posted
First, some background. Omega's definition of a liberal is someone for bigger government.
Now, with George W. Bush and the GOP opposing lawsuits against HMOs (and the Dems on the opposite side), I find myself wondering ...
Aren't the two ideologies taking stances opposing their ideology? I mean, one would think telling citizens who they can sue and for how much would be "big government", but the conservatives are backing it ...
But the Conservatives/Republicans want legislation which wouldn't allow citizens to sue HMOs ... a very "big government" ideology. Since when does government have the right to tell people who they can sue and for how much?
posted
Democrats are not simply liberals, and Republicans are not simply conservative. There are variations within each party. The variations are based on social and economical factors, regional factors, religious factors, etc.
Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Colin is correct. Don't assume the two major parties adhere to any fundamental philosophies, because they do not.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Because it's what he's saying. Republicans != conservative and Democrats != liberal. Although, granted, using the "not equal to" sign is a bit misleading. What's really needed is a "not necessarily equal to" sign...
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
But since you have private health care, that means it's run by companies for a profit. The people who won these companies are more than likely to be Republicans and Conservatives. Therefore they'd want to support an initiative to stop the proles from suing their companies! QED! I'm getting the hang of this Omega Logic. . . 8)
(sounds like some TOS/Vulcan/Spock novel. . . Star Trek: The Omega Logic)
Conservatives believe (and I think rightly) that allowing unlimited lawsuits against HMOs is simply the first step in phasing out HM's altogether (death by lawsuit, in our highly litigous society), by driving the price of health care up again (as HMOs raise prices in order to purchase insurance against megamillion-dollar lawsuits, whether or not they're valid suits, and pass those costs along to the consumer), thus causing a public outcry, after which the government will be 'forced to step in,' and take over public health care entirely.
Then, when you get inadequate care, you won't just be fighting a company, you'll be fighting the faceless bureaucrats in Washington.. and it's not likely they'll let you sue THEM.
This would complete a process begun back in the days when Medicare and Medicaid were established. These programs were supposed to make health care affordable to the poor, but what they actually did is show the health care providers that they could raise prices as much as they wanted, because government would always pay for it. This made health care for regular folks more expensive, thus leading to the public outcry and mandated creation of HMOs... which only made the problem worse.
See, conservatives believe that the more you rely on government, the more power it has over you, and the more your freedoms are eroded.
Therefore the idea behind being against the bill is a preventative measure.
Also, it could be partly because the bill's strongest supporters are not in health care, but are actually the Trial Lawyer's Association. (Need I mention that they're mostly Democrats?) They're the ones who stand to get much richer if the bill passes.
posted
It's also very "big government" to force healthcare prices up, and to take over the entire system. You make do with what you have.
I say we just ditch medicare all together, 'cause it really sucks. There are exactly two possibilities: you have people ripping the government, and thus everyone else, off; you have the government dictating prices. Neither is acceptable. Design a better system, 'cause this one was flawed from its inception.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
posted
No moreso than defining the 'infield fly rule' in baseball is 'big management.'
And I'm not against allowing people to sue their HMOs... just suing them for far more than is reasonable.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Printer-friendly view of this topic
