Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As a liberal, I love talking politics, even with conservatives. In any debate, it's always important to try to understand the other person's view, even if you don't agree with it. But it's hard to debate with someone when both sides can't even agree on the facts.
I was having a discussion with some coworkers about health care reform. They're all conservatives who are strongly opposed to any type of public option. But what's interesting is how many of them don't even see the need for any reform. First, they all dispute the number of uninsured Americans. They contend that it's temporary and that most of the uninsured are either illegal aliens, people on welfare, or people too lazy to find a job. In other words, they've bought into the stereotypes. Second, they maintain that rising health care costs aren't hurting employers and that employers shouldn't be forced to provide health care coverage. They claim that it's cheaper for the individual to buy private insurance on their own. What's funny is all of them are getting insurance through their employer. Third, they think that government provided insurance will drive private insurance companies out of business. To me, that's a laughable claim. After all, the U.S. postal service hasn't exactly driven FedEx and UPS out of business.
Anyways, it's really hard to get into a debate with folks like this because I feel like I want to pull my hair out sometimes. I had one coworker claim that gay marriage was a more important issue than the war in Iraq. I had another say he's in support of torture and that anything less would be treating suspects like royalty. To me, these views just don't make any sense to me. How do some people prioritize gay marriage over a war? How does people not have a problem with torture?
i would like to see less regulation and less reliance on insurance companies. i want people to pay out of pocket more frequently so they are more cost conscious.
As a liberal, I love talking politics, even with conservatives. In any debate, it's always important to try to understand the other person's view, even if you don't agree with it. But it's hard to debate with someone when both sides can't even agree on the facts.
I was having a discussion with some coworkers about health care reform. They're all conservatives who are strongly opposed to any type of public option. But what's interesting is how many of them don't even see the need for any reform. First, they all dispute the number of uninsured Americans. They contend that it's temporary and that most of the uninsured are either illegal aliens, people on welfare, or people too lazy to find a job. In other words, they've bought into the stereotypes. Second, they maintain that rising health care costs aren't hurting employers and that employers shouldn't be forced to provide health care coverage. They claim that it's cheaper for the individual to buy private insurance on their own. What's funny is all of them are getting insurance through their employer. Third, they think that government provided insurance will drive private insurance companies out of business. To me, that's a laughable claim. After all, the U.S. postal service hasn't exactly driven FedEx and UPS out of business.
Anyways, it's really hard to get into a debate with folks like this because I feel like I want to pull my hair out sometimes. I had one coworker claim that gay marriage was a more important issue than the war in Iraq. I had another say he's in support of torture and that anything less would be treating suspects like royalty. To me, these views just don't make any sense to me. How do some people prioritize gay marriage over a war? How does people not have a problem with torture?
By your location in the midwest I can deduce the so called conservatives you were talking to were most likely right wing neocon Christian Evangelicals. Is that an accurate assesment?
Most conservatives know reform is needed in healthcare. It is just how we go about it.
i would like to see less regulation and less reliance on insurance companies. i want people to pay out of pocket more frequently so they are more cost conscious.
While I agree that people should have more financial incentive to take better care of themselves, I don't believe doing nothing is better than socialization. Doing nothing will make things worse. Costs will continue to rise and more people will lose coverage. As for having less regulation, I'm amazed that anyone still thinks this is good. If the stuff that went on with the banking industry showed anything, it's the industry can't be expected to police themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleanhouse
By your location in the midwest I can deduce the so called conservatives you were talking to were most likely right wing neocon Christian Evangelicals. Is that an accurate assesment?
Most conservatives know reform is needed in healthcare. It is just how we go about it.
Actually, none of them strike me as overly religious. They seem to be more of the fiscal conservative crowd, the people who bought into Reaganomics and supply-siders.
Well, your friends are somewhat correct that many uninsured Americans are so on a temporary basis. Since the majority receive health insurance through their employers, the massive layoffs and job cuts that have occurred since late last year have really added to the toll of uninsured. The problem is, if you do not work, or are working part time, odds are you do not have any sort of health coverage.
