# Why are the Democrats such pussies? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 26, 2009, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-democrats-such-pussies/511669 "2009-09-26T19:20:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2009, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-democrats-such-pussies/511669/81 "2009-09-29T05:19:22Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > How? Unless you argument is that not covering uninsured people is what is bloating the cost, how are you expecting covering uninsured people to contain costs? AFAIK currently a big chuck of the bills that the uninsured still get when going to the ER, are sent in the end up to be paid by all. It turns into bigger premiums and less care for all. And this is because there is really no good mechanism to contain the current rise in medical prices ( **That is way above our current inflation levels** ) > [@](#): > > There’s no evidence that expanding coverage will cut cost. So what exactly, in the proposed bill, are you expecting to contain or reduce the cost? Why do you think the cost is high? It was already posted (on the Taiwan study, on the post before the NPR cite), I’m following the Taiwan example. Once again, your idea that we should concentrate only on savings that we could get by changing the current system is a Red Herring. You omit the savings that we should get in the long run as demonstrated by the cost containment gained in all developed nations. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2009, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-democrats-such-pussies/511669/82 "2009-09-29T05:36:37Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > _ **Liberals** _ do. Liberals don’t run the Democrats; they are run by moderate right wingers. Liberalism barely exists in America. > > And I’m not a Democrat, I’m independent. Liberals are actually a pretty big voting bloc. We are 17% of the public, and 19% of the electorate as well as being the biggest group of democrats (ahead of conservadems and disadvantaged dems). > **[Beyond Red vs. Blue](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2005/05/10/beyond-red-vs-blue/?_legacy_redirect=242)** > > Part 1: Principal Findings Coming out of the 2004 election, the American political landscape decidedly favored the Republican Party. The GOP had extensive We have very little presence in the corporate media (outside a few shows on MSNBC, PBS and radio) to represent us, which isn’t surprising. Corporations aren’t going to fund media outlets that promote progressive taxes, unionization, regulation and anti-trust measures. But liberals make up 1/5 of the electorate despite the lack of mainstream media representation. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2009, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-democrats-such-pussies/511669/83 "2009-09-29T13:50:05Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Yes, but that has nothing to do with what is being proposed. It’s like saying that every time I stick a can of Coke in the microwave for ten minutes, the microwave explodes. If we keep going, we’re going to run out of money buying microwaves. Thus! We must switch to Pepsi. > > Like I said, the problem with the proposal is that it won’t decrease spending. It’s unrelated to our spending. I have to agree that what we have proposed is a giveaway to the PHARm corps and the insurance companies. But that is not the final product. There is some push to add a public option. We just can not escape the corporate power and its hooks in campaign contributions. I suspect that some think if we get a health care policy passed, we can fix it later. That of course would not happen. This whole mess is a clear demonstration in the power that corporations have over us. We have a broken system and millions of our citizens are suffering. We know damn well what we have will blow up soon . It is unsustainable . But even a corrupt and broken healthcare system can win in a system that is run by money. We should have learned when the financial crisis came and the bankers had the political clout to take tax money to make themselves whole again. The citizens in America have lost their power or the will to exercise it. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2009, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-democrats-such-pussies/511669/84 "2009-09-29T15:28:20Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > I have to agree that what we have proposed is a giveaway to the PHARm corps and the insurance companies. But that is not the final product. There is some push to add a public option. We just can not escape the corporate power and its hooks in campaign contributions. I suspect that some think if we get a health care policy passed, we can fix it later. That of course would not happen. This whole mess is a clear demonstration in the power that corporations have over us. We have a broken system and millions of our citizens are suffering. We know damn well what we have will blow up soon . It is unsustainable . But even a corrupt and broken healthcare system can win in a system that is run by money. We should have learned when the financial crisis came and the bankers had the political clout to take tax money to make themselves whole again. The citizens in America have lost their power or the will to exercise it. How does that cut spending? Saying that Taiwan did it to cut spending is irrelevant if a) their costs didn’t match ours to begin with–proving that it’s possible to have half our spending without UHC, and b) their spending didn’t decrease afterwards. There is no example of spending decreasing nor changing it’s rate of growth after a nation switched to universal health care. What cost exactly do you expect to decrease, and why? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2009, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-democrats-such-pussies/511669/85 "2009-09-29T15:38:04Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > How does that cut spending? Saying that Taiwan did it to cut spending is irrelevant if a) their costs didn’t match ours to begin with–proving that it’s possible to have half our spending without UHC, and b) their spending didn’t decrease afterwards. There is no example of spending decreasing nor changing it’s rate of growth after a nation switched to universal health care. What cost exactly do you expect to decrease, and why? Was that a reply to **gonzomax**? BTW this was already posted: [http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/22/3/77](http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/22/3/77) > [@](#): > > \*\*Our data show that Taiwan was able to adopt the NHI without using measurably more resources than what it would have spent without the program. \*\*It seems that the additional resources that had to be spent to cover the uninsured were largely offset by the savings resulting from reduced overcharges, duplication and overuse of health services and tests, transaction costs, and other costs. **The total increase in national health spending between 1995 and 2000 was not more than the amount that Taiwan would have spent, based on historical trends.** ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2009, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-democrats-such-pussies/511669/86 "2009-09-29T17:04:26Z")
> [@Agent\_Foxtrot](#): > > 1. The Democrats are the party of compromise. They are obsessed with the idea of working toward fair, bipartisan legislation that satisfies everyone. The Democrats (to a large degree) are spineless creatures, too afraid to put forth a proposal that they can get through with only Democratic votes lest they be held responsible for the results and get kicked out of office in the future. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2009, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-democrats-such-pussies/511669/87 "2009-09-29T17:53:01Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > BTW this was already posted: > > [http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/22/3/77](http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/22/3/77) Which says **what I said** , that spending wasn’t decreased nor did it change the rate of growth (i.e. no change from the historic upwards trend). Like I said, this is like swapping out Coke for Pepsi because nuking a can in the microwave for ten minutes ruins the microwave. You’re not going to fix the problem this way. This is why anyone who understands the issue is going to be reticent to put their name to this bill. They understand that the spending will continue to increase at the same rate, without any significant change nor reduction, which goes against what they’ve been selling it as. ---
**Author:** ![lonestar88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d2c977/32.png) [@lonestar88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lonestar88)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2009, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-democrats-such-pussies/511669/88 "2009-09-29T18:33:18Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Which says **what I said** , that spending wasn’t decreased nor did it change the rate of growth (i.e. no change from the historic upwards trend). > > Like I said, this is like swapping out Coke for Pepsi because nuking a can in the microwave for ten minutes ruins the microwave. You’re not going to fix the problem this way. This is why anyone who understands the issue is going to be reticent to put their name to this bill. They understand that the spending will continue to increase at the same rate, without any significant change nor reduction, which goes against what they’ve been selling it as. What does change is the number of people covered and benefits, also that your healthcare will not be tied to employment, and people cannot be denied coverage or coverage canceled due to pre-existing or new chronic conditions. You seem to think that it doesn’t matter if we spend $100 to cover 60% or $100 to cover 100%. Not quite the same as swapping out Coke for Pepsi, is it? ---
**Author:** ![lonestar88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d2c977/32.png) [@lonestar88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lonestar88)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2009, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-democrats-such-pussies/511669/89 "2009-09-29T18:44:02Z")
For the OP, this question has been on my mind also. As a former Moderate Republican, kicked out of the party by the ultra conservative, I now consider myself an Independent. I just don’t understand why the Democrats allow themselves to be kicked around. They’re called names, shouted down at town meetings, labeled as un-patriotic and un-American, and they are either ok with it, or too pussified to stand up for themselves and what they believe in. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2009, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-democrats-such-pussies/511669/90 "2009-09-29T20:45:38Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > The Democrats (to a large degree) are spineless creatures, too afraid to put forth a proposal that they can get through with only Democratic votes lest they be held responsible for the results and get kicked out of office in the future. There is that. Bush and the GOP had the nads to push through horrible policies and defend them and were held responsible and thrown out of office. I’d just like to see more of our elected officials actually having the courage and integrity to make a judgement call based on what they believe is good for the citizens who elected them instead of what is good for their next election and those who gave the most cash. ---
