Why do people often vote against their own interests?

To answer the original question the most common reason is because there are those who believe their interests are better met through means different than what others believe. It is nothing less than massive egocentric arrogance to think otherwise. And the arrogance of the left is absolute on this topic. No one will give even a nanometer on their absolute religious-like faith (yes, your bullshit goes way beyond simple belief) that anyone who disagrees with their conclusion can only do so out of ignorance.

The left keeps harping about the need of the right to "join the 21st century". Yet what they support was invented over 80 years ago. So whose heads are truly in the past?

The health systems of Europe, Canada and elsewhere cannot be described as failures. However, neither can they be genuinely called great successes either. We keep heaqring how European systems spend a little more than half per capita what America spends. What they try to hide is the fact that America was spending slightly more than twice as much per capita on health care BEFORE Europe and others went the way of universal care. So universal care does not, in reality, reduce costs on a per-capita basis.

So what DOES cost twice as much? To answer that, we look to quality of care. Yes, most universal systems meet the BASICS of care reasonably adequately, though the (undoubtedly exaggerated) stories of waiting lines and rationed care have a minimal basis of fact to them. But quality of care includes more than whether a hospital has enough acetaminophen, gauze rolls and xray films on hand to meet needs. Quality includes what some on here have decried as "unnecessary luxuries" like private rooms, or comfortable visitor chairs, which, if a universal plan cannot sustain, can be done away with.

But, we Americans like our luxuries, and we always will. Not only that, but there are many (including myself, having spent innumerable hours in hospitals watching over friends and family) who strongly disagree with the claims that things like private rooms, comfortable visitor chairs, cable television, etc. are not a part of quality of health care.

If universal plans cannot sustain the type of care we have in the U.S., if one price of universal care is to get rid of "luxuries", then IMO, we need to start looking for a different answer than the one others came up with a long, long time ago. IMO, the better answers to addressing health care problems in our society will (or should) come from ORIGINAL thinking, not copy-cat thinking.
 
Last edited:
Good Luck said:
To answer the original question the most common reason is because there are those who believe their interests are better met through means different than what others believe. It is nothing less than massive egocentric arrogance to think otherwise. And the arrogance of the left is absolute on this topic. No one will give even a nanometer on their absolute religious-like faith (yes, your bullshit goes way beyond simple belief) that anyone who disagrees with their conclusion can only do so out of ignorance.

The left keeps harping about the need of the right to "join the 21st century". Yet what they support was invented over 80 years ago. So whose heads are truly in the past?

The health systems of Europe, Canada and elsewhere cannot be described as failures. However, neither can they be genuinely called great successes either. We keep heaqring how European systems spend a little more than half per capita what America spends. What they try to hide is the fact that America was spending slightly more than twice as much per capita on health care BEFORE Europe and others went the way of universal care. So universal care does not, in reality, reduce costs on a per-capita basis.

So what DOES cost twice as much? To answer that, we look to quality of care. Yes, most universal systems meet the BASICS of care reasonably adequately, though the (undoubtedly exaggerated) stories of waiting lines and rationed care have a minimal basis of fact to them. But quality of care includes more than whether a hospital has enough acetaminophen, gauze rolls and xray films on hand to meet needs. Quality includes what some on here have decried as "unnecessary luxuries" like private rooms, or comfortable visitor chairs, which, if a universal plan cannot sustain, can be done away with.

But, we Americans like our luxuries, and we always will. Not only that, but there are many (including myself, having spent innumerable hours in hospitals watching over friends and family) who strongly disagree with the claims that things like private rooms, comfortable visitor chairs, cable television, etc. are not a part of quality of health care.

If universal plans cannot sustain the type of care we have in the U.S., if one price of universal care is to get rid of "luxuries", then IMO, we need to start looking for a different answer than others came up with a long, long time ago. IMO, the better answers to addressing health care problems in our society will (or should) come from ORIGINAL thinking, not copy-cat thinking.
Click to expand...

Much too much to answer a simple question.....
Line one says it all....

those that perceive a voter is voting against their own interests is usually wrong....the voter may not see the issue as being against their interests at all....
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Pay attention, you intellectually impotent cretin. I responded to neocon parrots carrying on about ethics and values. Well, as I pointed out (see above)you neocons were all a twitter about the Massachusetts election of a man that has public stands that CONTRADICT your party's "ethics" and "values". So isn't that voting against your interests?

THINK, YOU FOOL, THINK before your fingers hit the keys.....makes you look less foolish. This tag team of you, Dixie and Southie is just truly pathetic!
Click to expand...

bravo said:
You such a fuckin' moron its a wonder you can breathe and walk at the same time...

