Could the Democrats and Republicans switch sides again?

[RedImperator]

Seriously Count, how old are you? You're voting habits and political views come off like a 19 year old poli-sci major. Are you really so insulated from the real world? Because you seem to spew a lot of crap that doesn't hold up under scrutiny, and you do it with that invincible self-assuredness that you usually grow out of around 21-22 when you get a degree and get into real life.

If you're not going to contribute to the actual argument, get the hell out of the thread.

[Count Chocula]

Darth Wong wrote:

But of course, you seem to be a fan of psychopathic theocrat nutjob Chuck Norris

I know absolutely freaking nothing about Chuck Norris, other than he made a couple of OK action movies and starred in the hilariously crappy "Walker, Texas Ranger." The high point of his career, in my opinion, was his showdown against Bruce Lee in Enter the Dragon.

DH, do you really think I would write in CHUCK NORRIS? It was a fucking joke! Next time I'll add a smilie. I will attempt reasoned debate next time I post on a topic here.

PS you still haven't responded to the thread...

[General Zod]

I know absolutely freaking nothing about Chuck Norris, other than he made a couple of OK action movies and starred in the hilariously crappy "Walker, Texas Ranger." The high point of his career, in my opinion, was his showdown against Bruce Lee in Enter the Dragon.

Chuck Norris endorsed freaking Huckabee during the primaries, if you want any kind of indication as to his political leanings. The commercial he made doing so was just painful to watch.

[Darth Wong]

Darth Wong wrote:

But of course, you seem to be a fan of psychopathic theocrat nutjob Chuck Norris

I know absolutely freaking nothing about Chuck Norris, other than he made a couple of OK action movies and starred in the hilariously crappy "Walker, Texas Ranger." The high point of his career, in my opinion, was his showdown against Bruce Lee in Enter the Dragon.

I must admit that I wonder if you're being entirely honest here, given the fact that you quoted the crypto-racist Christian theocrat "Heritage Foundation" website in the other thread just now. That's two theocrat persons or groups that you've mentioned in a short span of time; mere coincidence?

[Count Chocula]

Hey now Mr. Wong, don't go painting me with that "Christian theocrat" brush! I was raised a good Catholic, went to church at Dahlgren Chapel of "The Omen" fame, and went to Catholic school.

All of which means I'm now a practicing agnostic.

I grew up reading the Washington Post (liberal) and Washington Times (conservative), and used to be a registered Libertarian. All of which means I'm now registered No Party Affiliation. I saw enough Dem and Repub shenanigans growing up to conclude that it really doesn't matter which party has control, or what they believe, somehow we get to pay the price for their stupid decisions.

[Darth Wong]

Hey now Mr. Wong, don't go painting me with that "Christian theocrat" brush! I was raised a good Catholic, went to church at Dahlgren Chapel of "The Omen" fame, and went to Catholic school.

All of which means I'm now a practicing agnostic.

I grew up reading the Washington Post (liberal) and Washington Times (conservative), and used to be a registered Libertarian. All of which means I'm now registered No Party Affiliation.

Fair enough; it was just a sequence of events which made me wonder.

I saw enough Dem and Repub shenanigans growing up to conclude that it really doesn't matter which party has control, or what they believe, somehow we get to pay the price for their stupid decisions.

It's true that there are far more similarities between the parties than their respective fan bases will easily admit. However, it is not reasonable to say there are no discernible distinctions at all. You did not address the example of health-care policies which I mentioned in my previous post.

[Qwerty 42]

I always thought a big player in the Democrat leftward march was Harry Truman. He integrated the White House, and the military. In particular, the white house integration was outlawed by... Wilson, another Democrat. Just those fifty years showed a huge transition in the Democrats.

[Count Chocula]

Honestly, I don't know enough about their health care policy statements to form even a muddled opinion. About all I know is that my (25% company subsidized) health care premiums are costing me as much as my fricking mortgage! For a family of three with no health issues.

If Obama or McCain comes up with a plan that can lower those premiums, I'll give 'em a good close look.

[The Spartan]

Honestly, I don't know enough about their health care policy statements to form even a muddled opinion. About all I know is that my (25% company subsidized) health care premiums are costing me as much as my fricking mortgage! For a family of three with no health issues.

If Obama or McCain comes up with a plan that can lower those premiums, I'll give 'em a good close look.

I don't know if Obama's plan will lower them but I guaren-damn-tee you that McCain's plan will raise them. And raise your taxable income without actually raising your income.

There are at least two, and probably more threads, in N&P dealing with this including one on the front page regarding McCain's plan to cut Medicare/Medicaid which is vital to our senior citizens.

[General Zod]

Honestly, I don't know enough about their health care policy statements to form even a muddled opinion. About all I know is that my (25% company subsidized) health care premiums are costing me as much as my fricking mortgage! For a family of three with no health issues.

