Who do you REALLY side with?
-
Rick Santorum 80%
I side the most with Rick Santorum on issues of Immigration, the Environment, and Healthcare. More infoBuddy Roemer 74%
I side the most with Buddy Roemer on issues of Domestic policy and Healthcare. More infoMitt Romney 67%
I side the most with Mitt Romney on issues of Domestic policy and the Environment. More infoRon Paul 63%
I side the most with Ron Paul on issues of Domestic policy, Immigration, and the Environment. More info -
Ron Paul
I side the most with Ron Paul on issues of Domestic policy, the Economy, Immigration, and Foreign Policy. More info
80%
Gary Johnson
I side the most with Gary Johnson on issues of Domestic policy, Foreign Policy, Healthcare, Social, and the Economy. More info
79%
Jimmy McMillan
I side the most with Jimmy McMillan on issues of Immigration, the Economy, Healthcare, Domestic policy, and Foreign Policy. More info
75%
R. Lee Wrights
I side the most with R. Lee Wrights on issues of Domestic policy, the Economy, and Foreign Policy. More info
69%
Barack Obama
I side the most with Barack Obama on issues of the Environment and Science. More info
64%
Rick Santorum
I side the most with Rick Santorum on issues of Immigration, Domestic policy, and the Economy. More info
62%
Kent Mesplay
I side the most with Kent Mesplay on issues of Domestic policy and Science. More info
61%
Mitt Romney
I side the most with Mitt Romney on issues of Domestic policy and Science. More info
52%
Buddy Roemer
I side the most with Buddy Roemer on issues of Domestic policy. More info
44%
Newt Gingrich
I side the most with Newt Gingrich on issues of Domestic policy. More info
41%
Fred Karger
I side the most with Fred Karger on issues of Social. More infoWho you side with by party...
82%
Libertarian
69%
Democratic
62%
Green
48%
Republican -
90%
Ron Paul
I side the most with Ron Paul on issues of Foreign Policy, Domestic policy, the Economy, the Environment, and Social. More info85%
R. Lee Wrights
I side the most with R. Lee Wrights on issues of Foreign Policy, Domestic policy, the Economy, Social, Healthcare, and Science. More info82%
Rick Santorum
I side the most with Rick Santorum on issues of the Environment, Immigration, Domestic policy, Healthcare, and Social. More info75%
Gary Johnson
I side the most with Gary Johnson on issues of Foreign Policy, Domestic policy, Healthcare, the Economy, and Science. More info68%
Mitt Romney
I side the most with Mitt Romney on issues of the Environment and Healthcare. More info64%
Newt Gingrich
I side the most with Newt Gingrich on issues of the Environment, Healthcare, and Social. More info -
My chart probably indicates why I don't like most candidates or their parties.
-
80% Rick Santorum
I side the most with Rick Santorum on issues of the Economy, Domestic policy, Healthcare, and the Environment.77% Mitt Romney
I side the most with Mitt Romney on issues of Domestic policy, Healthcare, and the Environment.73% Newt Gingrich
I side the most with Newt Gingrich on issues of Domestic policy, Healthcare, and the Environment.64% Buddy Roemer
I side the most with Buddy Roemer on issues of Domestic policy and Healthcare.61% Gary Johnson
I side the most with Gary Johnson on issues of the Economy, Domestic policy, Healthcare, and Science.57% R. Lee Wrights
I side the most with R. Lee Wrights on issues of Domestic policy and Science.56% Ron Paul
I side the most with Ron Paul on issues of Domestic policy and the Environment.49% Barack Obama
I side the most with Barack Obama on issues of Domestic policy.28% Fred Karger
I side the most with Fred Karger on issues of Domestic policy.25% Jimmy McMillan
I do not side with Jimmy McMillan on any major issues.18% Kent Mesplay
I do not side with Kent Mesplay on any major issues.77% Republican
58% Libertarian
49% Democratic
18% Green -
The questoin about health insurers and birth control had no good answer, so i chose other:
"Health insurers can cover birth control if they want to. But the government should have no authority to compel an insurer to provide any product or service whatsoever. The government certainly shouldn't have the authority to compel an insurer to provide a particular product at a particular price"
-
DaveH;326598 wrote:
Agree^^^I don't know how the government thinks it should be able to tell an insurance company what they "have to" cover in their policies.
I mean, if they want to attract certain "customers", they will offer the coverage. If not, people can go elsewhere, no?
-
ah the free market.... a beautiful thing.
-
People seem to forget the meaning and intent of the word "insurance" when it comes to health. They use "health care" and "health insurance" interchangeably. You hear things like "we must make birth control available to everyone". It's available. Go buy it. With money. Being fertile is not some unexpected circumstance brought upon a woman by accident or misfortune...
-
[email protected];326602 wrote:
People seem to forget the meaning and intent of the word "insurance" when it comes to health. They use "health care" and "health insurance" interchangeably. You hear things like "we must make birth control available to everyone". It's available. Go buy it. With money. Being fertile is not some unexpected circumstance brought upon a woman by accident or misfortune...Nowadays the buzz word "available" seems to mean "free".
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
DaveH;326604 wrote:
Nowadays the buzz word "available" seems to mean "free".But, to some people saying "Yes, that IS available" still makes it unattainable. A Bugatti Veyron is AVAILABLE, but it is not attainable by most people. (Not referencing contraceptive's here specifically... free contraceptives have been available for free ever since Nixon signed a law funding planned parenthood back in the 70's.... that socialist bastard!)
I find it fundamentally wrong that the more money you have the more likely you are to have advanced healthcare options. If every life is precious and must be protected while it is in the womb, the same rules should apply once they are born.
Currently about 45,000 people per year die due to lack of insurance. What if just one of them turned out to be the next Einstein or Reagan?
The more I study it, the more I think single payer makes sense....at least in theory
-
78%
Gary Johnson
I side the most with Gary Johnson on issues of Social, Domestic policy, Healthcare, and the Economy. More info
74%
R. Lee Wrights
I side the most with R. Lee Wrights on issues of Domestic policy, the Economy, and Healthcare. More info
72%
Ron Paul
I side the most with Ron Paul on issues of Domestic policy, the Economy, and Healthcare. More info
58%
Mitt Romney
I side the most with Mitt Romney on issues of Domestic policy and Science. More info
56%
Rick Santorum
I side the most with Rick Santorum on issues of Domestic policy, Healthcare, Immigration, and the Economy. More info
56%
Jimmy McMillan
I side the most with Jimmy McMillan on issues of the Economy and Domestic policy. More info
56%
Kent Mesplay
I side the most with Kent Mesplay on issues of Domestic policy and Science. More info
53%
Newt Gingrich
I side the most with Newt Gingrich on issues of Domestic policy and Healthcare. More info
50%
Barack Obama
I side the most with Barack Obama on issues of Science and the Environment. More info
48%
Buddy Roemer
I side the most with Buddy Roemer on issues of Healthcare and Domestic policy. More info
45%77%
Libertarian
56%
Green
50%
Republican
50%
Democratic -
Trafik Jamz;326605 wrote:
I find it fundamentally wrong that the more money you have the more likely you are to have advanced healthcare options.The more money you have the more likely you are to have nutritious food, a nice warm place to call home, and pretty much everything else in life. Should the government intervene in everything we do to make sure poor people have the same quality of stuff as more wealthy people?
Trafik Jamz;326605 wrote:
If every life is precious and must be protected while it is in the womb, the same rules should apply once they are born.Wow, thats quite a stretch. Being protected from being killed is quite different from being guaranteed "free" medical care, don't you think?
Trafik Jamz;326605 wrote:
Currently about 45,000 people per year die due to lack of insurance. What if just one of them turned out to be the next Einstein or Reagan? The more I study it, the more I think single payer makes sense....at least in theoryIn reality, most die from poor life choices, not lack of insurance. Perhaps the government should attack the root cause instead of waiting for the treatment stage. We should all be given 3 nutritious meals per day, a nice one-bedroom apartment, be forced to exercise 30 minutes a day (to be verified by big brother), anyone caught smoking, drinking, or anything else harmful to our health shall be placed in a government institution and weaned off the offending substance before being sent back, etc etc....
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
DaveH;326610 wrote:
The more money you have the more likely you are to have nutritious food, a nice warm place to call home, and pretty much everything else in life. Should the government intervene in everything we do to make sure poor people have the same quality of stuff as more wealthy people?In reality, most die from poor life choices, not lack of insurance. Perhaps the government should attack the root cause instead of waiting for the treatment stage. We should all be given 3 nutritious meals per day, a nice one-bedroom apartment, be forced to exercise 30 minutes a day (to be verified by big brother), anyone caught smoking, drinking, or anything else harmful to our health shall be placed in a government institution and weaned off the offending substance before being sent back, etc etc....
Troof, poor people are generally poor due to their poor decision making.
-
DaveH;326610 wrote:
The more money you have the more likely you are to have nutritious food, a nice warm place to call home, and pretty much everything else in life. Should the government intervene in everything we do to make sure poor people have the same quality of stuff as more wealthy people? They already do to a degree with the foodstamp programWow, thats quite a stretch. Being protected from being killed is quite different from being guaranteed "free" medical care, don't you think?
I never said free. Nothing is free. But they should be able to get the same basic care to keep them from dying that a more well to do person would. There will always be haves/have not's. I get that. What I don't get is why your ability to stay alive should be dependent on how much money you make.
In reality, most die from poor life choices, not lack of insurance. Perhaps the government should attack the root cause instead of waiting for the treatment stage. We should all be given 3 nutritious meals per day, a nice one-bedroom apartment, be forced to exercise 30 minutes a day (to be verified by big brother), anyone caught smoking, drinking, or anything else harmful to our health shall be placed in a government institution and weaned off the offending substance before being sent back, etc etc....
Life choices account for a large part, I can agree with that. And I really don't want the gov't telling anyone that they HAVE to do anything.
(Hypothetically speaking from this point on) IF there were a single payer system (or universal multipayer), I'm 100% ok with surcharges for people who knowing choose an unhealthy lifestyle. If you are fat, you are a higher risk, you need to pay MORE for coverage. If you smoke, you pay more. If you do drugs you pay more. Etc, etc, etc... And single payer isn't 100% accurate on how I'd want it done either. I'd rather see a German type system where you choose the coverage you want (basic coverage to keep you alive if you do get sick) but it is a universal multi-payer system. Multiple PRIVATE insurance companies provide the coverage, however the fed pays the bill for the base coverage.... if you want more/specific coverage, you pay out of pocket for that.
So I guess to answer thrash's question, I worded my own statement wrong/poorly. I think everyone has the right to life saving procedures and treatments beyond emergency room care (providing industry standard care for cancer, etc...) However, if you want experimental/high tech/advanced treatments beyond the normal scope, I'm ok with being able to pay that out of pocket or with specialized supplemental coverage.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login