**Author:** ![LouisB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dfb087/32.png) [@LouisB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LouisB)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2009, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-democrats-such-pussies/511669/91 "2009-09-29T21:28:29Z")
If Democrats weren’t such pussies, it would be more difficult to screw them. And there you have it. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2009, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-democrats-such-pussies/511669/92 "2009-09-29T21:33:36Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > There is that. Bush and the GOP had the nads to push through horrible policies and defend them and were held responsible and thrown out of office. Well, no. Bush wasn’t thrown out of office or held responsible in any way. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2009, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-democrats-such-pussies/511669/93 "2009-09-29T21:44:24Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Well, no. Bush wasn’t thrown out of office or held responsible in any way. For once, we agree. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2009, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-democrats-such-pussies/511669/94 "2009-09-30T19:42:48Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Well, no. Bush wasn’t thrown out of office or held responsible in any way. I stand corrected. What I meant to say was the backlash against the GOP that allowed the Dems to take over the house and Senate was due to Bush and horrible GOP policies over his eight years. ---
**Author:** ![Superhal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Superhal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superhal)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2009, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-democrats-such-pussies/511669/95 "2009-10-02T01:50:54Z")
Hello? This discussion about whose policy is better is meaningless when the pollsters and vote counters are crooked. Democracy is about the will of the people, nothing else. Imho, since 1999, politics has been corrupted by fabricated and/or fraud at the polls. Until that’s settled, we’ll never know what is the “right” policy. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2009, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-democrats-such-pussies/511669/96 "2009-10-02T18:47:17Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > How does that cut spending? Saying that Taiwan did it to cut spending is irrelevant if a) their costs didn’t match ours to begin with–proving that it’s possible to have half our spending without UHC, and b) their spending didn’t decrease afterwards. There is no example of spending decreasing nor changing it’s rate of growth after a nation switched to universal health care. What cost exactly do you expect to decrease, and why? The insurance companies filter 30 percent off the top. That is a huge savings in eliminating them. Then doctors have to hire a staff that just does billing and arguing with insurance companies to get paid. If we can get rid of those costs we can afford to put people in monitoring the health care companies for fraud. There are huge thefts in health care. A lot can be slashed and simultaneously we can provide we can provide better and more humane coverage. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2009, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-democrats-such-pussies/511669/97 "2009-10-02T19:32:54Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > The insurance companies filter 30 percent off the top. That is a huge savings in eliminating them. Then doctors have to hire a staff that just does billing and arguing with insurance companies to get paid. If we can get rid of those costs we can afford to put people in monitoring the health care companies for fraud. There are huge thefts in health care. A lot can be slashed and simultaneously we can provide we can provide better and more humane coverage. If there was a single entity managing doling out health costs, it would cost maybe $350 per person per year to employ the administrators. In the US we pay about $550 for the administrators of health insurance and about $400 that goes to profit. ($550 + $400 - $350) / $6000 = $600 / $6000 = 10% Which number is, in fact, the very first number I posted in this thread. But the amount that the US needs to reduce spending by is 50% if we want to match the spending of the rest of the world. There is another $2400 going into some unknown hole because no one wants to find where our money is going. Most likely it’s because the US buys the bestest newest technology and does more medical tests than other nations, all of which helps support the development of better and newer medical technology. Now, the reason why we spend $550 for insurance company administration is because there are a lot of them. If you let them all merge into fewer, larger companies then their spending would go down to $350. That still leaves the $400 of profit, but personally I don’t mind paying a little bit of profit. It gives the company managing my health a reason to care about me, and moreso it gives them the extra money needed to be doing R&D to determine things like the most effective use of money to make me live longer. Yeah some of it also goes towards advertising, but again I’m fine with that because it’s a small percentage of anything. But either way, cutting out that 10% isn’t going to reduce spending. It hasn’t ever reduced spending elsewhere, it didn’t reduce spending in Taiwan, and there’s no reason to think that it will reduce spending here. If you can [find where the extra $2400 is going](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=531849) then we can start talking about cost reduction and cost containment. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2009, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-democrats-such-pussies/511669/98 "2009-10-02T20:08:17Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Now, the reason why we spend $550 for insurance company administration is because there are a lot of them. If you let them all merge into fewer, larger companies then their spending would go down to $350. That still leaves the $400 of profit, but personally I don’t mind paying a little bit of profit. It gives the company managing my health a reason to care about me, and moreso it gives them the extra money needed to be doing R&D to determine things like the most effective use of money to make me live longer. Yeah some of it also goes towards advertising, but again I’m fine with that because it’s a small percentage of anything. It doesn’t give them a reason to care about you. It gives them a reason to deny you care. If they can hoover in their current premiums and then refuse to pay any out, they get to keep more. And allowing them to become a legal cartel/monopoly will only make it worse, since there would then be NO alternative to “vote with our dollars” for. Only a public option will even help to keep them honest. As it is now, and as it would be even more with your proposed idea above, they can murder by spreadsheet all they want with no consequences. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2009, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-democrats-such-pussies/511669/99 "2009-10-02T20:35:04Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > It doesn’t give them a reason to care about you. It gives them a reason to deny you care. If they can hoover in their current premiums and then refuse to pay any out, they get to keep more. So then your argument is that these companies are taking about 6% of spending as profit (where I think average profit margin for a company is about 20%) and spending nearly double the amount for medical care as any other country because they are profit hungry and don’t want to pay for medical care? This does not compute. You can’t say that they live for profit when their rate of profit is slimmer than most industries and you can’t say they don’t like to spend money when they’re handing it out hand over fist. > [@](#): > > And allowing them to become a legal cartel/monopoly will only make it worse, since there would then be NO alternative to “vote with our dollars” for. Letting the hundred or so different insurance companies shrink down to like say…10 would hardly be creating a monopoly. It’s reducing overhead, nothing more. And honestly I wouldn’t be surprised if the profit margin shrunk as well. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2009, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-democrats-such-pussies/511669/100 "2009-10-02T22:03:21Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > No idea. But theoretically people get health insurance when they are young and healthy, and simply keep it from then-on. So about the 9% unemployed, who being between jobs via the economy being anal raped by incompetent bankers, what happens to any conditions they develop? They supposed to pick keeping their premiums over feeding their families and the like? Are you the evil heartless type to tell someone who had a run of bad luck “fuck you bitch I’ve got mine”? How about people who develop expensive conditions and the insurance companies, evil pieces of trash they can be, manage to find a technicality and wiggle out of covering it? In other words your argument is retarded. > [@](#): > > I don’t. What part of “1/3rd” was unclear? Why do you feel that the 1/3rd was necessary to my argument, assuming that you can add $96.50 and $50 just fine? Your argument is nonsensical. You can’t say 2/3s of the poor could quit a habit they don’t have. > [@](#): > > This is true, but it’s also true that some poor people have health insurance. It’s probably likely that the poor who drink and gamble more have less or no insurance. I doubt there is such a study as that, but for certain [half of the poor are insured](http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102273320.html). Uh. You cite isn’t what you claim, because it’s talking about people **200% over the federal poverty line**. Also you’re being very deceitful, or painfully ignorant, in your arguments by ignoring catastrophic cases. In your delusional world people don’t have pre-existing conditions apparently, they don’t fall on hard times. further from your own cite > [@](#): > > These non-poor uninsured were more likely than the privately direct-purchase insured to have unmet need, postpone getting care, have no usual source of care, and have no physician visit within the past year.IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY, DELIVERY, OR PRACTICE: Our findings suggest that the non-poor uninsured adults had limitations in access to care. Information on the health risks of being uninsured may persuade some of the non-poor uninsured to purchase health insurance. The potential for health care market to reach the non-poor uninsured should not be overlooked. So even the nonpoor face detrimental healthcare access if they can’t afford insurance. Claiming they can is either is dishonest or delusional unless you can cough up a cite for low cost coverage for anyone, not just the healthy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-democrats-such-pussies/511669.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-the-democrats-such-pussies/511669.md?page=6)