WTF have has "MY" party's ethics and values have to do with the thread...?
NOT A THING...you don't even know what party I belong to....

If you mean the voters voted for a man whose values and ethics are different than the voters....thats close to the question asked....but still different
Click to expand...

Ahhh, the rantings of an intellectually bankrupt neocon blowhard.
You can't avoid the point I made, genius......the neocon GOPers have been wailing about "culture wars", the "moral bankruptcy" of liberals and Democrats, and have been ardently opposed to abortion. And yet, they celebrate the election of a man who poses damn near nude for a magazine and who has gone on record as being in favor of a woman's right to choose an abortion.

Now by any sane, rational and logical take....if you are a neocon/Republican and voted for Brown, then you voted AGAINST two interests of yours and your party.

To date I have YET to see you post anything arbitrary to the policies and actions of the last administration. In fact, you've seem to have made it a hobby to follow me around on this thread and rail against ANY support I've made about Obama or criticism I've made about his opponents. So your party politics and/or ideological leanings are pretty clear....for you to deny such in lieu of your history on these threads is ludicrous at best.

Bottom line: my statement stands valid...you and the other two buffoons have exposed your hypocrisy and have made things worst with your illogical denial. Carry on.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
at what cost......cradle to grave socialism has turned Europe into a non-entity....
Click to expand...

The death of imperialism shrunk Europes relative economic status. By any measure they're obviously well off, and economically growing faster than America, they just don't breed like rats. Europe will one day exceed America as conservativism slowly disintegrates what's left of us. We will be a tributary to China in 50 years at this pace.
 
Good Luck said:
To answer the original question the most common reason is because there are those who believe their interests are better met through means different than what others believe. It is nothing less than massive egocentric arrogance to think otherwise. And the arrogance of the left is absolute on this topic. No one will give even a nanometer on their absolute religious-like faith (yes, your bullshit goes way beyond simple belief) that anyone who disagrees with their conclusion can only do so out of ignorance.
Click to expand...

"Believe" is the operative word.

Reasonable but wrong. The majority of Americans were and probably still are in favor of healthcare reform and a majority are still for a single payer type system. That we rank 37th cannot make too many Americans happy. But majorities don't always win even in our democracy. Power wins too often because it can change the dialogue and make the good seem bad. Any idea that incurs costs is in trouble in America today because costs can be used to defeat the best interests of all the people.

Having traveled in Europe and a great deal in Canada, Americans have a kind of myopic view of the world. Our bad is better than their good. Weird because you'll notice not a single one of these nations have politicians running on a rollback of the social safety net. Same here when it comes to Social security, Medicare, or even emergency room care.

The luxury argument is a bit off base. Give a real life example, insured people are quickly removed after they have exhausted their coverage. But Medicare folks are treated wonderfully, because, well you can guess can't you: GOVERNMENT - 'socialism' to those who fail to consider society doesn't exist simply for the rich to exploit.

And the argument that something better is just around the corner is laughable. Consider this has gone on since Teddy Roosevelt....Yea, sure! Change gonna come, you just sit tight....

I think the premise holds, people do vote against the interests of all and in doing so against their own interests, but there is the twist because once you have something you like, fear of loss overcomes reasonable consideration. Add cost or add the real bogeyman to that, taxes, and all is lost, greed wasn't made a cardinal sin for nuttin.


http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm
 
Good Luck said:
To answer the original question the most common reason is because there are those who believe their interests are better met through means different than what others believe. It is nothing less than massive egocentric arrogance to think otherwise. And the arrogance of the left is absolute on this topic. No one will give even a nanometer on their absolute religious-like faith (yes, your bullshit goes way beyond simple belief) that anyone who disagrees with their conclusion can only do so out of ignorance.

The left keeps harping about the need of the right to "join the 21st century". Yet what they support was invented over 80 years ago. So whose heads are truly in the past?

The health systems of Europe, Canada and elsewhere cannot be described as failures. However, neither can they be genuinely called great successes either. We keep heaqring how European systems spend a little more than half per capita what America spends. What they try to hide is the fact that America was spending slightly more than twice as much per capita on health care BEFORE Europe and others went the way of universal care. So universal care does not, in reality, reduce costs on a per-capita basis.

So what DOES cost twice as much? To answer that, we look to quality of care. Yes, most universal systems meet the BASICS of care reasonably adequately, though the (undoubtedly exaggerated) stories of waiting lines and rationed care have a minimal basis of fact to them. But quality of care includes more than whether a hospital has enough acetaminophen, gauze rolls and xray films on hand to meet needs. Quality includes what some on here have decried as "unnecessary luxuries" like private rooms, or comfortable visitor chairs, which, if a universal plan cannot sustain, can be done away with.

But, we Americans like our luxuries, and we always will. Not only that, but there are many (including myself, having spent innumerable hours in hospitals watching over friends and family) who strongly disagree with the claims that things like private rooms, comfortable visitor chairs, cable television, etc. are not a part of quality of health care.

If universal plans cannot sustain the type of care we have in the U.S., if one price of universal care is to get rid of "luxuries", then IMO, we need to start looking for a different answer than the one others came up with a long, long time ago. IMO, the better answers to addressing health care problems in our society will (or should) come from ORIGINAL thinking, not copy-cat thinking.
Click to expand...

The problem is opponents argue both sides of the argument. First it's the "costs will soar" argument. When it's shown countries with universal plans have lower costs the argument turns to "good health care". When it's shown life expectancy is on par the argument switches to "quality" or "luxury".

Let's do the math. Countries with universal health care perform equal to or better than the "pay or suffer" system when talking about the most important aspect of health care; preventing death or longer life expectancy. That is accomplished at half the price. The figures are readily available on the net. That part of the discussion is settled.

Then we move to waiting lists and luxuries. If countries with universal plans spent the equivalent of what the US spends, in other words doubled their budgets, can we even imagine the results regarding waiting times and luxuries? Twice as many of everything; doctors, nurses, hospitals, equipment, drugs, TVs.....yes, even chairs. :)

Implementing a universal plan is not copy-cat thinking. Universal plans are as varied as homes; from those on wheels to million dollar houses. While they're both "homes" they certainly are not copy-cats.

In France, doctors make house calls. If one waited for a doctor to make a house call in Canada it would be a long wait indeed.

The bottom line is the people decide what level of medical care they want. More luxuries equal higher taxes. Most countries have settled on a balance that covers everyone at 1/2 the US cost. If a comfortable chair is important because it encourages visitors which, in turn, speeds recovery of a patient resulting in lower costs then universal plans will supply comfortable chairs.
 
midcan5 said:
"Believe" is the operative word.

Reasonable but wrong. The majority of Americans were and probably still are in favor of healthcare reform and a majority are still for a single payer type system. That we rank 37th cannot make too many Americans happy. But majorities don't always win even in our democracy. Power wins too often because it can change the dialogue and make the good seem bad. Any idea that incurs costs is in trouble in America today because costs can be used to defeat the best interests of all the people.

Having traveled in Europe and a great deal in Canada, Americans have a kind of myopic view of the world. Our bad is better than their good. Weird because you'll notice not a single one of these nations have politicians running on a rollback of the social safety net. Same here when it comes to Social security, Medicare, or even emergency room care.

The luxury argument is a bit off base. Give a real life example, insured people are quickly removed after they have exhausted their coverage. But Medicare folks are treated wonderfully, because, well you can guess can't you: GOVERNMENT - 'socialism' to those who fail to consider society doesn't exist simply for the rich to exploit.

And the argument that something better is just around the corner is laughable. Consider this has gone on since Teddy Roosevelt....Yea, sure! Change gonna come, you just sit tight....

I think the premise holds, people do vote against the interests of all and in doing so against their own interests, but there is the twist because once you have something you like, fear of loss overcomes reasonable consideration. Add cost or add the real bogeyman to that, taxes, and all is lost, greed wasn't made a cardinal sin for nuttin.


http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm
Click to expand...
1) in case you have not notices, while a majority want health care reform, the majority also do NOT want the kinds of reform you keep pushing. Why do you think it is so difficult to get it passed? Even when democrats have a supr majority in the senate, you cannot get what you want passed, due to "blue dog" democrats actually (gasp!) listening to their constituency. If they thought the MAJORITY wanted it, they'd have no trouble with passing it and getting re-elected, would they? It is actually very simple: if your claims were true about what the majority of people want, the kind of health care reform pushed by liberals would have passed a long time ago.

2) Ditto your claims about single-payer system. There is a vocal minority, but NOT, by a long fucking stretch, a MAJORITY as you are lying about. IF it were a majority, politicians would not be so afraid to vote for it, would they? So stop lying about these "majority want this" and Majority want that" bullshit. It's a lie, and anyone whose head is not firmly implanted in the donkey's ass knows it's a lie, INCLUDING many politicians in your own fucking party.

3) Yes, "beleive" is the operative word. You BELIEVE copying other systems is the ONLY possible correct answer. Others BELIEVE that there is a better way. The difference is most others are not so arrrogant as to insist their belief is the ONe and ONLY truth - they reserve that level of belief for their religions. Liberals have made their political philosophy their religion. Again: most want reform, but most do NOT want the kinds of reform constantly pushed by liberal democrats. If most actually wanted it, blue dogs and even a few moderate republicans would be voting for it because they could do so and still get reelected.

And to re-state the "belief" aspect, which is the real answer to your original question, people as a whole do NOT vote against their best interests. They may believe their best interests lie in a different direction or through different means that you promote, so they vote differently than you would have them vote. (too fucking bad for you, huh?) Saying that is "wrong" just shows the incredible narrow-minded arrogance your type exhibit on a daily basis.

4) Have you looked at the factors that put the U.S. 37th? Three of them are specific to universal type plans, so anyone without a universal type plan will automatically rank very low. Note that the U.S. ranks 1st in responsiveness of health care system which one of the factors that we have pointed out before in problems created by centralized universal plans: government bureaucracies are notorious for slow reaction to new conditions, treatments, etc.

5) Are you deliberately obtuse, have difficulty understanding ideas that are not DNC approved, plain assed stupid, or creating a strawman because you don't want to address the idea? I never said "right around the corner" or any other such claim. I DID say that IMO we can DO better by thinking outside the box and coming up with a solution that does NOT include copying what others are doing. Every other plans has problems of one type or another. EVERY plan is currently facing problems with the ability to adequately fund their plans. I do believe that, if we TRY (which you, with your "we alone know the truth!" attitudes do NOT want to try) we CAN come up with something better.
 
Taichiliberal said:
What are you....fucking stupid or stoned? As the the chronology of the posts on these threads show, I am NOT the one dancing with glee over Brown's election.

I merely pointed out the sheer hypocrisy of a statement by your fellow parrot that you chimed in on. What I said about Brown is a documented, bonafide FACT. TFB for you if the truth isn't to your liking.
Click to expand...
And of course I simply pointed out your hypocrisy. LOL
 
midcan5 said:
"Believe" is the operative word.

Reasonable but wrong. The majority of Americans were and probably still are in favor of healthcare reform and a majority are still for a single payer type system. That we rank 37th cannot make too many Americans happy. But majorities don't always win even in our democracy. Power wins too often because it can change the dialogue and make the good seem bad. Any idea that incurs costs is in trouble in America today because costs can be used to defeat the best interests of all the people.

Having traveled in Europe and a great deal in Canada, Americans have a kind of myopic view of the world. Our bad is better than their good. Weird because you'll notice not a single one of these nations have politicians running on a rollback of the social safety net. Same here when it comes to Social security, Medicare, or even emergency room care.

The luxury argument is a bit off base. Give a real life example, insured people are quickly removed after they have exhausted their coverage. But Medicare folks are treated wonderfully, because, well you can guess can't you: GOVERNMENT - 'socialism' to those who fail to consider society doesn't exist simply for the rich to exploit.

And the argument that something better is just around the corner is laughable. Consider this has gone on since Teddy Roosevelt....Yea, sure! Change gonna come, you just sit tight....

I think the premise holds, people do vote against the interests of all and in doing so against their own interests, but there is the twist because once you have something you like, fear of loss overcomes reasonable consideration. Add cost or add the real bogeyman to that, taxes, and all is lost, greed wasn't made a cardinal sin for nuttin.


http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm
Click to expand...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub.../healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

Health Care Reform
Final Health Care Tracking Poll: 58% Oppose the Plan Before Congress
Friday, January 22, 2010

Why is it you can't grasp this simple fact.

The public wants HC reform, just not in the form being pushed down our throats by the Democrats....
 
bravo said:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub.../healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

Health Care Reform
Final Health Care Tracking Poll: 58% Oppose the Plan Before Congress
Friday, January 22, 2010

Why is it you can't grasp this simple fact.

The public wants HC reform, just not in the form being pushed down our throats by the Democrats....
Click to expand...
Well no shit Captain Obvious. I all ready made that point about the middle being steam rolled by the extremes who feel HC reform either goes to far or not far enough.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
What are you....fucking stupid or stoned? As the the chronology of the posts on these threads show, I am NOT the one dancing with glee over Brown's election.

I merely pointed out the sheer hypocrisy of a statement by your fellow parrot that you chimed in on. What I said about Brown is a documented, bonafide FACT. TFB for you if the truth isn't to your liking.
Click to expand...

Southern Man said:
And of course I simply pointed out your hypocrisy. LOL
Click to expand...

You just don't get it, do you chuckles? People who can READ and have a comprehension level of a high school graduate or better can check the chronology of the posts to see what a dishonest childish neocon buffoon you are. Hurling out or repeating another baseless accusation that the post do not logically support just makes you more pathetic.

