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

Would you consider this pandering to the "less fortunate"?

2007-08-10 06:36:49 · 26 answers · asked by Abu#2 4 in Politics & Government Politics

26 answers

That is the logic used by liberals to buy votes.

2007-08-10 06:40:53 · answer #1 · answered by Pro-American 3 · 5 4

"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

This has been attributed to numerous authors, usually either Alexander Tyler or Alexander Fraser Tytler, although it's never been verified that either one actually said it. Either way though, it's a telling bit of logic. Why WOULDN'T you vote yourself a big gift from the "public" coffers? They're filled up by people richer than you! Until of course the rich are brought down to your level, and suddenly you're the one who has to support everyone below you. Eventually there's a collapse, because nobody has enough money to pay the bills. Nothing is free, it's just a question of who has to pay.

2007-08-10 15:02:47 · answer #2 · answered by Bigsky_52 6 · 1 0

Since most people without health care are poor and/or uneducated, they are not generally the type of people who vote. However, if the poor and/or uneducated do vote, it is almost entirely democrat, so I don't know if the health insurance promises make an impact. I would still call it pandering.

2007-08-10 13:45:42 · answer #3 · answered by Brad the Fox 3 · 1 1

I can not afford health insurance. I am already old, and I have never been covered by health insurance, on or off the job. No, I would not vote for "free" health insurance. 50 years ago, they calculated that for every dollar in benefits (health, roads, you name it) it cost $100. Think what it is today.
My biggest objection is that such a plan would be like the "assisted income" programs in Florida and other states: you can wait the entire day, be yelled at, cursed at, spend hours trying to convince someone that you have a health problem, probably will not get enough medication, get the wrong medication, etc.
In other words, no doctor is better than theirs.

2007-08-10 13:43:27 · answer #4 · answered by Nothingusefullearnedinschool 7 · 3 2

If you don't have health insurance why wouldn't you earn it by your own merit rather than voting for someone that is going to give it to you for free ( free meaning paid for by some other person who has enough self-respect to have a job and pay taxes) ?

2007-08-10 13:44:10 · answer #5 · answered by General Leon Pleasant 6 · 1 1

For many of the Clinton years I was not permanently employed (not his fault BTW) and had no medical coverage. I did not support universal Health care then because I knew my situation would change, and more government programs would mean more taxes, more bureaucracy, and less choices for everyone who would already be covered under their private insurance plan.

2007-08-10 13:52:52 · answer #6 · answered by SteveA8 6 · 3 0

Free health insurance. I've never heard of that one before.

I think what you must be thinking is a national health INSURANCE policy. Everyone pays in an equal percentage of their income, and get equal amounts of health care and prescription coverage. 17 other countries have been doing it for decades and have health care system far superior to ours at a much lower cost.

But free? No, you're dreaming.

2007-08-10 13:47:51 · answer #7 · answered by Mezmarelda 6 · 0 1

I didnt have health insurance. I purchased it myself until I did have health insurance.

When people do not have to pay for something, they will abuse it. Maybe not you but its human nature.

Right now Medicaid is one of the most abused GOVT programs and it offers health insurance to those that acnnot afford it. It costs the tax payers billions.

Nobody can be denied treatment from a public hospital. A national health care system would bankrupt this nation faster than any war could hope to do. Who would pay for it? Tax payers and no thanks, I like pay too much in taxes as it is.

2007-08-10 13:46:59 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

Nothings free dude.

Here is where we pay for it:

1. Taxes will skyrocket. How else will they pay for it? Taxes are like to be as high as what you would pay for a great medical insurance policy right now, not including discounted group rates or as an employment benifit.

2. The quality of medical care as a whole will drop significantly, look at the VA and/or Canada's health care system. They both suck.

The only people who won't pay for it i.e. taxes are the people who will use it the most, welfare, homeless, etc.

2007-08-10 13:43:22 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4 2

Its possible that the other opinions and views about other things may not be agreeable with a person.
Yeah maybe they'll get health insurance, but other things that the candidate will change may not be suitable for this person.

2007-08-10 13:42:30 · answer #10 · answered by Sydney bby. 1 · 1 0

Nothing is free .so what you really mean is vote for the person who will take money from someone else and pay for your insurance.

2007-08-10 14:02:11 · answer #11 · answered by hdean45 6 · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers