On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:15 PM, kirby urner <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Paul Tanner <email@example.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 4:34 PM, kirby urner <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > >> Question 1: Are you for it? >> >> Question 2: Are you against it? >> > > In a representative democracy, this "for or against it" vote never > comes to the people. I'm supposed to cast my lot with various gangs > who make promises but may have very little idea how to translate those > promises into reality. > > They're not social engineers, most of them. Many are actually > superstitious monkey-brain Biblical literalists with no serious > interest in the real world or how it works. > >> Question 3, if you are for it: Are you for increasing it to the degree >> I put forth above? If not, to what degree are you for it? >> > > You want us to fantasize that we're in this little voting booth asked > to vote up or down on a program that is not currently before the > voters, am I right? Or is this actually someone's bill, a law in the > progress of being passed? > > I can't really be "for it" by voting (nor can you). > >
[More of the same snipped.]
This above and all that followed is a massive cop-out, in so many ways - including the implication that voting does not matter, and so on.
Here is the actual truth of the matter:
If one is always voting for a conservative Republican then one is always voting for less government, and that means less government to help people, including Medicare. (Their Ryan plan will privatize the whole thing and cause the sum total of the premiums and out of pocket expenses to multiply many times. They want traditional Medicare not to be better funded not to "wither on the vine". And so on.)
If one is always voting for the most liberal or progressive candidate including for instance in the Democratic primaries, the one is voting for more government including federal government financed universal healthcare.
I reiterate all the documented fact including via all the links that I put forth in
that show that the federal government of the US is only hope for all those almost 100 million in need with little or no healthcare in the US - including the vast majority of homeless in those 41 sufficiently Republican-run states that DENY Medicaid and Food Stamps to those homeless and to the majority of their working poor.