• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pro or anti ??

PRO OR ANTİ ??

  • l am pro choice ,pro SSM ,pro gun ,anti obamacare ,anti death penalty

    Votes: 8 15.7%

  • l am pro choice ,pro SSM ,anti gun ,pro obamacare ,pro death penalty

    Votes: 2 3.9%

  • l am pro life ,anti SSM ,pro gun ,anti obamacare ,pro death penalty

    Votes: 6 11.8%

  • l am pro life ,anti SSM ,anti gun ,pro obamacare ,anti death penalty

    Votes: 2 3.9%

  • l am pro choice ,pro SSM ,pro gun ,pro obamacare ,pro death penalty

    Votes: 5 9.8%

  • l am pro life ,anti SSM ,anti gun ,anti obamacare ,anti death penalty

    Votes: 2 3.9%

  • l am pro life ,anti SSM ,pro gun ,pro obamacare ,anti death penalty

    Votes: 1 2.0%

  • l am pro choice ,pro SSM, anti gun ,anti obamacare ,pro death penalty

    Votes: 2 3.9%

  • l am pro life ,pro SSM,pro gun ,pro obamacare ,pro death penalty

    Votes: 3 5.9%

  • other

    Votes: 30 58.8%
  • Total voters
    51
Maybe you assumed everyone opposed to abortion opposes gay marriage, or maybe you ran out of options, either way, no option is valid for me.

Pro-equality and pro-human rights.

Which means:
* I have to oppose abortion, a violation of the right to life,
* Marriage is about freedom of contract so I don't care who you want to share joint property with, that's your business, part of your right to liberty as well.
* I have to support everyone's right to keep and bear arms and use them for self-defense; this one ties into all of the big three: life, liberty, AND property.
* I have to oppose unconstitutional garbage like Obamacare which both mandates the purchase of insurance and steals from the taxpayer to pay subsidies for another's coerced purchase.

As far as the death penalty is concerned, there are valid arguments to be had on either side but I ultimately come down against it; I don't like the infliction of death on the convicted because of the possibility of a false conviction. You can set an imprisoned man free, you can't resurrect the executed.
 
pro-choice, pro same sex marriage, for gun restrictions, for affordable healthcare (could care less if that is Obama care or a better system just a system in which everyone is covered), against the death penalty.

Also, for euthanasia, for gay adoptions, for child euthanasia, for euthanasia for babies if there is unending and unbearable suffering (as in unbearable pain) and if there is no hope whatsoever of recovery (parents will be the only ones allowed to make the final decision and the doctor must agree the pain in unbearable and there is no hope for recovery), anti polygamy, anti discrimination.
 
JayDubya said:
Maybe you assumed everyone opposed to abortion opposes gay marriage, or maybe you ran out of options, either way, no option is valid for me.

Pro-equality and pro-human rights.

Which means:
* I have to oppose abortion, a violation of the right to life,
* Marriage is about freedom of contract so I don't care who you want to share joint property with, that's your business, part of your right to liberty as well.
* I have to support everyone's right to keep and bear arms and use them for self-defense; this one ties into all of the big three: life, liberty, AND property.
* I have to oppose unconstitutional garbage like Obamacare which both mandates the purchase of insurance and steals from the taxpayer to pay subsidies for another's coerced purchase.

As far as the death penalty is concerned, there are valid arguments to be had on either side but I ultimately come down against it; I don't like the infliction of death on the convicted because of the possibility of a false conviction. You can set an imprisoned man free, you can't resurrect the executed.
Click to expand...

I totally agree on the death penalty issue, setting innocent people free is possible, bringing them back from the dead is impossible. Also, families/loved ones of both the victim and the suspect have to suffer through (often) decades of appeals/stays/appeals/etc. before sometimes after 30 years the death penalty is carried out.

Just convict people to live without the possibility of parole if you would consider death penalty, it is most likely cheaper and personally I like prisoners to have to be deprived of their freedom for as many years as humanly possible before they die inside their jail cells.
 
pro choice pro ssm antiromney/republicancare pro death penalty
 
JayDubya said:
Maybe you assumed everyone opposed to abortion opposes gay marriage, or maybe you ran out of options, either way, no option is valid for me.

Pro-equality and pro-human rights.

Which means:
* I have to oppose abortion, a violation of the right to life,
* Marriage is about freedom of contract so I don't care who you want to share joint property with, that's your business, part of your right to liberty as well.
* I have to support everyone's right to keep and bear arms and use them for self-defense; this one ties into all of the big three: life, liberty, AND property.
* I have to oppose unconstitutional garbage like Obamacare which both mandates the purchase of insurance and steals from the taxpayer to pay subsidies for another's coerced purchase.

As far as the death penalty is concerned, there are valid arguments to be had on either side but I ultimately come down against it; I don't like the infliction of death on the convicted because of the possibility of a false conviction. You can set an imprisoned man free, you can't resurrect the executed.
Click to expand...

no l didnt assume ,didnt you see " pro life pro SSM " in the same option ?,

this " taxpayer " thing is hard to understand..is it something like " aliens ? as far as l know all people who earn money usually pay the income tax.

the last option would fit you if you were not anti obamacare ( l exclude your logical death p comment ,in fact serial killers pedophilies should be executed
 
Last edited:
I am Pro 'what's-it-to-ya?'
 
