English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I always find it funny how people (especially Democrats) do not trust Bush/the government etc. and yet they want the government to control healthcare, welfare, etc.

They are against privitization of social security, against school choice, against privitization of relief efforts (faith based initiatives) despite the fact that private organizations and competition have proved time and again to be more effective and efficient than the bloated government bureaucracy.

How long have you waited in line at the DMV - and you want that to be what your hospitals are like?? The government can't even deliver the mail on time, and you entrust such a large percertage of your income to them, and you want government programs to increase?

I hear rants all the time about government corruption and big money, and people in big business lobbyists pulling the strings without the consent of the people... so stop giving them so much money and support tax cuts and program cuts! Where is the logic?

2007-03-15 07:23:47 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

"A government is a body of people, usually, notably ungoverned." - Shepherd Book in Firefly

2007-03-15 07:41:20 · update #1

26 answers

I will provide my own health insurance. I thought Hillary had this all figured out for us.

2007-03-15 07:31:09 · answer #1 · answered by RUSH MAKES OBAMA CRY !! A LOT !! 5 · 0 1

As far as your beginning premise, we tend not to trust our government BLINDLY, big difference. I thought Clinton was a far better President than Bush, but that didn't mean I trusted his Administration blindly. That is just foolishness, and is part of being an American - we constantly question our government, no matter who is in charge.

I think it's way past time that the federal government look at providing healthcare for every citizen of the United States. The present healthcare system is a disaster for millions of Americans. Those who are behind the push for Universal Healthcare have acknowledged the problems it has created in other countries like Canada and England. They aim to look at those problems and solve them before they begin in our own system. I know I'm willing to listen to what they have to say before I approve or disapprove of going with Universal Healthcare. A real plan hasn't been submitted to the American people yet, and I think I'll wait to examine it before I jump on one side or the other.

As a side note: The DMV has gotten much better. Now you spend half the time waiting that you did ten years ago. I've lived in two different states in the last ten years and there was a notable improvement in both states.

2007-03-15 07:41:11 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

PPACA, called Obamacare by Repubicans, is not a government insurance plan or a government take over of health care. If you want opinions about Government Healh Care, UHC, then you should address this question to people living in countries which have UHC. We don't have UHC in America and there no immediate plans to have it. On paper, I think it sounds fine, but not sure how it would work in the US. American 'conservatives' don't have any personal experience with UHC.

2016-03-16 21:07:58 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

No kidding. How is anyone supposed to trust a government that spent billions of dollars on trailers for Katrina victims who couldn't use them to control their health? To me, it's pure lunacy; the only reason to support it is because it would support everyone.

THe problem is that if it comes down to either bad service for everyone or better service for fewer people, someone may not end up being covered. At some level, we have to say sorry, but the people who get worse health care would pay for the change.

2007-03-15 07:27:59 · answer #4 · answered by fjdskla;hgihow 1 · 1 0

as someone already stated... Corperate America is deserving of even less trust... if you follow it... take a peek at the industrial revolution or what they are doing in third world countries...

basically, when companies get involved... profit becomes paramount over people...

basically... it's who do you trust more... government or big business...

and I don't think either are "worthy" of trust... based on their track record...

and I've known many that have waited hours for service at the ER the way they are now... and had problems with UPS getting things shipped on time...

I'm just saying... corperations aren't some "miracle" solve all where everything is great either...

at least we can VOTE PEOPLE OUT in government... and affect real change... unless you're on the board of directors... companies can do whatever they want inside the law...

2007-03-15 07:39:05 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

"Do not trust the government" is rather like saying
"Do not trust people".

The Bush administration is a separate entity than
the vast throng of civil servants that run such things
as medicare, social security, etc.

I'm not saying that the civil servants are perfect,
but they are not the corrupt Bush administration.
They may even be corrupt by themselves, but it
isn't the same thing as the Whitehouse.

Clearly there are problems with nationalizing things
that need to be well thought out, or the world will
end up resembling one great big line at the DMV.

That doesn't, however, refute the argument.
Some things work, somethings don't, some things
sort of work ... you fix what doesn't, not distrust the
entire entity to do anything other than fight wars.

2007-03-15 07:29:53 · answer #6 · answered by Elana 7 · 2 2

I'm a conservative, I don't trust Bush, I don't trust the government, and I think the government should keep its hands off health care, schools, etc.

2007-03-15 07:50:31 · answer #7 · answered by ? 6 · 1 0

I don't know how I feel about universal healthcare. Unlike most people, I see pros AND cons for it, so I haven't exactly decided about it yet.

However, any universal healthcare system would have very concrete rules, just like any other government-run program. And it would need oversight, just like any other government-run program. It would be budgeted, just like any other government-run program. There are ways to keep tabs on things.

George Bush wouldn't be in charge of it.

2007-03-15 07:34:18 · answer #8 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 1 1

I trust many branches of Government. Like the USMC or the VA.

I don't trust the Administration. In fact I have never trusted any administration.

Go big Red Go

2007-03-15 07:34:30 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Simple: the Democrats want to control every aspect of your life.

Government controlled programs are like taxes, once in place it takes an act of GOD to get rid of them. Look at the phone tax. This was enacted to pay for the Spanish American War, which is long since been over but the tax was just repealed in 2006. Income tax was only for folks that made over $500,000 a year, now its everybody.

Welfare was created to help people that were out of work until they found another job. Yet today there are people that have been on it all of their adult lives, worse yet, their children and children's lives.

Government was ment to take care of the things that effect the NATION not individual people. Its time government got back to doing what was designed to do...stay out of the peoples every day lives.

2007-03-15 07:35:25 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

"I always find it funny how people (especially Democrats) do not trust Bush/the government etc. and yet they want the government to control healthcare, welfare, etc. "

They do not trust or like the Bush government because he supports the privatization of a lot of things that they believe should not be private.

It's easy to make a mockery of their standpoints, but, honestly, they aren't wrong every time.

I am an independent, and as far as health care and welfare and all that goes, he democrats have a more even-handed policy... one that protects our assets and supports patriotism. Do you really want all the poor people to waste away and their children to die off because they are incapable of providing for them?

I mean, I don't care about lazy poor people, but when they have a kid, that's different. You have to be human, first, and then political.

Do you really want poor people being forced into committing MORE crimes to feed themselves?

Privatization of social security allows for people to make horrible mistakes that hurt everyone else later. If it was just the dude being poor and then dying after he was age 55 or whatever, that would be one thing, but in reality, I'm going to have to deal with him asking me for money, possibly robbing me, or selling drugs to my kids.

Screw that, take my tax dollars and keep that crap from happening.

Here's one for you... stop wasting my money sending troops to Iraq, putting ads on TV about how bad smoking is, and spending my cash to pay for police officers who are seriously borderline mentally retarded.

Take all that cash and use it to progress science. Once energy is no longer a problem, dems and reps will get along fine.

2007-03-15 07:33:54 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 3 2

fedest.com, questions and answers