I would rather see a health insurance option with a cost based on the income of the recipient. For example, if you make x amount of money, you only have to pay a certain % towards your health insurance. The more money you make, the greater the % ratio against your income, for a maximum cap of say... 15%. If you do not work, and receive SSI or other welfare benefits, you still have to chip in, with a deduction from said SSI/welfare check. The only problem of course is even though some people paid more into the system, others who pay much less would get the exact same service....
While I agree that people should have more financial incentive to take better care of themselves, I don't believe doing nothing is better than socialization. Doing nothing will make things worse. Costs will continue to rise and more people will lose coverage. As for having less regulation, I'm amazed that anyone still thinks this is good. If the stuff that went on with the banking industry showed anything, it's the industry can't be expected to police themselves.
i have health insurance. my employees that earn minimum wage, cant speak english, have no education have health insurance that the company pays for. things arent so terrible.
less regulation can cut costs by allowing more competition in what people want to pay for. a doctor goes through many years of school and work before they can earn real money. ultimately, that makes their rate very expensive. however, what if i can choose to go to someone with very little education for simple medical issues. that will cut costs.
this is different than the financial industry and it isnt lack of regulation that caused that mess anyway. it was government interference.
Please don't confuse Conservative with Republican, there was nothing Conservative about Bush's Administration and most Conservatives have abandoned the GOP to Limbaughs Lemmings. That is why there are now more Independents than Republicans. If the Libertarians weren't so true to their platform they would probably be the second party by now.
Please don't confuse Conservative with Republican, there was nothing Conservative about Bush's Administration and most Conservatives have abandoned the GOP to Limbaughs Lemmings. That is why there are now more Independents than Republicans. If the Libertarians weren't so true to their platform they would probably be the second party by now.
i was at the dentist recently and they wanted to do a bunch of work on me. first thing i did when i sat down was i asked them if i have to get this done and that, etc. they immediately asked if i have dental coverage and said they have options for me. they knew that when people show concern about expense, it means they are paying out of pocket. when people arent concerned, they can do everything they want because the big faceless insurance company is paying it.
people being more concerned about the cost would cut the expense tremendously.
As a liberal, I love talking politics, even with conservatives. In any debate, it's always important to try to understand the other person's view, even if you don't agree with it. But it's hard to debate with someone when both sides can't even agree on the facts.
I was having a discussion with some coworkers about health care reform. They're all conservatives who are strongly opposed to any type of public option. But what's interesting is how many of them don't even see the need for any reform. First, they all dispute the number of uninsured Americans. They contend that it's temporary
It's always easier to bash "conservatives" for saying silly things, when those "conservatives" aren't around to defend themselves, isn't it?
And/or when they maybe never said such things in the first place... again, how convenient that they aren't here to debunk the accusations.
Quote:
In other words, they've bought into the stereotypes.
Well, someone certainly has.
Quote:
They claim that it's cheaper for the individual to buy private insurance on their own. What's funny is all of them are getting insurance through their employer.
And when you pointed out this apparent contradiction to them, they said... what? I didn't notice any followup. Oops, they're not here to defend their words, are they.
Quote:
Third, they think that government provided insurance will drive private insurance companies out of business. To me, that's a laughable claim. After all, the U.S. postal service hasn't exactly driven FedEx and UPS out of business.
Did they point out that the govt made no law fining or forbidding UPS, FedEx etc. to carrry packages... unlike some of the proposed universal health care laws? Oh, I forgot... the ones you asked, aren't here to point this out.
Quote:
Anyways, it's really hard to get into a debate with folks like this
Understandably so. When the liberal rattles off a bunch of questions, then runs away without trying to conttinue the debate and chortles about it on a computer in his basement where they can't hear him, debate IS "really hard".
Quote:
To me, these views just don't make any sense to me.
And you seem to be doing your best to make sure it stays that way.
Do you play with yourself this way, often?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
