<p>Tens of millions of people don’t have it.</p>
<p>Check the tags out :)</p>
<p>After I put the first, it brought me to the NYU forum… weird…</p>
<p>Anyway, that’s why there’s two, because I got confused and did it twice :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On the other hand, Nancy Pelosi knows exactly what it’s like to be poor in a place like Compton… right?</p>
<p>It’s not a republican/democrat thing… it’s an upper class/lower class thing. And everyone on the hill and in the White House is from the upper class.</p>
<p>Exactly. I hate how some libs pretend to be all “conscientious” and “compassionate” when they themselves have never lived with less then 250K a year. I know a number of hard working, blue collar, union type democrats. Most of my family is like that and I can understand them perfectly. It’s the elites living in Manhattan and San Fran and DC and Cambridge that **** me off.</p>
<p>This is true with Republicans too, although in a slightly different way. Everyone thinks it’s the GOP that’s the party of the rich. No, it’s the party of the middle class. McCain won the majority of voters making between 60K and 250K a year. Obama won a majority of voter making over 250K and under 60K. It’s just that it’s the few rich republicans that are driving the party and that’s why it’s got such a bad image.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>See, most Americans have your view. There really is no big deal. 85% of Americans are perfectly fine with their healthcare. It’s the social tinkerers that feel they have the right to screw it up for the rest of us.</p>
<p>Who has better economic policy: The democrats, republicans, or other?</p>
<p>The greatest mystery is how anyone could view the republicans as looking after the middle-class.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A government program doesn’t have to compete in the market. Right now, insurance companies have to make money to stay in business (this is what businesses do). A government option does not have to make money, because they can just take it from taxes. When you can operate at a loss, you can drive the competition out of the market. Eventually, there will be only the government plan. When there is only one option, whoever is providing that option (in this case, the government) has no incentive to make the option better. If there are multiple options, the consumer can choose who to give their money to, so the better the service, the more money the provider takes in.</p>
<p>And, you can look at Medicare:
[Institute</a> for Health Freedom: How Seniors and Taxpayers Got Enron-ed](<a href=“http://www.forhealthfreedom.org/Publications/MedicareMedicaid/HoodReview.html]Institute”>http://www.forhealthfreedom.org/Publications/MedicareMedicaid/HoodReview.html)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The GOP has a better economic policy in theory. What they’ve implimented over the last eight years (thirty if you want to go back to the beggining of the Republican Resurgence) would suggest otherwise.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe by giving them tax cuts? Instead of the Democrats who are going to push through an energy bill that will raise household energy costs by $1000-2000.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Go back to your elites at Brown. You have really no clue what it is like to be in a middle class family in the rust belt. Unfettered Democrats (largely strutting over from their Ivy League Political Science classes) and Unions have ruined our cities. People are finally begining to wise up.</p>
<p>SoccerGuy, you just mirrored the exact point I was reading in…</p>
<p>This article: [Socialized</a> Healthcare vs. The Laws of Economics - Thomas J. DiLorenzo - Mises Institute](<a href=“http://mises.org/story/3586]Socialized”>http://mises.org/story/3586)</p>
<p>Some great points about healthcare:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Read it in full here if you need stats and facts to back up the points:
[Hoover</a> Institution - Hoover Digest - Here’s a Second Opinion](<a href=“http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/49525427.html]Hoover”>http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/49525427.html)</p>
<p>Did you guys see the recent testimony by Chairmen Bernanke? His attempts at arguing against HR 1207/ S.604 (fed transparency) were pathetic.</p>
<p>“testing if this is how you do that quote thing”</p>
<p>Edit: Nevermind, sorry… how do you do it anyway?</p>
<p>Edit Again: Thanks Minn. :)</p>
<p>No you need to do this:</p>
<p>{Quote}Insert message here{/quote}</p>
<p>Except use these [ ] brackets instead.</p>
<p>[Why</a> markets can’t cure healthcare - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/why-markets-cant-cure-healthcare/]Why”>Why markets can't cure healthcare - The New York Times)</p>
<p>Take it from a nobel prize winner, why the free market and the health care industry don’t mix well.</p>
<p>And if you’re looking for something a bit more academic, just read the link to Kenneth Arrow’s paper in the article.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Funny, considering I’m decidedly middle class and my best friend has lived in the rust belt his whole life (first Michigan, then Cleveland, now Milwaukee), and he’s decidedly middle class as well. I know exactly what that experience is like.</p>
<p>Maybe part of the problem you have with people you consider liberal is the fact that you spout vitriolic when you disagree with someone.</p>
<p>I appreciate you calling me an elitist-- my family would be damn proud to find out that from their lives they have produced a child that others would consider a member of the elite class.</p>
<p>In the meantime, I’ll continue to wonder how the middle class can view the GOP as holding their interests at heart. Perhaps we define middle class differently.</p>
<p>One last point-- I never took a political science class. I was a chemistry concentrator at Brown, just graduated. Now I’m studying urban education policy, but still, I was hardly “indoctrinated” while studying organic chemistry.</p>
<p>Krugman is the deceptive spokesman (cheerleader) of the federal government, nothing more. </p>
<p>I’d explain why he’s wrong, but I really don’t want to. Besides, half the points he makes have already been taken care of.</p>
<p>And no more link ****, I don’t want to have to read entire articles to get your POV.</p>
<p>ModestMelody-</p>
<p>Never said you did. Just saying that most of these social tinkerers waddling over here from New England think their political science talking points from Yale or where ever can solve all our problems and then they ruin the place and flee. Locals continue to vote democratic and the place slowly deteriorates until they wise up, start voting Republican, and the place begins to turn around. Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, Toledo, Milwaukee, Duluth, St. Paul, Lansing, etc are all at various points in this cycle.</p>
<p>The same holds true with NYC, even though it ain’t in the Rust Belt. The place was run into the ground by Democrats for years until Rudy and the GOP showed up and saved the place. Now it is one of the cleanest, most relatively safe major city in the US.</p>
<p>The truth is tax cuts and small gov’t help the middle class. Gov’t take overs of healthcare and cap and trade hurt the middle class. Case closed.</p>
<p>It’s especially funny that your next example is NYC. I live about 12 miles from there, most of my extended family lives there. Your view is pretty simplistic, as is anyone’s view who thinks that it’s the party affiliation of who is in power that dictates whether their policy is effective (or even what their policy is). This is even more true in local politics.</p>