyone and covered the uninsured rather than co-opt the whole system and degrade my benefits. I would rather they quit wasting billions on cancer treatments that don't work, and rarely have, and focused on prevention and education. This "cadillac plan" nonsense is a straw dog used to justify the eventual complete disappearance of employer-paid health plans and the institution of a mandate of the purchase of insurance by individuals. It is, at the end of the day, all about helping business at our expense and expensive it will be. What do you think you will have to do when companies choose to pay the penalty rather than give you insurance because it is cheaper to pay the penalty and there is no inflation to the penalty? How did it become the Dems. trying to benefit big business while the Repubs. are on the other side? It is because they are all the same with a different speech to hypnotize their constituents.

 

[Blk&Gold4Life]

I meant to vote no.