Surprising Poll Findings?

TheDanold

TheDanold

Unimatrix
Some surprising finds challenging the conventional view:

1. Even among Republicans a majority does not want abortion banned.
2. More than half of Democrats want creationism taught in school.
3. Barely more than half of Dems and very few Repubs want to pay for more government health insurance. This is key point I was saying to you Watermark, lots of people may say they want universal healthcare but once the giant tax bill comes in the numbers quickly plummet bigtime.

CUSpoll.gif
 
A surprising number of Republicans are still stuck in the 18th century. (Sex before marriage opposition/creation theory)
 
Warren said:
A surprising number of Republicans are still stuck in the 18th century. (Sex before marriage opposition/creation theory)
Click to expand...

It's unfortunate the polls and discussions in general are all pretty much focused on the war and social issues or expansion of government in healthcare.
What about the deficit, big spending, cutting government? Polls in the 90's looked a lot more favorable for less government.
 
The sex before marriage thing is really nutty. Kind of shows these polls are suspect too.

How many of those repubs felt that way before they were married and had kids? Or would say that if they were not married? Immoral, that's so stupid!
 
TheDanold said:
It's unfortunate the polls and discussions in general are all pretty much focused on the war and social issues or expansion of government in healthcare.
What about the deficit, big spending, cutting government? Polls in the 90's looked a lot more favorable for less government.
Click to expand...

Umm the war is big spending, cut the war and cut spending.
 
TheDanold said:
It's unfortunate the polls and discussions in general are all pretty much focused on the war and social issues or expansion of government in healthcare.
What about the deficit, big spending, cutting government? Polls in the 90's looked a lot more favorable for less government.
Click to expand...

It's because the war and it's consequences are the most important issues before this nation, and the well-being of American citizens, both physically and socially, and the infrastructure of America, both physically and governmentally, are not far behind.

Realities, not appearances, dictates that the truth of what is in the best interests of America should not be constrained by a psuedo-academic ideology based notion of "less government".

Here's what I find telling about the results .. republicans care less about the war, the economy, the environment, the rights of gays, nor even the economy than they are about FEAR. When it comes to FEAR, those scary make-believe "patriots" are almost off the charts. :shock:

DAMN!!!

THE most ASTOUNDING and telling indicator on the charts BY FAR is on the question of was it a mistake to invade Iraq. More than 80% of republicans said no .. in the face of all that is known today that is simply an AMAZING statistic. EIGHTY-TWO PERCENT

Truly incredible.

Any group of people that dense should not be dictating course for America.

It's just as simple as that.
 
Last edited:
It's broken and we need to fix it but nationalization isn't necessarily the only way we could do that.

Nationalization, however, is the only thing that's really KNOWN for sure to work.
 
Yeah we have tried HMO's etc and the cost still keeps climbing at maybe 4X the inflation rate....
HMO's were supposed to fix all that....
 
Watermark said:
It's broken and we need to fix it but nationalization isn't necessarily the only way we could do that.

Nationalization, however, is the only thing that's really KNOWN for sure to work.
Click to expand...


Nonsense. Dude, you understand economics well enough. Tell us how the laws of economics apply to all industries but health care?

The socialized medicine nations are facing huge debt that they will not be able to fund. We have our own problems but adding healthcare will only make it wore. In the US the rate of costs increases have continued to rise as the governments of Clinton and Bush have made some of the hugest expansions in healthcare since Johnson. And the quality of care is not so great either, but still better than the socialist nations.

Government intervention in health care is known to fail. In the 50s we had the best system in the world without much cost. The big difference from then and now is the humongous expansion of government meddling in this industry and the results are predictable and obvious.

Quit eating shit and trying to kiss lefty ass or just go back to being a dumbass socialist.
 
Nonsense. Dude, you understand economics well enough. Tell us how the laws of economics apply to all industries but health care?

Yes, they do apply to healthcare, and that's why the government is particularly effective at it. It's just like the difference between unregulated power plant monopolies and government run or regulated power. The industry is naturally uncompetitive. If you understood economics better you'd understand that.

The socialized medicine nations are facing huge debt that they will not be able to fund.

LOL. You're defending the nation with the largest debt in the entire world with this?

We have our own problems but adding healthcare will only make it wore.

You mean subtracting healthcare? I'd like to see your proof that nationalized healthcare is more expensive than the US system. Whenever you come back emptyhanded and crying, apologize for being an ass.

In the US the rate of costs increases have continued to rise as the governments of Clinton and Bush have made some of the hugest expansions in healthcare since Johnson.

I'm sorry, I was unaware of when America adopted a single-payer system? Anyone?

And the quality of care is not so great either, but still better than the socialist nations.

Yeah, man. It's better than Slovakia. Not France, or even Britian. Britian spends 1/3rd of the amount we do on healthcare too.

Government intervention in health care is known to fail.

Single-payer healthcare has never failed. Bring up some actual sources, instead of citing stupid assumed bullshit.

In the 50s we had the best system in the world without much cost.

Yeah, and how complicated was the health system? A few doctors to administrate penicillin? Healthcare today is much more complicated, but because of that, people live 30 years longer. And in the 50s, we were also by far the richest nation in the world. America is no longer the richest nation in the world per capita, and if you count the amount we waste on our healthcare system, we're behind nations like Sweden and Denmark too.

The big difference from then and now is the humongous expansion of government meddling in this industry and the results are predictable and obvious.

Yeah. I get your argument RS. Because people go to the doctor for "frivolous reasons", our healthcare costs explode. Of course, that argument doesn't work for France, where people can usually schedule same day appointments for any reason at all, at no individual cost, and they spend half as much on healthcare in total as we do, but you can try, RS.

Quit eating shit and trying to kiss lefty ass or just go back to being a dumbass socialist.

Get an indepenent brain.
 
RStringfield said:
Nonsense. Dude, you understand economics well enough. Tell us how the laws of economics apply to all industries but health care?

The socialized medicine nations are facing huge debt that they will not be able to fund. We have our own problems but adding healthcare will only make it wore. In the US the rate of costs increases have continued to rise as the governments of Clinton and Bush have made some of the hugest expansions in healthcare since Johnson. And the quality of care is not so great either, but still better than the socialist nations.

Government intervention in health care is known to fail. In the 50s we had the best system in the world without much cost. The big difference from then and now is the humongous expansion of government meddling in this industry and the results are predictable and obvious.

Quit eating shit and trying to kiss lefty ass or just go back to being a dumbass socialist.
Click to expand...

So because he agrees with liberals on a particular position, he is "kissing lefty ass and eating shit' but if he was here kissing your ass every day like the little libertarian pups you are trying to train, then he would be a freethinker no doubt.

You really are an ass Rs.
 
Watermark said:

Yes, they do apply to healthcare, and that's why the government is particularly effective at it. It's just like the difference between unregulated power plant monopolies and government run or regulated power. The industry is naturally uncompetitive. If you understood economics better you'd understand that.
Click to expand...


Naturally uncompetitive? Huh? Is there some need for a healthcare conduit that requires a limitied distribution? Maybe in the socialized nations. But here, the opportunity for distribution are virtually unlimited.

There is no comparison whatsoever between the two, and that is granting the assumption that power is inherently monopolistic.

LOL. You're defending the nation with the largest debt in the entire world with this?
Click to expand...

Why make an argument on this when I addressed that with the next sentence. Lack of socialized healthcare has not increased our debt problems. Extension of benefits (pill bill) and medicare along with SS are will lead to unsustainable debt. Our military expenditures are certainly way too high, but we cannot fix the looming debt problems with cuts there alone.

You mean subtracting healthcare? I'd like to see your proof that nationalized healthcare is more expensive than the US system. Whenever you come back emptyhanded and crying, apologize for being an ass.
Click to expand...

My proof is the alarming increases in the rates of costs increases as we continue with more and more government intervention.

I'm sorry, I was unaware of when America adopted a single-payer system? Anyone?
Click to expand...

I am sorry but you are well aware of the government expansions into healthcare.

Yeah, man. It's better than Slovakia. Not France, or even Britian. Britian spends 1/3rd of the amount we do on healthcare too.
Click to expand...

Yeah look at these wonderful examples.

http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/socialized.html#britain

Single-payer healthcare has never failed. Bring up some actual sources, instead of citing stupid assumed bullshit.
Click to expand...

It has failed many. People are dying on wait list and the looming debt issues will require cost cutting. They will either be forced to liberalize or further deny care.

Yeah, and how complicated was the health system? A few doctors to administrate penicillin? Healthcare today is much more complicated, but because of that, people live 30 years longer. And in the 50s, we were also by far the richest nation in the world. America is no longer the richest nation in the world per capita, and if you count the amount we waste on our healthcare system, we're behind nations like Sweden and Denmark too.
Click to expand...

Yes, the market has made great improvments in care and extended the lifespan of the people. We can't tolerate that any longer.

The government is better at dealing with complicated matters? That's a laugh. Further, healthcare was just as much a high tech industry in relation to others as it is now.

Yeah. I get your argument RS. Because people go to the doctor for "frivolous reasons", our healthcare costs explode. Of course, that argument doesn't work for France, where people can usually schedule same day appointments for any reason at all, at no individual cost, and they spend half as much on healthcare in total as we do, but you can try, RS.
Click to expand...

Where did I say anything about frivolous healthcare visits? There are a number of things contributing, many of them outside the healthcare markets direct control (i.e., poor eating habits).

Get an indepenent brain.
Click to expand...

Oh, you're such a maverick! Sure...

You employ a tired old argument about natural monopolies (how it applies is quite unclear) and the equally tired argument about complexity.

Hayek destroyed the notion that complexity is better handled by government. Most of the medical advances that you site as the reason for higher costs were developed here, not in the USSR, China or Cuba. Nothing you offer is "independent" and the fact that you might choose to be wrong on occasion is not indicative of any indpendent quality. It only indicates confusion.

Your view of France seems to be pollyanna bs. They are struggling with health care inflation as well. The burden on the general revenue fund (i.e., not funded by the payroll tax) has increased from 7% in 90 to 40% in 03 and that is still not enough. Deficits have ballooned to 13.5 billion. As their population ages this will only become a bigger problem.

How will they address it? If they move to more government meddling in supply things will not look so great.

Many of the costs differences are not solely about who is paying. The government requirements for paperwork are far less burdensome and the malpractice suits are not as out of hand.

Further, they are not completely single-payer.
 
Darla said:
So because he agrees with liberals on a particular position, he is "kissing lefty ass and eating shit' but if he was here kissing your ass every day like the little libertarian pups you are trying to train, then he would be a freethinker no doubt.

You really are an ass Rs.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's correct. Kiss my butt, water, or you are a damned socialist!

:rolleyes:

If socialized healthcare is so grand then why not socialize everything. The argument about a natural monopoly is unsupported.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top