Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘voter’

This is in response to the following article:
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080920/NEWS01/809200491/1008

I’m an US citizen, who has lived on the East coast and the West coast of our beautiful country. I have also lived in Germany and Spain. I have seen first hand the difference of the health care industry when it is nationalized, how it is in Spain and how it is for the most part in Germany.

Here is the basic concept. Two sectors: private and public. The United States has its health care industry (for the most part) in the private. The sole purpose of the private sector is to make money. In the health care industry this results in adverse effects. It is more profitable for people to remain ill and continue to need medication than it is for the people to get better and no longer need any services. Thus a privatized health care system is counterproductive to the health of the people. There are ways around this. In Germany the private sectors is under strict regulation from the public sector, which ensures that contradictions like the one above don’t exist. In the US we pride ourselves on our free market economy, where the government imposes little to no restrictions on the private sector: allowing more fluidity in the market and increasing trade and commerce. That is all changing now. With the government buy out of Freddie Mae, Fannie Mac, and AIG, these private institutions are effectively now nationalized, thus a part of the public sector. The free market economy that the US was once so proud of is now a thing of the past.

That being expressed, I pose a question:
If were are willing to nationalize the worst of the gamblers and risk takers of the speculative investment firms, whose negligence has brought on a disaster in the market, then why don’t we nationalize the health care industry, an industry which will profit the government and ensure the health of the people?

Listen to Ron Paul; you know he’s a rare breed of a politician. Vote third Party. A vote for Nader is not futile, in fact it has more impact because along with being counted like a vote for the other parties, it also sends a message: no more two party system; we will no longer be slaves to the least worst candidate.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Addressing two major problems when electing the Independent Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader.

First, Nader will need major media attention to reach a large enough audience to even possibly become electable and second, the problem that occurs when the electability of the more likely candidate is reduced by the independent vote thus causing the less favorable candidate to win. (In this case I assume the scenario would be the democrat losing votes to the independent causing the republican to win.)

There is a trick to getting Nader access to a major audience. He would need to do one of two things, either get authorization from the private company that controls the debates which happens to be owned by the democrat and republican parties or he can appeal to another corporation to sponsor a debate, one that can offer an audience that can’t be turned down, as to insure the acceptance of the major parties. Nader has accomplished the latter, he has managed to convince Google to fight the aforementioned corporation for its monopoly over the debates. Now Google has agreed to hold an open debate live on YouTube that will allow multiple parties to participate, as long as the party has at least 10% in the national poll.  (Which is 5% less than what the Dem & Rep owned debates accept, even thought getting it doesn’t necessary insure acceptance) Nader, by the way, has around 6%. That being said, I do believe that there is a big problem with Nader not having enough media coverage, you can see him expressing it when he says buzz-word-phrases that attract media attention but he’s been able to sway Google to help him with this obstacle.

Concerning the second probelm, a two party system which forces us into voting for a party in fear that the other party would be elected is in itself problematic to the concept of democracy. (Which we hold to be conducted by a series of free elections) Furthermore, in denying the possibility of a third party we are condemning ourselves to the polarizing and monopolizing effects of a two party system. I think that in exposing this flaw common sense logic tells us that a two party system is counter intuitive to a democracy.

Read Full Post »