Are the democrats ruining our country?

The United States political party the Democrats are attempting to pass a bill requiring everyone to buy healthcare. They are very effectively taking control of the healthcare industry. They say that their plan will curb greedy healthcare companies. Do you think they are right or do you think that they are intruding into the private lives of their citizens?

Personally i think that the healthcare plan is a terrible idea because it will limit personal freedom and could injure the free market. (they are also requiring that people with pre-existing conditions be guaranteed coverage) with no choice in who they can insure the healthcare compainies will lose money.

Thats my view on this but i want to know yours. (My thanks to rate_me for pointing out the members from around the world.)

« Last edited by Patriot X on Jan 10th 2010 »

Well, this is a global website. Many people here are from Europe. It could help if you're post was a little more descpriptive.

He's talking about American politics. There is a lot of controversy around a healthcare bill supported mostly by democrats here.
I would like this thread to be more descriptive since many people in D&D are from other countries than America, but I will give you a 24 hours to edit the first post to make it a more debatable topic since it is more specific than your last one. Try to put forth a point or two to get us started.

Republicans just start wars. Bush ruined the Republican party. It's not repairable.

Brandon 2006 said:

Republicans just start wars. Bush ruined the Republican party. It's not repairable.

Democratic-Republican (Party which later became the modern Democratic Party) James Madison brought us into the War of 1812
Democrat James K. Polk brought us into the Mexican-American War
Democrat Jefferson Davis seceded from the Union and attacked Fort Sumter, starting the Civil War
Democrat Woodrow Wilson brought us into WWI
Democrat Franklin Roosevelt brought us into WWII
Democrat Harry S. Truman brought us into the Korean War
Republican Dwight Eisenhower was president when the armistice was signed
Democrat John F. Kennedy brought us into the Vietnam War
Republican Richard Nixon took us out of Vietnam
Yeah, Republicans go to war all the time. From a historical standpoint, Democrats are such peace-lovers, aren't they?

« Last edited by rate_me on Jan 9th 2010 »

I was not trying to talk about the foreign policy of each party. I am trying to discuss more of the standpoints of each party on subjects like their stance on healthcare or taxes.
If I did not make that clear I'm sorry.

I consider myself to hold views on the right so I tend to agree more with the Republicans. I favor lower taxes and more power to the individual. The Democrats favor bigger government and higher taxes.

I see no good in left wing politics. If there is anyone out there that holds different views I would like to hear from them.

I don't know much about politics, mainly because Social Studies is not one of my best sbjects, but I believe that neither side is innocent. They have both started wars, an they have both ended wars, both sides have made some mistakes and some correct decisions. I cannot agree on either side, mainly because neither is the innocent party.

regalchris861 said:

I don't know much about politics, mainly because Social Studies is not one of my best sbjects, but I believe that neither side is innocent. They have both started wars, an they have both ended wars, both sides have made some mistakes and some correct decisions. I cannot agree on either side, mainly because neither is the innocent party.

Can you give me some specifics? I agree that neither party is totally innocent but overall the Republicans stand for better things. Example: do you know which party made slavery illegal? It was the Republicans. I admit that the Republicans are not perfect but I would consider that they stand for something much better than what the Democrats stand for.

Patriot X said:

regalchris861 said:

I don't know much about politics, mainly because Social Studies is not one of my best sbjects, but I believe that neither side is innocent. They have both started wars, an they have both ended wars, both sides have made some mistakes and some correct decisions. I cannot agree on either side, mainly because neither is the innocent party.

Can you give me some specifics? I agree that neither party is totally innocent but overall the Republicans stand for better things. Example: do you know which party made slavery illegal? It was the Republicans. I admit that the Republicans are not perfect but I would consider that they stand for something much better than what the Democrats stand for.

As I said before, I am not big on politics, yes Republicans have done better things for the U.S. and overall, they are the bigger help to America, my point of view is that neither ide is complete innocent. I agree completely with what you are saying, the Republicans stand on a better side then the Democrats.

[quoteby=regalchris861
As I said before, I am not big on politics, yes Republicans have done better things for the U.S. and overall, they are the bigger help to America, my point of view is that neither ide is complete innocent. I agree completely with what you are saying, the Republicans stand on a better side then the Democrats.[/quote]

Thank you regalchris861. I wasn't sure where you stood and just wanted to know what you thought. And I do agree with you completely that neither party is completely innocent.

regalchris861 said:

Patriot X said:

regalchris861 said:

I don't know much about politics, mainly because Social Studies is not one of my best sbjects, but I believe that neither side is innocent. They have both started wars, an they have both ended wars, both sides have made some mistakes and some correct decisions. I cannot agree on either side, mainly because neither is the innocent party.

Can you give me some specifics? I agree that neither party is totally innocent but overall the Republicans stand for better things. Example: do you know which party made slavery illegal? It was the Republicans. I admit that the Republicans are not perfect but I would consider that they stand for something much better than what the Democrats stand for.

As I said before, I am not big on politics, yes Republicans have done better things for the U.S. and overall, they are the bigger help to America, my point of view is that neither ide is complete innocent. I agree completely with what you are saying, the Republicans stand on a better side then the Democrats.

Oh, too right. The Republicans are total saints. That Great Depression Herbert Hoover, a Republican, helped out us get out of was great.

Oh wait, that was Roosevelt, a democrat.

Of course, I do enjoy the wars rate_me mentioned, which took place before the Republican party even existed. The republican party was created as an anti-slavery party, which many members were from other parties, probably many democrat.

And of on the issue of wars, they happen. If a Republican was in office when Pearl Harbor was bomber, what do you think would happen?

But to answer your question, no, democrats are not ruining our. Americans are.

The unified health care plan is horrible. The European countries have it and it DOESN’T WORK! The only country that this works is in Canada, and thereisn’t unified, they just force the companies to charge a set price. An other way they are ruining the country is by raising the tax on ammunition by, 520 from the original 105. (Info supplied by the NRA, and by legislator.) This hurts the good people who hunt. The tax should only be on hand gun ammo, assault rifle, and the different varieties of machine guns.

[quoteby=Xeta
Oh, too right. The Republicans are total saints. That Great Depression Herbert Hoover, a Republican, helped out us get out of was great.

Oh wait, that was Roosevelt, a democrat.

Of course, I do enjoy the wars rate_me mentioned, which took place before the Republican party even existed. The republican party was created as an anti-slavery party, which many members were from other parties, probably many democrat.

And of on the issue of wars, they happen. If a Republican was in office when Pearl Harbor was bomber, what do you think would happen?

But to answer your question, no, democrats are not ruining our. Americans are.
[/quote]

First of all you are correct that Roosevelt was a Democrat. Do you know how he got us out of the depression? He created Social Security. Did you know that Social Security is on its way to bankruptcy? Roosevelt also started Medicare which is projected to bankrupt within the next 10 years. What Roosevelt really did was only temporarily give the economy a boost. Medicare could never work as it is based on a flawed principle. The fact is that healthcare costs for the elderly will always be more expensive than the money that is paid into the program. The only way to solvve this is to raise taxes. Is that what you want?

You are actually incorrect about the Republican party. Their members were mostly Whigs, a former party that was based around the principle of less central government. I msut add that Democrats favor bigger central government. You are right that the Republican party was started as a response to slavery. Would you agree with me that slavery is bad?

xacto14 said:

The unified health care plan is horrible. The European countries have it and it DOESN’T WORK! The only country that this works is in Canada, and thereisn’t unified, they just force the companies to charge a set price. An other way they are ruining the country is by raising the tax on ammunition by, 520 from the original 105. (Info supplied by the NRA, and by legislator.) This hurts the good people who hunt. The tax should only be on hand gun ammo, assault rifle, and the different varieties of machine guns.

You are correct about universal healthcare plans not working. You mentioned that it does work in Canada however. I must disagree with you there. Canada has long waiting lines. There are even some people that have been waiting ove six months for treatment and have not obtained it. If you think that this kind of treatment is acceptable than I think that the conversation is over.

Also I completely agree with you on the issue of gun control. Gun regulation only hurts hunters. The statistics show that the criminals tend to obtain guns and ammo illegally despite the gun laws.

what i ment was they set a price. they didn't force you to get it. the lines and the like i do disagree with though. you missed my point. the price is what i agreed on. they set a price inwhich the little less than average worker can afford.they didn't force any one to do it, but every one pays 1 price.

xacto14 said:

The unified health care plan is horrible. The European countries have it and it DOESN'T WORK!

World Health Organisation's ranking of the world's health systems.

Number 1 on the list... France. Various European countries with state-subsidised or state-provided healthcare also within the top 20, including the United Kingdom at 18th, and America is... oh, thirty-seventh.

So if your healthcare's so utterly brilliant, why would you be so far behind France, who have a healthcare plan that, according to you, doesn't work? Especially given that the spending on healthcare in America is actually a higher percentage of GDP than it is in France?

Patriot X said:

Do you know how he got us out of the depression? He created Social Security. Did you know that Social Security is on its way to bankruptcy? Roosevelt also started Medicare which is projected to bankrupt within the next 10 years. What Roosevelt really did was only temporarily give the economy a boost. Medicare could never work as it is based on a flawed principle. The fact is that healthcare costs for the elderly will always be more expensive than the money that is paid into the program. The only way to solvve this is to raise taxes. Is that what you want?

Medicare is now facing questions about its financial viability because, essentially, people are living longer. This is a problem that all developed countries are facing - their populations are ageing and as a result the amount that must be spent on pensions, for example, is increasing. There's also the more serious problem that the amount an average individual spends on healthcare is rising faster than GDP per capita in the United States.

This graph explains it quite well:
http://upload.wikimedia.org...hart.svg

As you can see, Medicare's costs are projected to grow at an astonishing rate because of those problems. But how was Roosevelt meant to have foreseen this over fifty years before it happened?
Criticising his introduction of Medicare for these reasons is akin to someone from the year 2074 criticising today's governments for spending money on power stations that produce energy through fission, when cold fusion is far more effective. (No, I'm not saying that I'm absolutely certain that cold fusion will be our main source of energy by then, it was just an example.)

« Last edited by Catharsis on Jan 13th 2010 »

In addition to Mark's reasoning, the population greatly increased after WWII with the baby boomers. That generation is aging, and soon they will all be in retirement.

Catharsis said:

World Health Organisation's ranking of the world's health systems.

Number 1 on the list... France. Various European countries with state-subsidised or state-provided healthcare also within the top 20, including the United Kingdom at 18th, and America is... oh, thirty-seventh.

So if your healthcare's so utterly brilliant, why would you be so far behind France, who have a healthcare plan that, according to you, doesn't work? Especially given that the spending on healthcare in America is actually a higher percentage of GDP than it is in France?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125608054324397621.html

I quote from the website above: [Philip Musgrove, the editor-in-chief of the WHO report that accompanied the rankings, calls the figures that resulted from this step "so many made-up numbers," and the result a "nonsense ranking." Dr. Musgrove, an economist who is now deputy editor of the journal Health Affairs, says he was hired to edit the report's text but didn't fully understand the methodology until after the report was released. After he left the WHO, he wrote an article in 2003 for the medical journal Lancet criticizing the rankings as "meaningless."]

This ranking is not reliable. As Musgrove says above, the numbers that Catharsis mentioned are "so many made up numbers" please go to the site if you do not believe me. I must point out that the Wall Street Journal is a well recognized source.

http://views.washingtonpost.com/healthcarerx/panelists/2009/10/international-wood.html

Contrary to Catharsis's view America's healthcare is still the best in the world. The poll that has been held high by liberals is actually very unreliable. I would say that free market competition always is better than a restricted form of healthcare.

Xeta said:

In addition to Mark's reasoning, the population greatly increased after WWII with the baby boomers. That generation is aging, and soon they will all be in retirement.

I'm not sure what point that you are trying to make. Could you expand a little. I'm sorry but I don't see what this fact has to do with the last post.

Patriot X said:

Catharsis said:

World Health Organisation's ranking of the world's health systems.

Number 1 on the list... France. Various European countries with state-subsidised or state-provided healthcare also within the top 20, including the United Kingdom at 18th, and America is... oh, thirty-seventh.

So if your healthcare's so utterly brilliant, why would you be so far behind France, who have a healthcare plan that, according to you, doesn't work? Especially given that the spending on healthcare in America is actually a higher percentage of GDP than it is in France?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125608054324397621.html

I quote from the website above: Philip Musgrove, the editor-in-chief of the WHO report that accompanied the rankings, calls the figures that resulted from this step "so many made-up numbers," and the result a "nonsense ranking." Dr. Musgrove, an economist who is now deputy editor of the journal Health Affairs, says he was hired to edit the report's text but didn't fully understand the methodology until after the report was released. After he left the WHO, he wrote an article in 2003 for the medical journal Lancet criticizing the rankings as "meaningless."

This ranking is not reliable. As Musgrove says above, the numbers that Catharsis mentioned are "so many made up numbers" please go to the site if you do not believe me. I must point out that the Wall Street Journal is a well recognized source.

The most valid criticism I can find there is the fact that the ranking is rather old. While it's true that it was released around ten years ago, America has not undergone any significant healthcare reforms since then, until the Democrats' plan that's currently being discussed. The other points raised by the article seem to be discrepancies with the methodology of the study. The most major of these concerns is the estimation of missing data based on related factors, but is America likely to be unable to provide statistics on its healthcare system? I would argue that it mostly affects the lower end of the table.

Some other valid points include that America falls behind in its performance even when you examine the data used to calculate the ranks (Performance: On level of health = 72 - and yes, lower numbers are still better there). And even your own source there reveals that America is lagging behind the rest of the world in life expectancy for both males and females, and in preventing under-5 mortality - and those were just the two examples considered worthy of citation!

Patriot X said:

http://views.washingtonpost.com/healthcarerx/panelists/2009/10/international-wood.html

Contrary to Catharsis's view America's healthcare is still the best in the world. The poll that has been held high by liberals is actually very unreliable. I would say that free market competition always is better than a restricted form of healthcare.

You've got to be kidding me. An editorial as evidence? Oh dear.

Well, I'll just say this: "Free markets" invariably sound like a good thing. It's the slogan of many right-wing parties for a reason. However, economists spend a huge amount of time considering externalities, which are benefits and costs that the free market does not take into account as they affect a third party. Generally, goods or services which produce positive externalities are subsidised by the government or state-provided, as the free market often fails to provide these things adequately. America has already done this with one major example of such a service, which is education. However, the other definitive example is nearly always healthcare.

Furthermore, state-provided healthcare doesn't mean that there's a complete end to free-market competition in healthcare - even here in Britain where the NHS provides free healthcare to everyone, there are still private hospitals, generally charging a higher amount than is necessary in order to provide a higher level of service. Some people, therefore, go to private hospitals for treatment, but for those who simply don't have that luxury, the NHS still provides the service they need.

« Last edited by Catharsis on Jan 13th 2010 »