If Obama or McCain comes up with a plan that can lower those premiums, I'll give 'em a good close look.

You may want to read this, then. McSame's health-care plan basically amounts to "more competition and less regulation! the invisible hand of the free market will fix things, just don't get sick!11!11! Oh, and $5,000 tax credit!"

[Covenant]

Honestly, I don't know enough about their health care policy statements to form even a muddled opinion. About all I know is that my (25% company subsidized) health care premiums are costing me as much as my fricking mortgage! For a family of three with no health issues.

If Obama or McCain comes up with a plan that can lower those premiums, I'll give 'em a good close look.

I don't know if Obama's plan will lower them but I guaren-damn-tee you that McCain's plan will raise them. And raise your taxable income without actually raising your income.

There are at least two, and probably more threads, in N&P dealing with this including one on the front page regarding McCain's plan to cut Medicare/Medicaid which is vital to our senior citizens.

I love Obama like a brother, but I doubt his plan will actually lower premiums. He cites his plan as lowering the average premium by over 2,000 dollars, but a lot of this is speculative, and it's possible that some of the measures will drive costs up. I hope it doesn't, since insurance companies driving up the prices in lockstep seems feasible, but one of the worst examples of price-gouging you could imagine. McCain's plan will definately drop more people from healthcare and make affordable healthcare harder to get, while Obama's plan will make healthcare very easy to get ahold of but rely on a great deal of public taxmoney to support it. It's a step closer to socialized healthcare, and I honestly think that once people get a taste of it they'll like it. Some businesses will prefer to simply drop their taxmoney in the hat and stop worrying about employee healthcare, and if this happens, we might be able to see some actual drops in cost. McCain's biggest stupidity is the reliance on individual or small-group plans which are harder to negotiate and far more expensive. Large group plans, such as Obama's national plan, are cheaper to negotiate.

[Count Chocula]

Ahh crap! The last three posts seem to indicate that, whether it's a Democrat or Republican plan, we'll end up getting screwed somehow, someway. Yah, small pool insurance plans suck....but I'm not sure a Federal government-organized scheme would be any better. Damn, the Congressional committee for that would be one big, fat, juicy burger for the Washington PAC machine.

I reallllly don't want to choose the lesser of two evils, but at a glance it looks bad. Time to do some research - maybe tonight's debate will help.

[Covenant]

I wouldn't despair. It wouldn't be a Washington pool, but there's still so much money at play that I think insurance companies would search for ways to get more out of it than they should. Regardless, if you're hurting on Healthcare or currently uninsured, Obama's plan is superior for you, since by McCain's hand you would either become uninsured or surely stay that way. If you simply can't afford healthcare, Obama's plan will make it very easy to afford it. And, best case, it actually would lower your premiums. The people who get the short end of the stick are the upper middle class who get healthcare from work that's pretty good and reliable, and don't want to pay any extra taxes, but they'll get fucked either way anyway.

Obama's plan is immensely ambitious but will at least get more people on Healthcare and make it affordable for most families at the expense of some extra taxpayer dollars. Not a tax increase though, but a reduction in the foreign aid he'd promised. A little isolationism wouldn't kill us at the moment though, and I think the world might like a "See other people" phase with the U.S.A. as well. McCain's plan is just free-market fuckery.

I know you've got Libertarian ideas, but healthcare isn't one of those things that's smart to free-market too much. People with the money can always afford to shop around, but we shouldn't force everyone else into a situation of no healthcare just because they can't afford it--these people still get access to emergency facilities, so they just act as a drain on the system. There's certainly nothing stopping a healthcare company right now from making a special form of comprehensive coverage for low-income families. Maybe we could call it Sub-Prime Coverage, and bundle these in large groups to reduce costs when we barter with large Healthcare firms for a lower investment rate. Then they'll be able to turn around and make the profit off of these plans while also being sure that, due to the new access to quality care, the general health of these people will increase and they'll be able to pay the rising costs of healthcare as they age. That is, unless, they lose their job or the rate hikes go too high and they're forced to drop the plan, causing a net loss to the Healthcare company. In an extreme case they may simply die, taking with them a lot of capital, and sending shudders through the world Health Investment markets...

[Darth Wong]

Ahh crap! The last three posts seem to indicate that, whether it's a Democrat or Republican plan, we'll end up getting screwed somehow, someway.

Far more with the Republicans than with the Democrats.

Yah, small pool insurance plans suck....but I'm not sure a Federal government-organized scheme would be any better.

Of course not, because you've been indoctrinated with Reaganomics. It's not as if there are millions of people in a neighbouring country who love socialized health care so much that the mere hint that a party might attack it will immediately make them tank in the polls.

Damn, the Congressional committee for that would be one big, fat, juicy burger for the Washington PAC machine.

Yeah, totally unlike the present-day system where they can gouge and screw over customers directly, and not have to worry about lobbying anyone.