How do you choose?

[meltoine]

Who you vote for in a presidential election? Are those criteria different to those you use for a local election? What issues are important to you? Why?

[amaristella]

I think I choose pretty much the same way most people do, looking at issues and whose philosophy most closely reflects my own. When all else fails I have a habit of voting against incumbents just because I always feel like it's a good idea to get new people in who maybe have new ideas or a different way of looking at things.

[basilosaurus]

At the presidential level, it's pretty easy so long as republicans keep pandering to the far right religious wingnuts and trying to cut taxes on rich people. I'm to the left of Obama (by quite a bit), so it's not likely I'll be faced with a real dilemma anytime soon.

At a local level, well, I basically ask H He spends a lot of time reading up on local politics, and I don't. Also, I've never lived where I'm registered to vote whereas he grew up there. We have very similar political views, but even still I make him make a case for or against people in the rare case I might actually disagree with him.

If you want particular issues it's generally social and federal judge appointment concerns. I could vote for someone who doesn't necessarily support gay marriage, but I couldn't vote for them if they actively tried to campaign on restricting marriage and otherwise demonizing gays. Does that make sense? But where I've usually voted, lines have been fairly strictly drawn, so it's not like I have had the option of voting for a socially liberal republican in a long time.

[amaristella]

I forgot also, on measures there's a couple things I look at. For one thing, I try to read the original text of the law if it's not more than a few pages. I also look at who is funding the campaign for and the campaign against a particular measure. A lot of times that can be very very telling.

[meltoine]

I ask because I'm having a really hard time even wanting to vote this year. I love to vote, maybe even as much as Stan does, but there is literally no one, even third party, who I would get excited to vote for.

I loved the way Obama handled Libya, but to me ate overshadowed by all the things he could have done in Egypt to improve the outcome, which he did not. I think that's terribly irresponsible and it's already costing us ge and will continue to cost us more as time goes on. Egypt was much more important to us than Libya and he royally screwed up there.

I also can't get behind the healthcare mandate. It does nothing to address the root cause of the state of healthcare in this country and I really dont believe it will benefit anyone but the insurance companies in the long run.

On the other hand, everyday I become more convinced that Romney has absolutely no idea what he's doing. Or what he wants to do, for that matter. I'm not willing to put that lack of thought into office.

Of the various third party candidates around, there are two who somewhat align with what I think it right for America, but even they can't accomplish those things the way they're saying they can - even if they did win the election, which they won't.

[meltoine]

Stan - He could have prevented the Muslim Brotherhood taking over the government. The MB operates in much the same way as Hezbollah and the Taliban. The go into poor, rural areas where people have no access to TV, internet, radio, mobile phones, etc. They knock on their doors, hand them a 5lb bag of rice and say, "There's another bag of rice for you next week if you show up at this place on Tuesday and vote for this guy."

That's how Hezbollah won in Lebanon and that's how the MB won in Egypt. They went to every little town and village outside of Cairo and Alexandria and bribed the people to vote for their candidate. Add to those people the folks in the cities who voted for Morsy because they are extremists too, and you've got an election in the bag.

Obama could have used USAID, which has a huge presence in Egypt, to counteract those tactics. Send them to Upper Egypt with bags of rice, doctors, candy, what have you. That way they get it from us instead of the MB and they have no reason to support the MB who, in reality, they know nothing about other than that they come with food.

Had he used USAID in this capacity, Morsy would not have won, Egypt would not be on the path it's on, and we wouldn't have lost an ally. We have very little popular support in Egypt anymore and the popular support we do have comes from the Coptics who have no political power. Yet, we're locked in to giving them $2B/year because we don't want to imagine what would happen if we stopped.

As for healthcare, neither the original form of the law or the one we ended up with do anything to address the actual problem with healthcare in this country. There in no reason that the bottom line cost for basic medical care (check-ups, vaccinations, occasional stitches or casts, etc) should be beyond the financial capabilities of the average American. Prices of these services are driven artificially high by the astronomical lawsuits that are allowed to be awarded by juries in cases that should never even be brought, let alone won, for negligence.

Frivolous lawsuits lead to higher malpractice premiums, so doctors have to up their own fees in order to cover their overhead. It also leads them to order tests and procedures that are either entirely unnecessary or for which there is a significantly cheaper option that would do just fine, but the doctor feels obligated to order the more expensive test to cover his/her butt "just in case". For example, there are many conditions that can be diagnosed by x-ray or ultrasound, but the current standard of practice when one of these is suspected is to order an MRI or CAT scan instead "just in case". An x-ray costs ~$250. An MRI costs ~5,000.

If we could address the ridiculous liability that doctors are beholden to, we could reduce the cost of healthcare overall and therefore insurance premiums could be affordable for the average Joe without employer assistance, and/or basic care could be paid for in cash.

Maternity care is a whole other ball of wax. There's no reason that it should cost the better part of $75K to have a baby, from conception to birth. The way we handle maternity is so, so backwards. In reality, 80% of pregnancies could be monitored and delivered for less than $5K if we changed our liability system. As it is, we pay more than 10 times that for a normal, uncomplicated pregnancy and birth. It's ridiculous.

[Dory1988]

Mel, on the healthcare issue, I agree so much. That's what I have been thinking and trying to say for a while.

[audette]

I find US elections fascinating. The whole two party system still confuses me. It feels so limiting...

But, I don't get to make any decisions. I'm not eligible to vote.

[erin2903]

Audette, where are you a citizen?

[audette]

Sept 19, 2012 14:03:43 GMT -5 erin2903 said:

Audette, where are you a citizen?

I'm Canadian. I could apply for US citizenship at this point, but it's a tough decision to make - the Oath of Naturalization here in the US revokes all prior nationalities, and being Canadian is still very much part of my identity. I don't want to give that up. If I could somehow be a dual citizen, I would probably opt for that.

(Technically, Canada considers the revocation of citizenship given in the US Oath of Naturalization as being "under duress" and not valid, but I'm not comfortable saying the oath unless I mean it. Not at this time, anyways.)


Anyways, that means I grew up with a multi-party parliamentary system. Only having two real parties just seems incredibly limiting to me. On the other hand, multi-party systems can lead to some wacky coalition governments, too...

ETA: Having grown up in Canada also means I grew up with socialized healthcare. The way things work in the US confused the crap out of me when I first moved here. It still sometimes throws me for a loop... As a patient, I will say that the US system seems utterly lacking in the concern for preventative care, I think because so few people stay on the same plan/with the same provider for long, due to job changes, etc... It's not economical to pay a small amount now to avoid higher costs down the road if "down the road" is far enough off that chances are that individual will no longer be insured with that provider.

[basilosaurus]

mel, if you look at states that have enacted tort reform legislation, costs have not gone down. Sure, the *threat* of a frivolous lawsuit may be the excuse insurance companies use to charge insane amounts, but it's not the suits themselves. If you can catch the documentary Hot Coffee it goes a lot more in depth about that.

I think our biggest issue with costs is that we have a for profit insurance system. They make money by denying care. And then they add to costs when you factor in all the work, all that time (= money) that goes on both sides by people fighting it.

Oh, and having shitty preventive care. So people go to the ER for minor things because they lack insurance, and that cost gets passed on to everyone else.

[meltoine]

My primary goal is not lowering insurance premiums. The need for doctors to practice defensive medicine is where the real saving will come in. In the states that have tried tort reform, it doesn't even come close to being the kind of reform that can accomplish anything. It's your typical bi-partisan compromise BS that can't meet it's intended goal.

[amaristella]

Audette if it makes you feel any better I've lived here my whole life and I often feel the two party system is strange and restrictive.