I had a hard time with the poll. I don't really consider myself pro-life or pro-choice. Personally, I don't think I would have an abortion, but I can still understand why some women might choose to do so. I hear about cases of abuse and neglect and, although it may sound cruel in it's own way, I have to wonder if that particular child I hear about on the news would have been better off had he or she not even been born.

As far as SSM, I think that, as long as it's another person of legal consensual age, a person should be able to marry whomever he or she wants without the government having a say in it. It's not the government's or anyone else's business, IMO, who a person decides to marry or have a relationship with, so I suppose that makes me pro-SSM.

I'm definitely pro-2nd amendment. I am a strong believer in protecting ALL of our rights as citizens. I think they are all extremely important and all serve an important purpose in maintaining our freedoms. I don't believe that the government should be able to interfere with or infringe upon any of our rights, and I think those who DO want the government to intervene are traitors to American citizens.

Although I don't have a huge issue with Obamacare, I'm certainly not a fan of it, and I would like to see something done that would actually decrease the costs of our healthcare, because THAT is where the real issue lies. I know that malpractice insurance plays a role in this, and there should be limitations on the dollar amount a person can collect as a result of these suits. Malpractice insurance can cost an individual doctor $120,000 a YEAR, and THAT is just outrageous. I don't even KNOW how much a clinic or hospital has to pay. No wonder they charge us $10.00 for an aspirin or $50.00 for an IV bag of salt water when we go to the hospital! :roll:

I am pretty much strongly against the death penalty. I don't want my government killing citizens at it's whim, it's super expensive, it's time consuming and clogs up the justice system, it's cruel and unusual, and innocent people have been and sometimes are put to death. That is disgusting IMO when it is completely unnecessary because those killers can be given LWOP.
 
ChrisL said:
Although I don't have a huge issue with Obamacare, I'm certainly not a fan of it, and I would like to see something done that would actually decrease the costs of our healthcare, because THAT is where the real issue lies. I know that malpractice insurance plays a role in this, and there should be limitations on the dollar amount a person can collect as a result of these suits. Malpractice insurance can cost an individual doctor $120,000 a YEAR, and THAT is just outrageous. I don't even KNOW how much a clinic or hospital has to pay. No wonder they charge us $10.00 for an aspirin or $50.00 for an IV bag of salt water when we go to the hospital! :roll:
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, one side of the argument is not interested in any pragmatic measures that would reduce the cost of health care.

450px-Total_health_expenditure_per_capita%2C_US_Dollars_PPP.png
 
ChrisL said:
I had a hard time with the poll. I don't really consider myself pro-life or pro-choice. Personally, I don't think I would have an abortion, but I can still understand why some women might choose to do so. I hear about cases of abuse and neglect and, although it may sound cruel in it's own way, I have to wonder if that particular child I hear about on the news would have been better off had he or she not even been born.

As far as SSM, I think that, as long as it's another person of legal consensual age, a person should be able to marry whomever he or she wants without the government having a say in it. It's not the government's or anyone else's business, IMO, who a person decides to marry or have a relationship with, so I suppose that makes me pro-SSM.

I'm definitely pro-2nd amendment. I am a strong believer in protecting ALL of our rights as citizens. I think they are all extremely important and all serve an important purpose in maintaining our freedoms. I don't believe that the government should be able to interfere with or infringe upon any of our rights, and I think those who DO want the government to intervene are traitors to American citizens.

Although I don't have a huge issue with Obamacare, I'm certainly not a fan of it, and I would like to see something done that would actually decrease the costs of our healthcare, because THAT is where the real issue lies. I know that malpractice insurance plays a role in this, and there should be limitations on the dollar amount a person can collect as a result of these suits. Malpractice insurance can cost an individual doctor $120,000 a YEAR, and THAT is just outrageous. I don't even KNOW how much a clinic or hospital has to pay. No wonder they charge us $10.00 for an aspirin or $50.00 for an IV bag of salt water when we go to the hospital! :roll:

I am pretty much strongly against the death penalty. I don't want my government killing citizens at it's whim, it's super expensive, it's time consuming and clogs up the justice system, it's cruel and unusual, and innocent people have been and sometimes are put to death. That is disgusting IMO when it is completely unnecessary because those killers can be given LWOP.
Click to expand...

I think you have pretty sound reasoning on all issues. Well said.
 
Amadeus said:
Unfortunately, one side of the argument is not interested in any pragmatic measures that would reduce the cost of health care.
Click to expand...

Are you claiming that the proponents of the ObamaCare scam are interested in measures that would reduce the cost of health care? That's a rather difficult claim to swallow, given that the Obamacare scam consists of measures that any idiot with even the most tenuous grasp of economics can see cannot possibly have any other effect than to drastically increase the overall cost of health care.
 
Amadeus said:
Unfortunately, one side of the argument is not interested in any pragmatic measures that would reduce the cost of health care.