Grow a spine and deal with the FACTS...you and your fellow neocon parrots squawking with glee over Brown in Massachusetts is hypocrital at best....voting against your best interests at worst. But like the coward you are, you'll just ignore the facts and the logic derived from them, and repeat your lies and slander as a dodge....so much more to pity you.

Carry on, as I'm done with you here.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Well no shit Captain Obvious. I all ready made that point about the middle being steam rolled by the extremes who feel HC reform either goes to far or not far enough.
Click to expand...

Really.....I missed it...what fuckin' post was that ?

Just give me the #....bootlicker...

58% Oppose the Plan Before Congress
The public wants HC reform, just not in the form being pushed down our throats by the Democrats....
 
Taichiliberal said:
You just don't get it, do you chuckles? People who can READ and have a comprehension level of a high school graduate or better can check the chronology of the posts to see what a dishonest childish neocon buffoon you are. Hurling out or repeating another baseless accusation that the post do not logically support just makes you more pathetic.

Grow a spine and deal with the FACTS...you and your fellow neocon parrots squawking with glee over Brown in Massachusetts is hypocrital at best....voting against your best interests at worst. But like the coward you are, you'll just ignore the facts and the logic derived from them, and repeat your lies and slander as a dodge....so much more to pity you.

Carry on, as I'm done with you here.
Click to expand...

There we are, back to the OP. And again, we conservatives put forth the long-term interests of society over our own selfish, short-sighted desires; liberals do the opposite.
 
Good Luck said:
....
5) Are you deliberately obtuse, have difficulty understanding ideas that are not DNC approved, plain assed stupid, or creating a strawman because you don't want to address the idea? I never said "right around the corner" or any other such claim. I DID say that IMO we can DO better by thinking outside the box and coming up with a solution that does NOT include copying what others are doing. Every other plans has problems of one type or another. EVERY plan is currently facing problems with the ability to adequately fund their plans. I do believe that, if we TRY (which you, with your "we alone know the truth!" attitudes do NOT want to try) we CAN come up with something better.
Click to expand...

If we stand still as you propose Americans without healthcare will suffer, do now, will into the future. But you clearly demonstrate the one quality conservatives possess, only bad things will happen if you do this! Too predictive. Hopefully the selfish and greedy will lose this battle and some start to UHC will pass in America. But if it doesn't, Americans suffer, won't be the first or last time. You do realize that if we listened to you guys we'd still be living in caves howling at the moon. Progress comes slow...slow....

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/HIRRHE.html?show=reviews

"He argues that a triplet of 'rhetorical' criticisms--perversity, futility, and jeopardy--'has been unfailingly leveled' by 'reactionaries' at each major progressive reform of the past 300 years--those T. H. Marshall identified with the advancement of civil, political and social rights of citizenship...Charmingly written, this book can benefit a diverse readership."


Damocles, Yes it is rather old, you'd think we'd have progressed a bit more in America?

And Rasmussen statistics are similar to Fox faux news - unfair and unbalanced. Weird that they are always alone on the right of any issue. Tell you anything.
 
midcan5 said:
If we stand still as you propose Americans without healthcare will suffer, do now, will into the future. But you clearly demonstrate the one quality conservatives possess, only bad things will happen if you do this! Too predictive. Hopefully the selfish and greedy will lose this battle and some start to UHC will pass in America. But if it doesn't, Americans suffer, won't be the first or last time. You do realize that if we listened to you guys we'd still be living in caves howling at the moon. Progress comes slow...slow....

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/HIRRHE.html?show=reviews

"He argues that a triplet of 'rhetorical' criticisms--perversity, futility, and jeopardy--'has been unfailingly leveled' by 'reactionaries' at each major progressive reform of the past 300 years--those T. H. Marshall identified with the advancement of civil, political and social rights of citizenship...Charmingly written, this book can benefit a diverse readership."


Damocles, Yes it is rather old, you'd think we'd have progressed a bit more in America?

And Rasmussen statistics are similar to Fox faux news - unfair and unbalanced. Weird that they are always alone on the right of any issue. Tell you anything.
Click to expand...
This is the central lie of the far left and the far right. Where did I ONCE say we should "stand still"? Where did I say nothing but bad would result from passing a universal care system? Your posts are becoming little more than the typical lying strawman liberal talking points, right down to the ever-tired "caveman" reference. Have you ONE, just ONE actual, genuine, ORIGINAL thought in that head you have jammed in the donkey's ass? Or are you so oxygen deprived you have nothing left but what your political masters predetermine you should think?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top