Here is what Laurie thinks Moderates should do.
On the Issues Clinton
Clinton GovTrack
With Trump it is a bit more challenging since he bounces around... But if you really don't want Hillary and her policies to be the way we head. Then he may be worth taking a chance.
I wish you luck on coming to a final decision, and encourage you to make your vote count by...
Because doing anything else means you have wasted your vote in our 2 party system.
"I think that a true middle or moderate view in this election is a person who strongly dislikes both candidates but is firmly in the never Trump camp. I think they would grudgingly vote for Hillary."
And she may be correct? However I think that a true moderate should look both the policies and character of these poor candidates and make their own decision.
In the comments at MP Lonliness, Rachel made the following argument.
"I'm sorry that Ms. Carnahan is lonely. But, if she's really running on the idea that she can be someone that goes beyond politics, then she should have the courage to say who she is voting for for president. Quite frankly, it will probably say everything her potential constituents need to know about her. If she's voting Trump, the liberals won't vote for her because of what he stands for and they know that she's ok with what he stands for. If she's voting for Clinton, the Republicans won't vote for her because Hillary (she's an old school Republican, so it's not what she stands for that's distasteful). Personally, I couldn't vote for Ms. Carnahan because I believe that anyone who hasn't made up their mind on the presidential race has some significant problems." Rachel
"Do you really believe this? "she's an old school Republican, so it's not what she stands for that's distasteful" Have you looked at her Web site's issues page? She was Left of center initially and went only further Left to placate Bernie's supporters. I can't think of any Republican who supported higher taxes, tax payer funded college, tax payer funded healthcare for working age adults, nominating Liberal Justices, etc, etc, etc. Not to mention her questionable character.
And yes Trump's character is also questionable... That I do not deny." G2A
"Yes, Really. Remember Reagan? If she ran on the same platform as Reagan (and she's not that far off already, honestly), the GOP would still hate her because Hillary. Put another way, the GOP would hate Reagan if his name was Hillary Clinton, because quite frankly, the policies, including the "liberal justices" are not terribly different. Let's face it, though, Ronald Reagan is the GOP Jesus--more of a legend than a role model." Rachel
"Facts and Data. I think they are pretty far apart. At least based on this policy document.1980 GOP / Presidential Platform"
"Really. I must be reading the wrong document. Got a different link?" Rachel
"Funny. In that document they promote: Lower taxes, Reducing government spending, Supply side economics, Reduction of welfare, etc.
All the normal GOP stuff that looks nothing like Hillary's platform which promotes: Higher taxes, Public investment in technology / companies, Increase in free college, free healthcare, etc, etc
Yep. They are pretty different, or do have a source to help me understand your view?" G2AI guess my point is that people who are still undecided need to ignore all the emotional vilifying that both parties are doing and get back to basics. And if anyone says that Hilary is an "Republican" from any era, just say NO... As GovTrack shows, she was a moderate Liberal as a Senator and has only gone Left from there to chase the Bernie supporters.
On the Issues Clinton
Clinton GovTrack
With Trump it is a bit more challenging since he bounces around... But if you really don't want Hillary and her policies to be the way we head. Then he may be worth taking a chance.
I wish you luck on coming to a final decision, and encourage you to make your vote count by...
- Voting for Trump / Against Hillary
- Voting for Hillary / Against Trump
Because doing anything else means you have wasted your vote in our 2 party system.
67 comments:
About all can say is that if you get your news and views from the "drive-by media," it is no wonder you have difficulty with this decision. Looked at it with more information, Trump is the easy choice. If he himself believed what the media said about him, he would have long ago quit the race, and probably exiled himself. If the media had said as much about Hillary's faults as they have his, she would likely have been forced off the ballot long ago.
In a country where 70% of us think the country is headed in the "wrong direction" it is very hard to believe that ANY candidate with a common-sense reform agenda would not be "50 points ahead" of a candidate that has already made things WORSE and promises more of the same. Please, quit focusing on personalities and compare their stated agendas and the likely outcomes.
After spending a weekend with my Parents and watching FOX News... I have heard enough about Trump's rhetoric...
This silly lower the tax rate to reduce the deficit / debt has been disproven over and over.
And applying huge tariffs to improve the situation for American workers comes with some real bad unintended consequences.
I am going to hold my nose as I put a check next to his name.
Our primary process gave us 2 real stinkers... Hopefully something improves next time.
"Please, quit focusing on personalities and compare their stated agendas and the likely outcomes."
OK, gladly:
* Trump promises a massive tax cut with no corresponding spending cuts, meaning he will explode the deficit and expand our national debt greatly. (Of course, we all know that debt-scolding Republicans suddenly lose their religion about that when a Republican becomes President.)
* Trump has waffled on our promise to defend our NATO allies at a time when the Russians are increasingly encroaching on the airspace of the Baltic nations and Finland.
* Trump has offered no specific plan to address ISIS. Instead, he has criticized the generals currently running our campaigns in that area.
* Trump has said that the proliferation of nuclear weapons in Asia and the Middle East would be a good thing.
* Trump has offered no reform proposal by which he will cure the political system of its capture by the elites other than his own magnificence.
and that's just for starters....
"If the media had said as much about Hillary's faults as they have his, she would likely have been forced off the ballot long ago."
A couple of thoughts on this point:
1.) Trump has built his campaign around earning free media coverage. This worked well for him in the primary election. But the scrutiny that was going to come his way was going to come his way eventually. (By the way, how poorly run were all the other GOP campaigns that they couldn't find any of the stuff like the Billy Bush tape in any of their opposition research?)
2.) I would argue that the media has spent a disproportionate amount of time on the so-called Clinton "scandals". We've heard lots of coverage surrounding her e-mails. Compare that coverage to the coverage of the Bush Administration e-mail scandal, where 22 million e-mails disappeared on servers operated by the RNC. They failed to comply with subpoenas and were found in Contempt of Congress on the issue.
Newsweek: Bush White House Lost 22 Million E-Mails
Where were you e-mail scolds back then?
3.) A similar trend emerges when you compare the Clinton Foundation versus the Trump Foundation. Lots of coverage of "scandals" involving the Clinton Foundation -- except there's no scandal there. Allegations of "pay to play", but no evidence of any payoffs. And it's done a tremendous amount of good work around the globe. Meanwhile, the Trump Foundation has actually been prohibited by the State of New York from soliciting donations because it is not compliant with state law. It has used its funds to make illegal campaign contributions, pay off lawsuits against Mr. Trump, and to purchase six-foot high paintings of Mr. Trump.
Sean,
You are correct that there is risk with Trump... But there is also change / revolution.
With Hillary we know exactly what we get... More taxes and government control, less personal choice, more regulation, more poor unqualified immigrants (possible terrorists), stronger public employee unions / bureaucracy, etc... In short, a certain continuing of the warming water...
If you can provide me with a candidate who has a chance of winning who wants to:
- keep taxes the same except close the carried interest provision.
- demand that the government entities become more lean and effective. (ie live within the incoming tax revenue)
- reduce the number of laws, regulations, business burdens, etc
- get illegal residents to leave and support our own low skill / low academic workers
I'll be there to vote for them. Unfortunately we have to choose between Dumb and Dumber...
"But there is also change / revolution."
There's no revolution with Trump, it's just the worst instincts of the GOP on steroids. There's a story today that says Trump is identifying folks like Giuliani, Gingrich, and Priebus to hold high-profile Cabinet roles. Those aren't exactly fresh faces with new ideas.
There actually are a number of young conservative reform-minded policy minds out there -- and some of them have some good ideas (or at least ideas that are a lot less bad than the rest of the party). Repackaging the EITC as a wage supplement, for instance, is an example of good policy that could find bipartisan support. There are conservatives who understand how we can be strengthened by a diverse America instead of using it to exploit fear, hatred, and mistrust. But those folks ain't working for Trump.