450px-Total_health_expenditure_per_capita%2C_US_Dollars_PPP.png
Click to expand...

I don't listen to partisans like yourself. Everyone has different ideas about what would work. The republicans did mention malpractice and putting limitations on monetary values to these claims, and that could bring down the costs of healthcare. Our hospitals and clinics also go way to far with their administrative costs. In the link below, it mentions a 900-bed facility that employs 1300 billing clerks. It seems to me that there is a lot of mismanagement of monies in our healthcare system. I know that the liberals laud the single-payer solution, but I believe that there could be other ways to bring down costs besides handing out healthcare system over to the government. I think THAT would also have disastrous consequences, especially when you take into consideration just about every other program the government is responsible for and the gross exorbitant costs to run them.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/why-does-health-care-cost-so-m/

Duke University Hospital has 900 hospital beds and 1,300 billing clerks. The typical Canadian hospital has a handful of billing clerks. Single-payer systems have fewer administrative needs. That’s not to say they’re better, but that’s just on one dimension that they clearly cost less.
Click to expand...
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Are you claiming that the proponents of the ObamaCare scam are interested in measures that would reduce the cost of health care? That's a rather difficult claim to swallow, given that the Obamacare scam consists of measures that any idiot with even the most tenuous grasp of economics can see cannot possibly have any other effect than to drastically increase the overall cost of health care.
Click to expand...

I don't think Obamacare does nearly enough, but it does mitigate inflation.

Cost of ObamaCare: Obama Care Cost

What is the cost of ObamaCare? ObamaCare, Obama's new health care law, has a massive impact on health care costs. ObamaCare's cost is estimated at up to net cost of $1.36 trillion dollars by 2023. Although Obamacare's net costs are in the trillions, the law actually reduces the growth in health care spending by tens of billions each year, reduces health care costs for many Americans, helps to insure tens of millions and is estimated to result in an overall net decrease of the deficit.

Obamacare is projected to cut the national deficit by over $200 billion during its first 10 years and over $1 trillion over the next two decades. This helps offset the up-front cost of ObamaCare. Please be aware the cost estimates are changed on a regular basis and are often quoted as being between $1 and $2.6 trillion. Our cost estimate is taken directly from the front page of the official CBO report on ObamaCare's costs. ObamaCare is paid for through collected taxes, penalties, spending cuts and reformations to the health care industry.
Click to expand...
 
Amadeus said:
Fortunately when I respond to you, I bring pictures so you can see the evidence.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you don't post "evidence." :lol:
 
For people who think tort reform would magically solve health care:

http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/dec12/advocacy1.asp

One potential reason for the increased costs of health care is the practice of defensive medicine and the associated costs of medical liability insurance. A 2012 study of orthopaedic surgeons estimated that defensive medicine practices by this single specialty added $2 billion to the nation’s annual healthcare costs. It is likely that other high-risk specialties might be responsible for similar amounts. It is reasonable to assume, then, that if reforms are enacted that decrease the incidence of the practice of defensive medicine, the cost curve may begin to bend.

Recently, however, some healthcare economists have challenged the assertion that defensive medicine increases healthcare costs. They hypothesize that the fear of a malpractice suit actually makes hospitals more efficient and accountable. They also claim that the costs of malpractice court proceedings do add significantly to healthcare costs.

Furthermore, these economists believe that the rise in medical liability insurance premiums is more likely the direct result of increases in the cost of health care, and not the other way around. In other words, malpractice insurance premiums are increasing because they have to keep up with the rising cost of health care.
Click to expand...

...

Several recent studies have concluded that medical tort reform might not decrease healthcare costs. A report by the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen demonstrated that the total value of malpractice payments (money paid to resolve claims) on behalf of providers has been decreasing since 2001 and was the lowest on record in 2011. While malpractice payments decreased, healthcare spending nearly doubled over the same period, negating the claim that malpractice litigation contributes to rising healthcare costs.

An examination of the impact of tort reform in Texas supports this perspective. In 2003, Texas imposed a cap of $250,000 on noneconomic damages for medical liability claims. Since then, total malpractice claim payments have declined 65 percent, but health insurance rates and per-patient Medicare spending has increased faster in Texas than the national average.

According to some estimates, the total costs of medical malpractice suits amount to less than 0.5 percent of healthcare spending, and therefore, liability reform really would not bend the cost curve.
Click to expand...

Not that any of this matters. ChrisL will continue to believe what she wants to believe, as is her nature.
 
Amadeus said:
For people who think tort reform would magically solve health care:

Does Medical Liability Reform Decrease Healthcare Costs?



...



Not that any of this matters. ChrisL will continue to believe what she wants to believe, as is her nature.
Click to expand...

Who said it would magically solve the problem? Certainly not me. I said it would be ONE measure that could help reduce costs. Of course a partisan such as yourself would read into it what she wants to.
 
pro choice
pro ssm
pro gun
anti government healthcare
anti death penalty
 
Ikari said:
Not represented in the poll.
Pro-Life, pro SSM, pro gun, anti-Obamacare, anti-death penalty.
Click to expand...

l thought you were pro choice and anti gun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom