Summary of political beliefs
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 18, 2024, 11:23:55 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Summary of political beliefs
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30 31 ... 63
Author Topic: Summary of political beliefs  (Read 556515 times)
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #625 on: October 15, 2011, 12:05:28 AM »
« edited: October 15, 2011, 02:47:14 AM by Marokai Breakneck »

Foreign Issues.

Military Spending: The current level of "defense" spending is insane and has gotten completely out of control. Our defense budget has doubled since 9/11, and we spend an absurd amount of money on programs that have long outlived their usefulness. We could dramatically cut back on defense spending and still far-and-away be the largest military power on the planet. I certainly support closing down half or more of our bases overseas and bringing home most of our troops abroad.

Iraq: Complete withdrawal, limited foreign aid.

Afghanistan: Complete withdrawal, limited foreign aid.

Libya: I support our current level of intervention in Libya.

Diplomacy/Sanctions: Talking to people is a good thing, and our leaders should do more of that, than bluster. I'm generally of the mind that sanctions are a very cruel and ineffective policy for getting our way, as they don't punish leaders, just innocent people who live there.

Miscellaneous:
  • My general approach to dealing with terrorism is pretty much what Obama has been doing; targeted military strikes, intelligence gathering, and a law enforcement focus.
  • I very strongly believe in a two-state solution in Israel, but Israel needs to stop thinking they can do everything they want with no consequences.
  • I support ending most military aid for middle-eastern countries. It's done far more harm than good.
  • I support getting rid of the trade embargo on Cuba.
  • I very very very strongly oppose any sort of doctrine of "pre-emptive war."
  • I support banning the use of private military contractors, or at the very least, dramatically increasing oversight and ensuring accountability when their members inevitably do stupid things.

Electoral Issues/Government.

Voting Regulations: I support automatic voter registration, and oppose photo-ID laws, as they are mostly used as political tools to disadvantage young people, poor people, and minorities. I also support making election day a federal holiday, to increase turnout as much as possible.

Elections: America has some of the lowest average voter turnout in elections among other modern democracies. I believe this is one of the root causes of our government's paralysis and inability to tackle issues, and if it continues, it will lead to nothing good. I support implementing an STV voting system as well as making voting compulsory.

The Senate: I support abolishing the filibuster, as it's increasingly making legislating an impossibility. More overall, though, I support abolishing the Senate entirely. It's a useless anachronism that serves no purpose since we made them democratically elected. It slows down all legislating and has hurt our ability to compete with other modern democracies that follow the crazy idea of "If you get the majority, you govern freely." I also believe it's insane that Wyoming recieved an equal number of Senators as California. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Sorry, Wyoming.

Referenda: I do not believe that individuals can be trusted to make good decisions directly. I also do not believe that issues like minority rights are something we should put on a ballot. Human rights are not up for a popular vote. I support saving the people from themselves, by banning all voter initiatives nation-wide, as well as limiting, or abolishing outright, recall elections. People make decisions, they should learn to live with them, or be smart enough not to make them the next time.

Electoral College: Though up until recently I actually continued to defend the electoral college, recent events have brought me around. It's an insane undemocratic system that should be done away with. The popular vote should reign as the determining factor in electing a president.

Miscellaneous:
  • I oppose the idea of a line-item veto for the President, or any state Governors.
  • I oppose electing judges. They should all be appointed.
  • I oppose allocating electoral votes by congressional district, it's insanely undemocratic and by far disproportionately benefits rural areas.
  • I support independent redistricting boards for all states. No gerrymandering!
  • In addition to abolishing the Senate, I support increasing House terms to 4 years. Most other countries do not have elections with the frequency we do, for good reason.
  • I very strongly support abolishing most county governments, consolidating them into a more region-based system of local government. Devolution of powers is good, just not taken to the current extreme.
  • I support an Amendment requiring a Supreme Court Justice to step down once they reach a certain age.
  • I support any efforts to make all election campaigns entirely publicly financed.
Logged
RI
realisticidealist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,687


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #626 on: October 15, 2011, 12:57:31 AM »

Can we just sticky this thread?
Logged
Rochambeau jk I'm Hamilton
Conservatarian1989
Rookie
**
Posts: 110
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #627 on: October 15, 2011, 09:04:51 PM »

Social Issues:

Abortion: I am pro-life, except in the case when a mother's life's in danger.

Death Penalty: Oppose!!!!!!!!!!!

Drugs: Legalize marijuana! FREE THE WEED! FREE THE WEED! Oh, and oppose war on drugs.

Euthanasia: Legalize it.

Gay Rights: I support gay rights, all of it. Marriage, adoption, pillow fights etc. I go both ways occasionally, don't like labels! Stick it to the fundies!

Gun Rights: I support the 2nd amendment.

Immigration: Deport the illegals, and would support SB 1070 but it needs to be more clarified.

Prostitution: Legalize it! Legalize it! It'd be safer for them just to do it legally...like fo reals.


Separation of Church and State: Go away fundies. I will eat your souls.

Stem Cell Research: I'm Pro-Life, therefore oppose stem cell research of any kind.


Economic Issues:

Affirmative Action: Oppose.

Education: Idc about this issue.

Environment: Screw the hippies. Economy > Hippies

Fiscal Policy: I am a follower of Coolidge, Taft, etc....


Health Care: I oppose government healthcare.



Social Security: Privatize it, completely. KTHANXBAI

Taxation: I want a flat 10% income tax rate. I want to illegalize estate, gas, and other small useless taxes.

Unions: I oppose the unions. Screw them, and screw their bosses.



Foreign Issues:

I don't care at all about foreign policy, but I'm somewhat neoconservative, eh.
Logged
Cincinnatus
JBach717
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,092
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #628 on: October 15, 2011, 09:35:54 PM »

You had me thinking you were another Paultard until you described yourself as a neo-con.
Logged
Rochambeau jk I'm Hamilton
Conservatarian1989
Rookie
**
Posts: 110
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #629 on: October 15, 2011, 09:38:37 PM »

You had me thinking you were another Paultard until you described yourself as a neo-con.

Nah, Ron Paul's too much for me. He cares about the wrong issues imho. I only care about two things: 1. Capitalism being King 2. Weed.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,385
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #630 on: October 15, 2011, 10:17:08 PM »

You had me thinking you were another Paultard until you described yourself as a neo-con.

Nah, Ron Paul's too much for me. He cares about the wrong issues imho. I only care about two things: 1. Capitalism being King 2. Weed.

You'll fit in well here.
Logged
courts
Ghost_white
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,463
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #631 on: October 15, 2011, 10:21:44 PM »

You had me thinking you were another Paultard until you described yourself as a neo-con.

His initials wouldn't happen to be JC, would they?
Logged
Lucius Quintus Cincinatus Lamar
amcculloum
Rookie
**
Posts: 114


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: 4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #632 on: October 17, 2011, 10:02:24 PM »

It’s been a while since anyone has used this thread but I'd like to revive it and add some detail to what I posted back in June when I was really new to this site. I mostly changed the economic and foreign policy parts since those were skimpy:


Social Issues:

Abortion: I am pro-life, even in the case or rape or incest. I believe abortion is murder. This is the single greatest issue I base my vote on for national elections.

Death Penalty: I believe it is only morally justifiable to take a life if doing so it required to ensure the health and safety of others. In virtually all cases in the US, I believe capital punishment is an instrument of revenge rather than justice.

Drugs: I vehemently oppose any further legalization efforts because I think doing so will just cause more people to use drugs. I would like to see the drinking age either changed or enforced. I also do not believe that drug legalization would lead to a reduction in violence because most violent drug dealers aren’t in it to express an act of civil disobedience, they’re in it for a greed that cannot be satiated by their capacity to earn money otherwise.

Euthanasia: I believe that human life has a certain value that cannot be compromised out of depression and selfishness. I do not accept the idea that other people are not harmed by a suicide. The legality is largely unimportant since it is not likely a major concern of anyone considering suicide but I would like to see it remain illegal in all forms.

Gay Marriage: I think the entire reason marriage has a place in civil society is because it is the traditional environment to produce and raise children. I think legal recognition of marriage is a form government social intervention for the purpose of promoting an environment to produce and raise children. Gay relationships are clearly incapable of producing children, so no governmental recognition is necessary. That being said, I don’t think the government should go around and look for sterile people or anything of that sort.

Gun Rights: I think people should be allowed to own and carry guns with proper background checks. I think it should be illegal to carry a gun under the influence of alcohol.

Immigration: We are a nation of immigrants and immigration should be encouraged by raising the number of people we let into this country legally. I support a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants current in the US, provided they have no criminal background and have a job while giving preferential treatment to those with families. However this alone is meaningless without better border enforcement in the future.

Prostitution: It is disgusting and should remain illegal where it is currently illegal. It is not the answer to economic desperation.

Separation of Church and State: I believe that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” should be taken to mean that Congress cannot favor one religion over another or force people to join a particular religion. I think this is an area where the government should not be very involved, but that the level of secularization currently being discussed (ie. Deleting “Under God” from the Pledge of Alligence) is asinine.

Stem Cell Research: I support adult stem cell research and oppose embryonic as it is currently practiced. A professor (who does embryonic stem cell research) told me once that we could get embryonic stem cells from live embryos inside their mother rather than aborted embryos if we really wanted to but that this is not the way research is currently conducted. If this practice was changed to remove abortion from the equation, I would support it. Just to note, I do not support outlawing embryonic stem cell research as practiced, but would not like to see government funding of it. This is a funding issue, not a law issue.



Economic Issues:

Affirmative Action: I consider this an economic issue rather than a social one and am more or less neutral on it. On one hand, I want the best person available to get the job. On the other, I find it irritating that many white kids use affirmative action as an excuse for their own failures. Every person should strive to not only meet the standards of acceptance (if to colleges) but to exceed them.

Education: Education is mainly a state issue and one that no blanket nation policy can be effective on. I think that classroom size has a greater effect on quality and success than does technology or textbook quality, or the building itself. The necessary components to a good education are: parent who discipline their children, students who want to learn, and a qualified teacher who cares. I do believe standardized testing has a place in education but that place is not the central purpose.

Environment: The environment can best be approached by researching better, more cost-effective technologies to address environment problems. The strictness of the EPA is both a blessing and a curse, since it helps to improve American quality of life but also hurts businesses.

Fiscal Policy: In general I think that Ricardian Equivalence is correct, such that increased spending today is just a way of stealing from tomorrow. There are some circumstances where increased government spending over a short period of time can provide a needed boost to the economy. I oppose the hijacking of fiscal stimulus to serve ulterior motives such as funneling resources to environmental causes that are not a cost effective means of job creation.

Health Care: I support a fully private healthcare system with a safety net for those who cannot afford it. I am not necessarily opposed to an individual mandate though I have some question about its constitutionality. In any case, the government needs to look carefully at whatever proposal enacted to ensure it does not force small businesses to cut employees’ healthcare by making the minimum standards so high that a fee is cheaper. I oppose a single-payer system because I believe such a system will inevitably lead to euthanasia in the mid-to-distant future.

Monetary Policy: I mainly take the side of the Rational Expectations school of economics, thus placing me primarily on the side of the Republican establishment and somewhat opposed to the Tea Party. I am opposed to an audit of the Fed on the grounds that doing so would lead to a loss in the fiduciary trust in our current system. I am also opposed to the idea of Congress running the Federal Reserve. I also oppose the gold standard because the purpose of it is that gold supposedly has an “objective value” when it really doesn’t and it’s worth is decided by the market just like anything else.

Social Security: In many ways, this is the key budgetary issue set between the US and long-term fiscal sustainability. The system was created for an era where the average person had four children and lived just past the retirement age. Now, the average person has 1.8 kids and lives to be 77. We have a few tough options: dramatically increase the retirement age, privatize the system, cut it, increase the payments demanded, or cut the benefits received.  Social security may be politically untouchable but we will soon face the reality that it must be reformed.

Taxation: Taxes should be kept as low as reasonably possible to promote economic growth; however, they must be raised now, in addition to spending cuts, to avoid budgetary disaster. I am not necessarily opposed to a flat tax, but would rather see something along the lines of an exponential decay function used to eliminate discontinuities in the derivative of the overall tax rate.

Unions: This is a personal issue for me since my mother is a union member who went on strike when I was in high school. Thus, I do think union have an important place in American society although I dislike the way most of them serve as blanket funneling organizations for socially liberal agendas. I do, however, support right to work legislation.



Foreign Issues:

American Exceptionalism: In short, I do not accept the idea of American exceptionalism that the US is somehow morally superior to other nations or that we are predestined for some kind of greatness as the world’s last superpower. I see the US as a country looking out for its interests like any other country would do. Many policies the US enacts will be the right thing to do and many will be wrong.

China: There are some serious issues remaining in the relationship between the US and China from currency manipulation to religious freedom, but I still see China as an odd sort of ally to the US in the long term. Too much of our economic futures are linked to each other’s success to become enemies.

Diplomacy: Unlike many in the GOP, I have no problem with the president talking with terrorists, or anyone else for that matter. If President Obama wanted to meet with the Kim Jong Il or any of the various rouge Middle East dictators, I’m not sure what he could possibly have to say that will make a difference, but I don’t mind them talking.

Iran: This is an incredibly tough situation because the United States cannot afford another military conflict at the moment and our “sanctions” don’t seem to be doing very much. This is a common theme throughout our handling of the Middle East.

Israel: A part of me deeply respects Israel because they quite frankly don’t care what the world will think when they do something. They aren’t trying to be popular; the world already hates them. That being said, the only possible answer to their issues with Palestine is a two-state solution.

Military: I greatly respect all the sacrifices made by our soldiers and support them. I do agree that the military is not above our budget problems but that special care should be taken to ensure the safety of our service men and women.

Intervention: If I’ve learned anything from the Iraq mess, it’s that great care must be taken when making a decision to go to war. Still, I almost always oppose withdrawal in the middle of a war.

Nuclear Weapons: I don’t like nuclear weapons a whole lot and would oppose using them in just about any circumstances I can see happening. But, I also think a worldwide disarmament is a fairy tale because there really are evil people out there who want to kill us.


^^^ This.  Though I am probably a little more conservative on the affirmative action section.  I am also not sure a two state solution is the only workable solution for Israel, but am not necessarily against such a solution.
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,043
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #633 on: October 18, 2011, 04:40:53 PM »

Referenda: I do not believe that individuals can be trusted to make good decisions directly. I also do not believe that issues like minority rights are something we should put on a ballot. Human rights are not up for a popular vote. I support saving the people from themselves, by banning all voter initiatives nation-wide, as well as limiting, or abolishing outright, recall elections. People make decisions, they should learn to live with them, or be smart enough not to make them the next time.

With all due respect, thats the reason Socialism is not common among the blue collar workers of this country. People feel insulted. I can easily see a place like West Virginia being a Socialist stronghold, if the leadership of the various movements. I agree with you on Human Rights issues, though our definitions maybe a little differant.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #634 on: October 18, 2011, 05:01:17 PM »

Referenda: I do not believe that individuals can be trusted to make good decisions directly. I also do not believe that issues like minority rights are something we should put on a ballot. Human rights are not up for a popular vote. I support saving the people from themselves, by banning all voter initiatives nation-wide, as well as limiting, or abolishing outright, recall elections. People make decisions, they should learn to live with them, or be smart enough not to make them the next time.

With all due respect, thats the reason Socialism is not common among the blue collar workers of this country. People feel insulted. I can easily see a place like West Virginia being a Socialist stronghold, if the leadership of the various movements. I agree with you on Human Rights issues, though our definitions maybe a little differant.

I'm surprised you think so, since it's a decidedly not-left-wing position to take, or, at least, used to be not left wing.

Both the Progressive Party and the Socialist Party in 1912 were running on implementing wide-ranging direct democracy measures. Such things were opposed by the more Conservative establishment. My positions on these things have nothing to do with doctrinaire Socialism, merely my own personal belief that referenda rarely turn out well. They're not historically very left-wing at all.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,590
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #635 on: October 18, 2011, 05:06:10 PM »

Well, not within an American context, anyway, referendums being a big part of the radical democratic tradition in the U.S (and even the SPA - with all it's Yiddish speaking Marxists - was a reflection of that almost as much as anything else) and all that. Elsewhere, not so much, usually.
Logged
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,763
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #636 on: October 18, 2011, 05:36:23 PM »

@ Free the Weed: Why do you hate fundies so much? Most of the founders were fundies.
Logged
Phony Moderate
Obamaisdabest
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,298
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #637 on: October 18, 2011, 05:37:28 PM »
« Edited: October 18, 2011, 05:41:48 PM by Joseph Gordon Levitt »

@ Free the Weed: Why do you hate fundies so much? Most of the founders were fundies.

It's interesting that you use the term "fundies" without scare quotes or quotation marks.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #638 on: October 18, 2011, 10:29:42 PM »

@ Free the Weed: Why do you hate fundies so much? Most of the founders were fundies.

It's interesting that you use the term "fundies" without scare quotes or quotation marks.

Well, they ran the gamut in terms of how orthadox or devout they were...probably in a way that well reflects modern American society, with about a quarter to third being fundies, a tenth being deists, a couple being atheists and the rest being devout yet moderate or casual protestants.
Logged
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,763
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #639 on: October 19, 2011, 06:07:04 PM »

@ Free the Weed: Why do you hate fundies so much? Most of the founders were fundies.

It's interesting that you use the term "fundies" without scare quotes or quotation marks.

Because I am one.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #640 on: October 19, 2011, 08:00:23 PM »

@ Free the Weed: Why do you hate fundies so much? Most of the founders were fundies.

You really are clueless aren't you?
Logged
Rochambeau jk I'm Hamilton
Conservatarian1989
Rookie
**
Posts: 110
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #641 on: October 19, 2011, 08:50:58 PM »

@ Free the Weed: Why do you hate fundies so much? Most of the founders were fundies.

it's not obvious? lol. I'm a libertarian on domestic issues. I'm only fundie on abortion, and immigration.

Otherwise, I'm very much so a social libertarian and oppose the ideology of ignorance.
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #642 on: October 19, 2011, 09:38:19 PM »

I oppose a single-payer system because I believe such a system will inevitably lead to euthanasia in the mid-to-distant future.

I don't understand the reasoning here.
Logged
LastVoter
seatown
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,322
Thailand


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #643 on: October 20, 2011, 03:25:52 AM »

@ Free the Weed: Why do you hate fundies so much? Most of the founders were fundies.

it's not obvious? lol. I'm a libertarian on domestic issues. I'm only fundie on abortion, and immigration.

Otherwise, I'm very much so a social libertarian and oppose the ideology of ignorance.

Mind blown
Logged
Oakvale
oakvale
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,827
Ukraine
Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #644 on: October 20, 2011, 07:47:56 AM »

@ Free the Weed: Why do you hate fundies so much? Most of the founders were fundies.

it's not obvious? lol. I'm a libertarian on domestic issues. I'm only fundie on abortion, and immigration.

Otherwise, I'm very much so a social libertarian and oppose the ideology of ignorance.

Mind blown
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #645 on: October 20, 2011, 09:32:43 AM »

I oppose a single-payer system because I believe such a system will inevitably lead to euthanasia in the mid-to-distant future.

I don't understand the reasoning here.

In the US today, most people will oppose the legalization of things like physicial-assisted suicide. I suspect that if the government is paying for healthcare, it will provide an incentive for more people to support physicial-assisted suicide because it saves them money. This is purely speculation on my part; I don't pretend to know the future. But, I think most people view things a bit differently if there is a financial incentive to do so. Of course you can make the argument that it already is more expensive for everyone to keep people alive, but the perception is more important than the effect in determining how it shapes public opinion. Having the government pay for healthcare would make it inherently obvious that the government would be shelling out money to keep patients alive against their wishes.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #646 on: October 20, 2011, 09:41:24 AM »

@ Free the Weed: Why do you hate fundies so much? Most of the founders were fundies.

it's not obvious? lol. I'm a libertarian on domestic issues. I'm only fundie on abortion, and immigration.

Otherwise, I'm very much so a social libertarian and oppose the ideology of ignorance.

It seems to me you picked a strange issue to be a “fundie” on while calling “fundies” an “ideology of ignorance”. (I use quotes around “fundie” because I don’t know what a “fundie” is, nor do I particularly care.) How far are you going here as a “fundie” on immigration? What does it even mean to be a “fundie” on immigration? Does it mean loving your neighbor even if he’s here illegally? Does it mean believing that the US is divinely ordained to rule the world and only Americans born here legally are entitled to a part in that vision? Something in between?
Logged
LastVoter
seatown
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,322
Thailand


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #647 on: October 20, 2011, 11:55:20 AM »

I oppose a single-payer system because I believe such a system will inevitably lead to euthanasia in the mid-to-distant future.

I don't understand the reasoning here.

In the US today, most people will oppose the legalization of things like physicial-assisted suicide. I suspect that if the government is paying for healthcare, it will provide an incentive for more people to support physicial-assisted suicide because it saves them money. This is purely speculation on my part; I don't pretend to know the future. But, I think most people view things a bit differently if there is a financial incentive to do so. Of course you can make the argument that it already is more expensive for everyone to keep people alive, but the perception is more important than the effect in determining how it shapes public opinion. Having the government pay for healthcare would make it inherently obvious that the government would be shelling out money to keep patients alive against their wishes.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18923323/ns/health-health_care/t/americans-still-split-doctor-assisted-suicide/#.TqBSLd6a9tM

No exactly.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #648 on: October 20, 2011, 02:39:41 PM »

I oppose a single-payer system because I believe such a system will inevitably lead to euthanasia in the mid-to-distant future.

I don't understand the reasoning here.

In the US today, most people will oppose the legalization of things like physicial-assisted suicide. I suspect that if the government is paying for healthcare, it will provide an incentive for more people to support physicial-assisted suicide because it saves them money. This is purely speculation on my part; I don't pretend to know the future. But, I think most people view things a bit differently if there is a financial incentive to do so. Of course you can make the argument that it already is more expensive for everyone to keep people alive, but the perception is more important than the effect in determining how it shapes public opinion. Having the government pay for healthcare would make it inherently obvious that the government would be shelling out money to keep patients alive against their wishes.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18923323/ns/health-health_care/t/americans-still-split-doctor-assisted-suicide/#.TqBSLd6a9tM

No exactly.

Okay then, even more reason why I would want to oppose a single payer system. If most people think it should be legal, making healthcare tax payer funded will only increase their desire to legalize it in more places.
Logged
LastVoter
seatown
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,322
Thailand


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #649 on: October 20, 2011, 05:44:18 PM »

I oppose a single-payer system because I believe such a system will inevitably lead to euthanasia in the mid-to-distant future.

I don't understand the reasoning here.

In the US today, most people will oppose the legalization of things like physicial-assisted suicide. I suspect that if the government is paying for healthcare, it will provide an incentive for more people to support physicial-assisted suicide because it saves them money. This is purely speculation on my part; I don't pretend to know the future. But, I think most people view things a bit differently if there is a financial incentive to do so. Of course you can make the argument that it already is more expensive for everyone to keep people alive, but the perception is more important than the effect in determining how it shapes public opinion. Having the government pay for healthcare would make it inherently obvious that the government would be shelling out money to keep patients alive against their wishes.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18923323/ns/health-health_care/t/americans-still-split-doctor-assisted-suicide/#.TqBSLd6a9tM

No exactly.

Okay then, even more reason why I would want to oppose a single payer system. If most people think it should be legal, making healthcare tax payer funded will only increase their desire to legalize it in more places.
Good example of strawman argument.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30 31 ... 63  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.075 seconds with 9 queries.