I don't know that people really like Hillary in the usual sense. She is in fact quite a likable person. She isn't, unlike Trump, someone you wouldn't to have over for dinner. It's just that her poll numbers have been beaten down by the negativity. George W. Bush is the same way. Once there is no point in maintaining negativity toward him, he polls quite well.
--Hiram
Sorry, I don't think I would invite either Trump or Clinton over for drinks. I think that Trump would be that obnoxious somewhat creepy uncle and Clinton would be that know it all meddling condescending aunt that we seek to avoid at the family reunions.
How about we invite over Bill and Melania... Now they may be more fun...
On the Lighter Side.
Mash up 1
Mash up 2
Mash up 3
This almost tips me the other way...
Ana Navarro's reason for voting against Trump.
So you finally found one anti Trump essay a tiny bit persuasive. I guess that makes you only about 95% obtuse in regards to Trump how unfit Trump is to be president. I know all my insults don't help in persuading you but it is very hard for me to refrain.
Here are a couple of my final links. The first one is a general Trump is unfit argument:
Donald Trump Cannot Be President of the United States
here is an excerpt to save you time:
"But now is the moment for every last American to decide what it truly means to be a citizen. You can be reluctant about Hillary Clinton. You don't even have to vote for her (though I did, without doubt or hesitation).
What you cannot do is vote for Donald Trump and pretend that this is just another election, and he is just another candidate. It is your minimum duty as a citizen not to support a racist, sexist, unqualified, dishonest, corrupt manchild who celebrates everything that's ugly about America and not a single thing that's great about it."
the second link to me is about how much better the GOP is at attacking political opponents, as I think more people view Hillary as highly dishonest than view Trump as highly dishonest.
Chart of the Day: Donald Trump Is the Most Dishonest Politician Alive
Donald Trump and the Threat of Nuclear War
"Picture Donald Trump in the White House, late at night, alone. His CIA director calls to inform him that North Korea is posing a possibly imminent nuclear threat to the United States. Is it plausible to believe that a man of Trump’s character, temperament and intellect will be able to ask the questions, and take the actions, that the moment requires of him? Hillary Clinton might very well get the moment wrong; these situations represent choices between sets of bad, and worse, options. But it chills the blood to imagine the singularly unequipped Donald Trump managing the United States through such a crisis."
Too bad Hillary pursued the Leftist extremists instead of moderates like me...
Hillary had no choice other than to lean farthur left as this was needed to win the primary against Bernie.
about "With Hillary we know exactly what we get... More taxes and government control, less personal choice, more regulation, more poor unqualified immigrants (possible terrorists), stronger public employee unions / bureaucracy, etc... In short, a certain continuing of the warming water.."
GOP congress will not go along with a tax increase, any increase in regulation will be minor and mostly necessary, stronger unions are a good thing, I don't know the response to bureaucracy etc.
and while I will concede you are moderate in some ways, your overall mix of views and willingness to vote for Trump means you are more conservative than moderate.
Finally, I am officially done trying to educate you as to how unfit for president Trump is in so many ways (unless the election is rigged and Trump wins -about a 1% chance- in which case I will have to continue this service for you :)
Well I am a big fan of life long learning. :-)
I haven't changed my mind since Ted Cruz dropped out of the race, but I am much relieved this morning that at least the country has a CHANCE at getting back on "the right track." But all of the policy opposition to Trump is mere speculation by those who oppose him already on other grounds, while policy opposition to Hillary is pretty much based on the certainty that she would continue the Obama policies that have been such a disaster (Obamacare as Exhibit A).
As I believe I have said before, I am not depending on Trump to make all the right decisions, but on the "3000 people" he will "bring with him." I had thought he would have at least hinted at his cabinet picks, for example and as he did with SCOTUS justices, before the election. I suspect I will be happy with them afterwards-- how hard can it be to make better choices (cabinet and policy-wise) than Obama did?
We will see...
So far he only seems to like "yes people", though hopefully he has learned some humility during the election.
Who cares about humble? Leaders should have some confidence in their ideas or they cannot lead. I think Trump has a far better collaborative management style than most, and it will serve us well. What remains to be seen is not what Trump will do, but how egregiously over-the-top Democrats will be in opposition to solving any and every problem. Hillary and Obama have promised cooperation and Kumbaya, and they're both lying through their teeth as usual.
"...but how egregiously over-the-top Democrats will be in opposition to solving any and every problem."
God, that's rich coming from a Republican. Pot, meet kettle.
Joel
Joel, Agreed...
Really? Why hasn't Obamacare, a total failure by any objective measure, not been repealed. Republicans tried several times, and who stopped it? How many times have reduced budgets from the Republican House been stalled by the Democrat minority in the Senate?
And notice I did not say "passing legislation." I said "solving problems." Seems Democrats prefer to cause them and, if they can't do that, prevent them from being solved. I expect at least two more years of such rabid obstructionism.
Back on the topic, you should know that the big knock on Trump from the Right was that he wasn't conservative enough-- too centrist. I prefer the term "pragmatist" based on my impression of the fellow, but what's the problem? We've had hard left for years, can we stand a little center-right?
The Dems only had control for 2 years in the middle of a major recession... Other than ACA, exactly what "hard left" are you thinking of exactly?
The only other change was that the wealthy went back to paying the pre-Bush tax rates...
The change that jerry doesn't like is that the country has become too brown and non-Christian...at least that's my impression of the fellow. Nothing he has ever written here has suggested otherwise to me.
Joel
Obama has been in office for 8 years, and the "Obama recovery"-- slowest since 1930-- has been doddering along all that time. Yes, when Dems had total control, they chose to push through Obamacare rather than actually do something positive for the economy and the country. And "hard left" includes both taking over 1/7 of the Economy, and blocking all attempts to improve it.
Joel, you have a talent for wrong impressions. I daresay I have been in more "brown and black" churches than you have-- wonderful people there.
"...slowest since 1930..."
It's also going on eight years since any significant downturn. Slow and steady wins the race. If you want big jumps, you'll also get big crashes. I prefer to avoid the crashes.
I daresay I don't care that YOU think you're not a racist. But you voted for Trump, and with that comes racism, misogyny, homophobia, and xenophobia.
Joel
Oh, Joel, there you go again. Would you care to prove any one of your scurrilous charges? A candidate is not responsible for the people that support him. And there are a LOT of reasons to vote for Trump other than those evil motivations you imply. Are you really going to stand there and say that 50% of Americans are racist, etc. and that the other 50% are pure as the driven snow? How about the 15% or so of black people that voted for Trump? How about the 85% of black people that voted for Clinton? How about the 52% of white women that voted for Trump?
But I DIDN'T say that 50% of Americans are racist...or can't you read?
You KNEW that Trump's racism, misogyny, homophobia, and xenophobia were part of the package deal called "Make America Great Again". Now you may not personally WANT those things, but you decided that you were okay with them in order to "Make America Great Again".
If you bought a bucket of nails because you needed a bucket and they didn't sell empty ones, did you buy nails?
You and the rest of the citizens who voted for Trump bought "Make America Great Again", which inclued racism, misogyny, homophobia, and xenophobia...and now you own them.
Joel
Poor Joel. You are going to be SO disappointed when Trump turns out to be none of the nasty things you ascribe to him. You WANT to believe those things about him, and about me, because it bolsters your own sense of moral superiority. Sorry, I'm not buying it for a second.
"But I DIDN'T say that 50% of Americans are racist...or can't you read?
...
You and the rest of the citizens who voted for Trump bought "Make America Great Again", which inclued [sic] racism, misogyny, homophobia, and xenophobia...and now you own them."
