Is it wrong to vote republican out of fear of losing ones job.

[robphelan]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
The true bottom line when it comers to voting is people vote for whoever or whatever party will meet there individual needs.

People rarely vote for which party will be best for the majority of people!!

Then when you involve losing ypour job becqause the people who are best qualified to lead the country want to do away with your job or related jobd...it all of a sudden becomes a survival matter.

After all if you vote for joe blow you lose your job and your mortgage and your car and your family......I see nobody patting you on the back for voting for the good of the nation......

But I do see you on the streets with a sign saying I voted For Hillary...please feed the poor and destitute...

i certainly vote for who I think would best serve our country and who best reflects what I believe is right. I work in a VERY conservative field and i do not let that influence my vote at all. it's a matter of principle to me, not money.

i'm lucky though, i can pick up and move to just about any part of the country and get a similar job paying just as well.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Arcex

Or maybe they are excellent judges of character with a native ability to determine a political candidates views based solely on physical mannerisms. Considering how Bush's presidency turned out I'd say they made the right choice.

I figured I'd get this type of reply from someone. I'll just say that maybe you had to be there to understand what I was trying to say...

...the others here probably understood I wasn't talking about a Kerry vs. Bush decision, but rather deciding something somewhat important like POTUS based on such lofty qualifications as smile. :roll:

Chuck

 

[Aimster]

My family <3s Republicans because they swear they care more for the people.
They said when Gore was running for office, he said he was going to cut government jobs.

I don't know how reliable that is, but maybe it was an office rumor that spread. I was too young to care back then about what was coming out of the candidates mouths.

 

[Arcex]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Arcex

Or maybe they are excellent judges of character with a native ability to determine a political candidates views based solely on physical mannerisms. Considering how Bush's presidency turned out I'd say they made the right choice.

I figured I'd get this type of reply from someone. I'll just say that maybe you had to be there to understand what I was trying to say...

...the others here probably understood I wasn't talking about a Kerry vs. Bush decision, but rather deciding something somewhat important like POTUS based on such lofty qualifications as smile. :roll:

Chuck

Oh I understand exactly what you were trying to say, I was trying to be ironic by stating a theoretically possibly but wildly improbable reason for their decision.

I do agree that how a person looks has nothing to do with their validity as a political figure, it reminds me of back in '99 when a large number of people were saying they were going to vote for Bush because, and I quote, "He looks like the guy next door." Speaking for myself I don't want the average Joe in the White House, I want the person who is significantly smarter than I am, and frankly I don't feel that Bush fits that criteria.

 

[chucky2]

I don't want a super brain for the president, I want someone who's overall well rounded and who has a knack for long term picture and problem solving.

We have an overly massive government that ought to have many very smart people in their field working on problems they'll be an expert at.

The best way to solve a problem is to provide clear direction on what you want accomplished, give that problem to those capable of managing it, and turn them loose with enough money and time to accomplish the goals. Some super smart brain trying to micromanage from the top is never good...see McNamara and Vietnam.

Chuck

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: UCDAggies

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: UCDAggies
I know people who work in the healthcare insurance industry and won't vote democrat because if democrats gain to much power everyone in the industry will be out of a job, since democrats are trying to order them to shut down. Personally I think it is selfish, caring more about your jobs, than other people. We need Universal Healthcare, and voting against it to protect one self is evil.

That is quite possibly the most ignorant political statement I've heard in a while. :thumbsdown:

It is true, democrats in California voted unanimously to do the right thing and order all medical insurance companies to stop operations in California. This was to set up a state run healthcare system. But Arnold vetoed it.

Many would probably have the right qualifications to work in the new healthcare system.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
It couldn't possibly cost more than the current system.

Oh, how wrong you are. Not only could it cost more, but it would cost more.

Universal Health Care is a pipe dream. One thing no one wants to talk about is pay for the doctors and surgeons. If you fix the pay and say every Doc gets $80,000 per year salary regardless (which is what UHC systems do) you take away the incentive for people to enter the field. We're already losing many of our best and brightest to other countries, even with the current pay scales.

I will stick with the "Capitalist" Health Care system.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
It couldn't possibly cost more than the current system.

Oh, how wrong you are. Not only could it cost more, but it would cost more.

Universal Health Care is a pipe dream. One thing no one wants to talk about is pay for the doctors and surgeons. If you fix the pay and say every Doc gets $80,000 per year salary regardless (which is what UHC systems do) you take away the incentive for people to enter the field. We're already losing many of our best and brightest to other countries, even with the current pay scales.

I will stick with the "Capitalist" Health Care system.

You got a link to that and I don't mean a link about some researcher going someplace to do embryo research, I mean a link proving what your implying, that "many of our best and brightes" doctors are leaving the country and where they're going to.

 

[Fayd]

Originally posted by: UCDAggies
I know people who work in the healthcare insurance industry and won't vote democrat because if democrats gain to much power everyone in the industry will be out of a job, since democrats are trying to order them to shut down. Personally I think it is selfish, caring more about your jobs, than other people. We need Universal Healthcare, and voting against it to protect one self is evil.

ultimately, you vote for what makes you better off. that's how our government works. quit whining about it.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
It couldn't possibly cost more than the current system.

Oh, how wrong you are. Not only could it cost more, but it would cost more.

Universal Health Care is a pipe dream. One thing no one wants to talk about is pay for the doctors and surgeons. If you fix the pay and say every Doc gets $80,000 per year salary regardless (which is what UHC systems do) you take away the incentive for people to enter the field. We're already losing many of our best and brightest to other countries, even with the current pay scales.

I will stick with the "Capitalist" Health Care system.

You got a link to that and I don't mean a link about some researcher going someplace to do embryo research, I mean a link proving what your implying, that "many of our best and brightes" doctors are leaving the country and where they're going to.

I love it when people bring up physician pay. Pediatricians and family physicians RARELY (if ever) complain about pay. We currently have an extremely expensive healthcare system b/c Americans are using more care and more of that care is specialist facilities, procedures, medications, and clinicians. Accordingly, if you institute a system of health maintenance and disease prevention then you will have a dramatic decline in specialty care.

The impact of the 'best and brightest' MD that keeps his patients healthy is FAR greater than an elite cardiothoracic surgeon. The difference being you can get several of the former for each of the latter.

Pabster is FOP. There aren't any clinicians leaving America for greener pastures . . . where would they go . . . the personal staff of the Sultan of Brunei?

If all hospitals were as efficient as the best (quality) low-cost facilities then annual health care spendng on hospitals and MDs could fall by up to 30%/ year. Hospitals should be a primary target b/c they constitute 1/3 of all health care spending. MDs are 1/5. Nursing home/home health and prescription drugs are more than 10% each and both are rising quickly. Health care administration is under 8% but that's a function of such a large portion of health care being administered by the GOVERNMENT (Medicare/Medicaid). Increases in administrative costs have been driven almost exclusively by PRIVATE entities.

Health care spending (per capita) doubled from 1992 to 2004. Only a fat fool with good coverage (say Dick Cheney) would say this spending actually increased the quality of care.