Why vote for Bush?

Great Debates
1

I don’t think I would be contradicted if I said “Bush is for big business.”

Now, unless you are a big business, why would you want to vote for Bush? Businesses put their own interests first. Doesn’t the history of business in the last century or so demonstrate anything? Remember how badly employees were treated until laws were enacted and unions were formed?

And while we’re on the subject, why would you be against universal health care? Are you so selfish that you would rather spend $x billion more on a military we don’t need (ok, that’s a different debate) than spend some of your tax dollars so that everyone can get health care when s/he needs it? Do you feel that health care should only be available to people who either work full time or who can otherwise afford to pay for it?

In a recent Consumer Reports there were a couple of letters to the editor from people that stated unequivocably that they definitely did not want universal health care. Anyone else feel the same way? How about if you were working part time and didn’t have health coverage, and then got seriously injured or ill, and ended up with thousands of dollars of hospital bills?

Bush has stated that he’d like to privatize part of social security. Sure, it sounds good in theory, but in reality, the majority today’s social security payments are being payed out to current retirees. What happens when the boomers retire en masse and the number of payments goes up? Won’t this bankrupt the system?

2

Universal health care will result in poorer health care for everyone. You will have to wade through red tape to get treatment, prices will skyrocket, there will be rationing and increasing long waits for tests. Doctors will get sick of being bureaucrats and leave the profession in droves. Thousands maybe even millions of people will die waiting for treatments. Fewer new medicines will be developed resulting in countless deaths that would otherwise be prevented. These are all good reasons to oppose universal health care.
As for businesses, I work for a business, a business built my home and my car, when I want food or clothing I go to a business and buy it, businesses create new technology such as this computer and software, businesses create new medicines and treatments to make me healthier. Business has done all this while putting their own interests first.

3

It’s a Libertarian truism that government is great at breaking your legs and then acting “compassionate” by giving you crutches.

I don’t want universal health care. I know my mother’s name, and it’s not Uncle Sam. The government does not exist to provide me with health care; it exists to carry out its duties as enumerated in the Constitution. EVERYTHING that is government-run is more expensive and moorly poorly run than privately run enterprises. Private schools get much more accomplished for students with far less funds at their disposal than public schools. The armed forces regularly spend hundreds of dollars for tools you and I can pick up at the True Value for $5. If there were universal, non-means-tested health care for EVERYONE in the country, can you imagine the waste? Shoot, HUD just said it’s got some billion dollars it cannot account for. A billion here and a billion there and you’re talking real money.

Instead, if government would get out of the health care business and give that tax money back to the people, they could put it in medical savings accounts or get private insurance on their own. For the poorest of the poor, perhaps there should be some government aid, but this would be a very small percentage of what either Gore or Bush are talking about. Hospitals by law have to take a certain number of cases pro bono. If you are deathly ill, they MUST give you aid regardless of whether you can pay.

I trust the people. People have a right to take their money and invest it for health care as they see fit. They’d also have additional money to give to charities, which are better users of funds than government agencies.

It’s not that I want people to be sick and unable to afford health care. I simply don’t want the government taking on roles it was never intended to fill and taking autonomy from the American people.

4

The fundamental difference is that Bush is a Republican and Gore is a Democrat.

A Rebublican believes, IMHO, that Government is a necessary evil, and should be kept to a minimum. A Republican beleives in personal responsibility, and the right so succeed or fail on your own. A Republican beleives that each thing the Government gives us was really our own to begin with, and that we must ultimately pay dearly for it through the intervention of the cumbersome Government middleman.

A Democrat believes, IMHO that more government is better, that we as a people need the government to take care of us and look out for our own best interests. The unstated presumption is that we are incapable of doing so ourselves.

As for universal health care. We have it. It’s called Medicare and Medicaid. Their purpose is to ensure that nobody goes without health care due to poverty. If you go to a hospital in America you are treated regardless of your ability to pay. What this issue is about is your right to choose your health care provider. The American experience with HMOs has not been a positive one. I do not trust the Government to decide the course of my treatment, and to whom I may go for that treatment. I trust myself and my Doctor, and I will fight for my right to choose what is best for myself and my family in this regard.

As for Social Security, it is a Ponzi scheme that has been inherently flawed since day 1. It ignored the most basic actuarial principles; that birthrates are not a steady state growth, and that people are living longer. The system cannot survive as it exists, regardless. Bush’s plan is an effort to preserve a portion of those payments being made to Social Security to provide for the people who are making them. Again, the beleif is that the individual can better decide for himself how those monies should be invested then the Government. The proof that we pay dearly for what the government gives us is nowhere clearer than in the case of Social Security. It is a mess without a clear solution, and Bush’s plan is designed so that the people who are paying into the system now and who will be paying into it for the rest of their working lives, will see something for this effort. It will surely bring the balance of payments situation to a head much quicker. But, I don’t think that ignoring this problem and pushing it forward is a particularly good idea. Ultimately this stupidity must be paid for, and the most likely route is by reduced benefits to those who have paid into the plan, but been frugal and smart enough not to rely on it. An increased tax-burden upon those working is another likely alternative.

Again, SS is a wondeful example of what happens when the government tries to take care of us, and look out for our best interests.

5

As for being for big business, I should hope so. Business creates wealth. Wealth pays for things. I am all for generating wealth to pay for what he have. I am not all that crazy about getting new things while destroying our ability to for them.

6

That’s where the difference ends. Should have saved yourself some keyboard cramp, Scylla.

7

OK, apparently I’ve misunderstood the universal healthcare issue. I would not be in favor of gov’t sponsered universal healthcare for all, just for those that do not currently have it. And if you think Medicaid/medicare is sufficient, you have your head in the sand. Typically people without health insurance have to go to hospital emergency rooms and wait hours, if not days, for care. As a patient, would you tolerate this?

And nobody has answered my main question, about being for big business. Exactly what do Republicans feel should be deregulated? Should we abolish environmental regulations? Allow union-busting? Get rid of OSHA? How about minimum age requirements?

Just for the record, I would likely gain financially if Bush were to be elected, but under no circumstances would I consider voting for him.

And Bush wants to strengthen the military? What for? How about streamlining the military instead? Get rid of excess waste. Of course, realistically this would never happen…

8

As for your question about the military Bush has said one of the first things he will do as President will be to try to match up the size of the military with its mission.
A quote from him.
“Let’s start a long-term plan for what our military looks like, so we have rational spending when it come to the Pentagon budget”
The things you mentioned about Big business, Bush has never proposed any of that. Where do you get your information?

9

I’ve got bad news for you: I have insurance. Excellent insurance. So excellent that when I had ortho surgery twice last year, my total out-of-pocket expenses amounted to less than $150. And I still sometimes sit in the ER for hours. When I broke my leg (the incident that prompted the two surgeries), I sat in the ER waiting room for three hours before an X-ray was taken.

Triage is performed according to who is the most injured, not who has the most insurance.

Just out of curiosity, how familiar are you with how the military operates and what current troop levels are? (And what is “excess waste”?)

10

I tend to agree with you. As Harry Browne notes we have a great OFFENSE. However, we have next to no DEFENSE.

I think it’s important to improve our defense, and neither Bush nor Gore is talking about that. Browne is. He’d give $50,000,000,000 (taken from sales of government land in the west and savings from military spending) to the first PRIVATE corporation to come up with a workable missile defense program. That’s a great idea.

11

I just want to remind everyone, that the election rules have been changed this year. Most polling places can’t handle the huge number of expected voters, so… the new rules are, if you’re voting Democrat, you go to vote on Tuesday November 7. If you’re voting Republican, you go to vote on Wednesday, November 8. That way, they can get a more accurate count.

12

**

My mistake. I assumed you wished to debate because you had an open mind.

How about because we might be overdeployed, and have so many of our resources abroad that we might not have the ability to react to a new crisis, or… …defend our own country should the need arise?

Thankfully both candidates seem to recognize the need for a strong military.

13

Yeah, we should have a few rounds of base closings. Maybe we should cut back on our production and purchase of weapons. Better yet, we could cut back on staff. Oh wait, all that has happened over the past 8 years resulting in declining morale, an inability to recruit needed people, and a level of readiness that isn’t very ready.

14

that with a Bush Presidency and a Republican Congress, we would get Trent Lott, Dick Armey and Tom Delay!!! making major policy decisions. I would love to see how Mr Bush/Mr Civility, Compromise and BiPartisanship would deal with these lousy rebel-rousing either-you-are-with-us-or-agin-us rabid Republicans who painfully pulled us kicking and screaming thru the various Special Prosecutor investigations of the Clintons. Don’t forget that these henchman are direct descendants of Newt Gingrich who shut down the govt, eliminated school lunches, cut Medicare, and generally wrecked havoc on what should be a negotiation/compromise way of doing business. This nasty Republican Troika pulled the plug, at the last minute, from the recent Treasury appropriations bill which included measures to increase protective measures in the workplace inspite of an agree upon compromise.

Add to this group, a couple or more Supreme Court Justices who could flip us all the bird in terms of civil rights, choice, hate crimes, and God knows what else.

Add Charleton Heston packing his own heat… well, you understand.

I’m not a died in the wool Democrat and Nader looks pretty good to me. These clowns, however, are the anti-thesis of the democratic process. Why Vote for Bush?.. shit the question should read why vote for him and those other guys…

15

Except of course, when it comes to matters of own’s private life, i.e. sexual orientation, religion, reproduction, etc. And of course, Republicans think its a smart idea to lock up every drug user around (unless the drug user is related to a government official).

Republicans are the definition of hypocrites. Go ahead and say what the republicans believe in, but don’t for a SECOND claim that they think that government should be kept to a minimum and believe in personal responsibility, that’s bullshit. The only time they believe in personal responsibility is if one is in total agreement with THEM.

Thank God for SS, without it my grandmother and mother would have been completely destitute, and living off their children, who until quite recently were barely able to take care of themselves. And many old people don’t have anyone who would step in and care for them.

It certainly needs some work, but the original idea was a great one. Remember, at the time it was enacted, the average lifespan wasn’t much past 65.

16

I never claimed he did. I’m just wondering what sort of legislation would be enacted that would be “friendly” towards big business, and how it would (or would not) affect individuals, or the environment.

You missed my point. How would you like to have to go to the emergency room for every medical ailment? IMO it’s a waste of these people’s time and hospital worker’s time (I have yet to see ER workers who were not overworked). You have an ear infection? OK, go sit in this waiting room for 12 hours while we take care of everyone else…

17

I actually like the idea of privatizing part of SS - in theory. In practice, it would be a disaster, because the system is already overloaded. If we could figure out a way to keep current recipients receiving payments, while at the same time bolstering the system so that it doesn’t crash some time in the future (and I’m constantly hearing estimates on how much longer the SS system has to go before it runs out of money. Anyone have the Straight Dope?), I’m all in favor of allowing individual investing. OTOH, what would happen if you invested poorly, and after retiring have no other source of income (pension, other investments, etc)? You’re now dependent on reduced SS income, and could conceivable become another taxpayer burden…

18

And how, exactly, would this differ from the current managed care system? I’ll tell you–under the present system, middleman CEOs and stockholders get rich, and the working poor, self-employed, and uninsured get the shaft.

In practice, I have reservations about single-payer health care, because I’m sure our government would find a way to screw it up. In theory, however, I’m all for it, and even in practice I don’t think it would be any worse than the current corporate system.

Not true. There are upwards of 40 million people in this country who have no health insurance at all, even with Medicare and Medicaid.

You cannot get Medicaid just for being poor–basically, you have to already be pretty sick to get it. Minor illnesses? Preventive care? You’re out of luck.

And yes, you’re right, we are civilized enough in this country to say that if someone comes into an emergency room dying, you can’t watch him die just because he can’t pay. However, the emergency room is no place for primary care. What we need is a system where people don’t have to get sick enough to come to the emergency room before they get treatment.

Dr. J

19

And I have a bad feeling that the people who do lose their money in poor investments are gonna scream at the government and ask them for extra help.

Besides, if Republicans think government should have as little responsibility as possible, and that they “trust us”, why don’t they trust women to decide what to do with their own bodies?

20

Frogstein: I have worked for many small businesses and a few large corporations. Right now, I am working for a corporation that has more than 35,000 employees worldwide. This experience has convinced me that I would much rather work for a big business than a small business.

Why, I can hear the horror-stricken leftists asking in shock?

Big businesses PAY better and give better benefits.

Big businesses, in my experience, generally treat their employees with a little more respect. Many managers for large corporations have been well-trained and try at least to comply with the law if not treat their underlings with respect. Too many small-business owners I have known think that employee = slave, and treat their employees accordingly. I can think of only one or two managers from large businesses that I remember with loathing or contempt. There are several from small businesses that I detest, even years after leaving those firms, and at least one that I would not mind killing as he was a complete SOB. The large corporations that have employed me have dealt with me honestly in money matters; I have been cheated by several small businessmen.

When it comes to the environment, I grant you that big businesses can be a danger. However, I have known several small businesspeople whose flagrant disregard for environmental concerns and laws match, if not exceed, that of any Fortune 500 CEO. I remember one bastard (come to think of it, he is the second SOB I would not mind killing) who replied “Who gives a shit about the environment?” when an employee asked him about a potential environmental hazard. I know another guy, a staunch Democrat BTW, who once confessed to me that he concealed a substantial oil spillage. Didn’t make any effort to report it or clean it up.

In short, Frogstein, give me the big boys any day of the week. Those little guys will screw you any chance they get.

Guinastasia: Grow up sometime. There are many Republicans, Christine Whitman and Barry Goldwater spring to mind as the most famous examples, who are or have been pro-choice. When he was governor of California, Ronald Reagan, the bane of the American Left, signed one of the most liberal abortion laws then in existence. In my own state of Indiana, several Democrats, including the Speaker of the House, are leaders among those politicians seeking to restrict a woman’s “right to choose.” In fact, I think if you would poke your head outside of the big cities and seriousily examine politics in the southern and midwestern states, you would find many Democrats in the state legislatures who are “pro-life.”