Posted on 08/12/2004 12:05:29 AM PDT by Lepidopteran
I am a swing voter, neither Republican nor Democrat. I supported President Bush in his response to September 11 and I supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. But I like John Kerry's message about the need to do something about the people in this country who have no health insurance. It's a hard choice.
the (slight mis)quote of Marcus Aurelius is a good place to start, but I like Cicero better: "Cui bono?"
and, btw - that is an excellent post.
But if we're going to tackle this from a Utilitarian perspective, where is that John Stuart Mill quote THAT EVERY SINGLE PERSON HAS ON THEIR PROFILE PAGE?(!)
Just curious is all.
"If you're seriously thinking about who to vote for based not on the good of the country but your own pocketbook, you should probably vote for kerry"
you think Kerry taxing us death would be good for our wallets how?
I was being sarcastic to this obvious Kerry voter.
Oh, that leisure suit looks great on you!
(Rolls eyes. Snickers under breath.)
"Did the Post Office discover the internet?
The libs want a govenrment monopoly for heath care...and it doesn't get any worst than that. The "free" care will increase demand and naturally long lines result. The government will then determine that the cost is way too high. Then the pharmaceuticals and doctors will be told how much money they can keep."
-- That's already happening in the UK (rationed care) and just around the corner in Canada.
I read a theory a while back that stated that political markets are no different than any other kind of market. Politicians offer handouts and protection, and the citizenry bid on these services with votes and campaign contributions. In the UK, liberals have essentially saturated the market with large social programs and there's not much left to "sell" without destroying the market itself and going full throttle to marxism. Since they have nothing left to "sell", they're instead focusing on cutting costs.
oh good :^)
What's a swing voter? Bi-electional?
Have you ever tried to access health care in Canada or the UK?
Pick John Kerry's favoritie Socialist or Communist friend in the EU and then contemplate what life in the next economy will be like, when everyone becomes dependent on the government.
This nation can survive very well without privatizing health care, or any other industry.
It can't survive the DemocRATs and our other foreign enemies simultaneously in the present configuration of Party leadership.
Are you a redistributionist?
You might like the message, but you won't like the mechanics, that's assuming he'll tell you, but he won't. Libs make promises but never tell you that'll your taxes will have to skyrocket to fund their liberal utopian schemes.
Remember if lawyers like John Edwards weren't in the business of suing doctors, we wouldn't be paying these higher rates anyway.
Yes, they swing both ways, preferring to have their cake and eat it too.
LOL! Red...
This has to be some kind of a joke, right? Ask the 3000 people who died on 9/11 if the cost of health care matters to them right now.
The media is as much to blame for this Liberal lunacy as anyone. They have overstepped their Constitutional Rights IMO...spoon feeding socialism/communism to a stupid or intellectually dishonest potential electorate. Amazing how there isn't a single requirement other than being an American and a breath...soon to be including illegal invaders amongst us I hear (CA).
Go ask Canada about Hillarycare. Great for colds and flu. But you'll die waiting for anything significant. Don't take my word for it, do the research.
There is a really solid private Health Association designed to reduce out of pocket costs underneath high-deductible, catastrophic type policies. Meds, Visits, on and on.
Consider the following bit of wisdom from centuries past:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent force of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse [benefits] from the public treasury [other people's hard-earned dollars]. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasure. , with the result that democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always foiled by dictatorship." - Alexander Tytler
Or, this wise observation by historian Edward Gibbons of the Athenian society:
"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all--security, comfort and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."
Those charlatan politicians who sense our weaknesses and our tendencies to want things we cannot afford appeal to those weaknesses with promises to give us what they think we want most. The problem is they are not intending to give us out of their millions, or their billions. No, they are going to TAKE from every working person. WHY DO THEY DO THIS??? Is it out of a heart of love and caring? No, it is out of a desire for POLITICAL POWER.
Locate a copy of Congressman (1827-31, 18333-35)Davy Crockett's speech to Congress on the Constitutionality of such actions (Foundation for Economic Education publication entitled "Not Yours To Give"). Crockett said that his fellow Congressmen were not willing to give out of their own pockets for what they were so willing to vote out of others' pockets. He concluded,
"Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice, to obtain it."
They trade their PROMISES for our VOTES, and if elected, they amass power unto themselves. (In other words, their political currency is PROMISES, assuming they will exchange them for our VOTES. If held to some of their promises, they simply lay a tax on the people to pay for them. There is no altruism there, just a crass desire for power.
Are we better off with politicians who want us to become self-sufficient or those who want to keep us dependent on government?
You decide.
The general opinion of men is supposed to be, that the natural vocation of a woman is that of a wife and mother.
Good research though!
I suppose that John Stuart Mill was the first "equity" feminist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.