-- Joel
So, you didn't say it, and then you DID! I think I read just fine. I am puzzled by how YOU can read "Make America Great Again" and ascribe every form of nastiness to it? What's wrong with making America great?
"What's wrong with making America great?"
Because it's coded language. America is already great.
You simply aren't intelligent enough to understand the point that MANY people are making, not just me.
I've given this analogy before. It is the last time I will attempt to help you understand. If you bought a bucket of nails because you needed a bucket but they didn't sell empty ones, did you buy nails?
If you ordered the HBO/Cinemax package because you wanted HBO but you couldn't get HBO without getting Cinemax, did you order Cinemax?
If you voted for the sexist, racist etc. Trump ticket because you wanted the Trump ticket but you couldn't get the Trump ticket without the sexism, racism etc., did you vote for the sexism, racism, etc.?
Now, in these analogies, is the person necessarily, or by definition a:
-person who wants nails
-person who wants Cinemax
-person who wants racism, sexism, etc.?
The answer is no, but in each case, the person accepted something they DON'T want in order to get what they DO want, but only in the final case is it a moral failing.
Joel
So Joel, many people who do not personally know Trump think you are correct and many people who know Trump personally think you are incorrect.
"You simply aren't intelligent enough to understand the point that MANY people are making, not just me."
Only time will show the truth. I think you should take Obama and Clinton's advice and give Trump the benefit of the doubt. He is your next President.
By the way, if you caught 60 Minutes last night you will know that Trump said that LGBT Marriage is a done deal and he is fine with it. And he said how disappointed he was that people were attacking minorities and asked them point blank to stop.
The only Conservative position he took was Pro-Life.
And it was interesting because Ivanka made it clear that wage equality and child care benefits were her priorities, and I think she has the ear of Daddy.
Personally I think both the Far Right and Far Left folks will be very disappointed with Trump.
"So Joel, many people who do not personally know Trump think you are correct and many people who know Trump personally think you are incorrect."
And how many voters know Trump personally?
"I think you should take Obama and Clinton's advice and give Trump the benefit of the doubt. He is your next President."
When have I suggested that I will not give him a chance? You will never hear me say that I hope he fails (something that can't be said for Republicans regarding Obama) or that he's not my President, but I'll be damned if I don't speak up against hateful, hurtful, and damaging policies. That said, he certainly isn't helping his case with his most recent appointments.
Joel
"By the way, if you caught 60 Minutes last night you will know that Trump said that LGBT Marriage is a done deal and he is fine with it. And he said how disappointed he was that people were attacking minorities and asked them point blank to stop."
Oh, I must have missed the memo that what he says is now true. He's not a king anointed by God.
Joel
Some People Apparently Disagree
You know... God works in mysterious ways !!! :-)
"You simply aren't intelligent enough..." -- Joel
That is downright laughable and proves you do not know whom you are addressing. Unless you are a member of Mensa, you are going to have to find some other authority to defend your seemingly vacuous pronouncements. You cannot even seem to construct a valid analogy.
The person who buys a bucket of nails to get the bucket made a clear decision on the marginal utility of the purchase and would: 1) sell the nails, 2) set the nails aside for use later, or 3) put the nails in recycling. It was a personal decision and does not depend in the least on what YOU think of the wisdom thereof.
Far worse, you are condemning everybody (over 50% of the voters) because you believe they should have voted as YOU want because of the way YOU are characterizing him. What if some of us don't believe your characterization, or are willing to ignore such scurrilous charges as being less important than his clearly stated, commonsense policy proposals?
Tell you what: I will treat the Trump Presidency the same as the Obama Presidency. Now I did say, back in 2008, that I expected everything he said and everything he did to be wrong, and I haven't been disappointed. But if he HAD found that acorn of good policy, I would have appreciated it, just as when Trump pursues bad policy (especially if it shuts out some other, more important priority item), I will be objecting. Can you really say the same?
Look, jerry, if I agree with you, we'll both be wrong. I don't really care how highly you think of yourself.
How about I treat Trump the way you treated Obama? Better yet, how about all Democrats and Liberals do that? Where will that get us?
Very few analogies are perfect, and I anticipated the response about the nails. Unfortunately, once white supremacy, misogyny, xenophobia, and homophobia are unleashed, they're very difficult to reign in (see WWII).
Joel
Joel,
Personally I think you are treating Trump and all of his supporters much worse than Obama was treated. Questioning his birth certificate and religion is pretty tame compared to the terms you are using.
It is unfortunate that you are so scared. Hopefully you will accept the truth sooner than later.
I will never accept racism, sexism, xenophobia, and homophobia. I'm sorry that you and others like you have decided it's acceptable.
Joel
Joel, I will be happy if you will simply accept reality. None of the terms you want to apply to Trump are "real" except in the most extreme leftist propaganda, and you are certainly wrong to overgeneralize those mis-characterizations to 50% of the US population, or to me. Given the behavior of those who agree with you, including the now-popular "rape Melania" theme, I fail to see how you can claim the moral high ground.
And Joel, please feel free to judge Trump based on his actual actions, not as breathlessly reported in the biased mainstream press or second/third-hand through some fevered leftyblog. We had an example here recently, where it was reported (accurately) that Trump was expecting to allow children up to 26 to have health insurance on their parents' policy, and there should be coverage available for pre-existing conditions. Yet the headline read "Trump open to keeping parts of Obamacare". That's NOT true. Repeal Obamacare and allow individuals the first, and states the second (the status quo ante) and there you are. Most Republicans already agree with it, so expect Democrats to fight tooth and nail against it.
Jerry,
I agree that Joel and his like are going overboard and becoming what they say they despise...
Snopes Rape Melania
In other forums, I have publicly defended Melania, so you're wrong on that account. But you'll recall that it was Trump who bragged about sexually assaulting women. Republicans are all for things unless and until those things affect them personally. That's called hypocrisy.
"...it was reported (accurately) that Trump was expecting to allow children up to 26 to have health insurance on their parents' policy, and there should be coverage available for pre-existing conditions. Yet the headline read "Trump open to keeping parts of Obamacare". That's NOT true."
You seem to be contradicting yourself. I know you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but coverage for up to age 26 was part of the ACA, so if Trump is open to keeping it, he's open to keeping part of the ACA.
Joel
I'm sorry, I did not quote Trump exactly. I am unable to find the exact quote online, thanks to the MSM desire to paint this as a "flip-flop." All I have is having seen the exact exchange on TV, in which Trump, asked about that provision, said, "I think we can ALLOW that." Obamacare, as you may recall, mandates it. Pre-O'care some insurance companies allowed it but charged extra for it, and what's wrong with that? Again, you can repeal O'care in its entirety and "keep" that provision as it was already existing. As were the high-risk (pre-existing condition) pools that O'care eliminated by fiat. Perhaps it is more correct to say that Trump is open to "restoring" the good parts of the health care system that Obamacare took away?
Jerry,
Why do you care about semantics so much?
Whether they repeal and replace? Or give ACA a total overhaul?
It is totally immaterial and a waste of electrons... This stupid partisanship is killing America.
"Why do you care about semantics so much?"
Because it allows him to avoid saying he was wrong. We all do it to some degree from time to time.
Joel
I care about semantics because words mean things. If we do not agree on the language we are using, we cannot communicate. It is obvious that the individual mandate, the employer mandate, the coverage mandates, the Medicaid expansion and the death panels have to be eliminated. If your car needed a new engine, new transmission, new differential, new tires and a radiator, would you want to pay for the "overhaul" or would it be far cheaper and easier to just junk it and go buy a new one?
And that's rich, calling repeal of something that we KNOW is a failure "partisan" when the original passage of the legislation-- when we did not know what was in it-- was 100% a partisan exercise. Now that we know what is "in it" the only question is how partisan Democrats will be in opposition to fixing their obvious mistakes.
The reason we have a problem with "partisanship" in this country is because we don't do what makes sense anymore. One side proposes nonsense and the other side objects. We get emotional pot-stirring and name-calling rather than rational debate.
"One side proposes nonsense and the other side objects. We get emotional pot-stirring and name-calling rather than rational debate."
It is a problem the Conservatives propose nonsense like ending the individual mandates... Oh well...
OK, from the standpoint of maximizing the size of the insurance pool, mandating that people carry insurance makes sense to you. [Note it does absolutely zero for providing health CARE.] Somehow, giving people the freedom to choose a plan that they like, or to self-insure, or take the risk to save money, rather than pay a penalty to do without, and rather than forcing them to buy something they can't afford, don't want, and won't use makes MORE sense.
If you simply declare the disagreement as nonsense (or evil or stupid) you sort of close off the rational discussion.
Jerry,
I am not trying to maximize the size of the insurance pool...
I am trying to prevent free loaders from drowning the system.
You are the one who started the "nonsense" labeling... The reality is that you often write opinions as if they are fact while discounting the opinions of others who disagree.
For example: "something that we KNOW is a failure" When most of the commenters here believe it is a resounding success. And I am in the some good / some bad position.
And in this statement, who were you accusing of proposing nonsense? The Conservatives or the Liberals? Based on your history, we discriminating readers assume you are pointing for the most part at the Liberals.
"The reason we have a problem with "partisanship" in this country is because we don't do what makes sense anymore. One side proposes nonsense and the other side objects. We get emotional pot-stirring and name-calling rather than rational debate."
The idea that, in the richest nation in the history of nations, a person should need to insure themselves against a financial catastrophe due to an illness and attendant cost of care, is beyond absurd, particularly when there are nations with far less wealth who are able to care for all of their citizens.
Joel
Joel,
2 Words... Personal Responsibility...
How did folks like yourself get brainwashed into believing that someone else is supposed to pay for your care, feeding, housing and healthcare?
I will never understand this desire for healthy capable people to be firmly suckling at the "tax payer's teat" for one's whole life...
Get off your butt, get an education, get a job, save, invest, etc and pay your own way... Take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for YOUR LIFE !!!!
What do you mean "insure themselves"? Upon whom do you believe the catastrophic financial consequences of a serious illness, or the insurance against those consequences, should fall? Having insurance ought to be your choice, and you ought to pay for it if you see it as having value for you. Keep in mind that, just because you have insurance does NOT mean you have health care. There is a difference, and Obamacare doesn't do diddly for improving the availability of CARE.
Lots of people would be perfectly happy self-insuring. Taking a risk, sure, but if you are wealthy enough it doesn't matter much. And many of the "young invincibles" are bristling at the notion that they are required to buy expensive Obamacare policies when they are never going to use them. Shouldn't they have that right?
No they should not have that right.
Just like they do not have the right to drive without liability insurance.
Or the right to drive with no seat belt on. Or drive drunk.
Us adults understand that bad things can happen to "invincible young people" and therefore we make rules to protect society and them against their youth and stupidity.
As for self insuring... I guess it is okay if the upper 1% do that, but they usually know better and are not willing to risk their estate...
Really? How is health insurance like auto liability insurance? If anything, it is like collision or comprehensive coverage, both of which are optional in almost every state. Liability is required because if you DO have an accident someone else may be injured, it may be your fault and YOU have the liability. Being [unwilling and] unable to pay should not be an excuse (and yet most of us still carry uninsured motorist coverage). But if I break an arm, to whom am I liable? If I had a "collision" I would want my car or my arm fixed, and would carry insurance against that eventuality, but it should not be required by law because I am the only one who will suffer for not having that insurance. If I go into debt because of it, it is my debt and nobody else's. How much encroachment and micromanagement of personal freedom is required to keep us from all bad choices? And how? We don't prevent drunk driving or failure to use seat belts, nor can we prevent youth and stupidity.
The way to accomplish what you want is to lower the cost of health insurance and allow people to buy something tailored to them-- very low for the young invincibles with few extras, maybe high copays or catastrophic-only-- and higher for those who WANT the gold injections for their arthritis.
"that among these are life,..."
Our founding document.
Joel
Jerry,
No one has promised that you will get a new car if you smash up the old one. Therefore collision insurance is optional if you do not have a loan on the car.
However for better or worse society has promised that people will receive healthcare at society's expense if the individual can not afford it. So if that young invincible plows his car into a tree and barely lives, he will get some very expensive care. And if he can not afford to pay, society will pay the bill one way or another. (ie bankruptcy, government funding, hospital losses, etc) Therefore mandatory insurance should be required. (not to mention the pre-existing condition fraud issue)
Joel, I don't think it meant that a huge amount of money (ie happiness / security / freedom) should be taken from one citizen and given to another at the point of a gun. It is an interesting topic though.
Wiki Life...
Yes, that's what you (don't) think, John. You never fail to remind us. But does it mean that the government should be neutered and refrained from stepping in? Are you okay with people dying or becoming destitute due to unexpected illness? Where's the middle ground?
Joel
Joel, The USA currently spends ~$1 Trillion taking care of people and single parent households have increased to an all time high... (ie terrible for kids) And that does not count SS / Medicare. Unfortunately handouts drive the wrong behaviors.
I think we are at or past the middle ground. Look at where we were 60 years ago and where we are today. How much do you think is enough?
The government already seizes and uses / distributes almost 4 out of every ten dollars that is generated in the US...
Total Welfare History
Total Entitlement Spend
Why have you changed the subject to welfare?
Joel
Because Medicaid, ACA subsidies, etc are all just different forms of welfare.
And we provide food and housing to folks to keep them healthy...
We were talking about Health Care, not insurance, remember?
Joel
But since health care requires Doctors, Nurses, Facilities, Equipment, Administrators, Medicines, Supplies, etc who/that do not come for free. We are actually talking about who pays what for who for what... As usual it comes down to money...
And that money comes from "someone's" wallet directly or "someone's" wallet via and insurance payment. Now the question is who is someone?
"Now the question is who is someone?"
Well, if we're a community, it comes from the community.
Joel
"You are the one who started the "nonsense" labeling... The reality is that you often write opinions as if they are fact while discounting the opinions of others who disagree. For example: "something that we KNOW is a failure" When most of the commenters here believe it is a resounding success. And I am in the some good / some bad position." -- John
I write opinions as fact for two reasons. First, because MY opinion is a fact. You may have a counter-fact in your opinion or simply choose to prove me wrong by more objective fact; feel free. But it is also a lot easier in this limited medium to be clear and succinct, which argues for bolder though less precise, perhaps, language. We can cover the nuance if there is a desire to do so. In this case, I will agree with you there is "some good / some bad" to Obamacare. The good is that it shows that good intentions and partisan politics do not create good legislation, and that government one-size-fits-all solutions generally fit almost no one. The bad is everything else, including not meeting any of the grand promises made for it. I'll even agree that "we" do not know it is a failure because, obviously, "most of the commenters here" do not acknowledge it. But /I/ know.
"... who were you accusing of proposing nonsense? The Conservatives or the Liberals? Based on your history, we discriminating readers assume you are pointing for the most part at the Liberals." -- John
That was my point, that what is "nonsense" (and again a shorthand term for something we consider unwise) depends on your point of view, so we assume both sides do it. But you are also correct that it is my opinion that reality-denying liberals are behind most such "nonsense" proposals. And the only way to prove that one way or another, even were someone to attempt such a determination, would be an inductive proof over some lengthy period. I've satisfied myself about it that way, but YMMV.
Post a Comment