I'm Not Voting Tomorrow, And Here's Why

[The Central Scrutinizer]

That's never the case. In reality, one person is always worse than the other. One person will always vote differently than another, or put one more hold on vital legislation or a vital appointee (or if you prefer, one fewer hold).

Can you name me two politicians from different parties who vote exactly the same in every instance? A single example?

I don't know about voting the same way, but you can guarantee that both will vote to spend money we don't have. Both will lie in order to win. Both will avoid giving direct answers to questions. Both will say they are going to shake up Washington, but both will become part of the problem.

I challenge you to find a race where this is not true.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Sometimes every candidate on the ballot seems to be a bad choice. Looking at the them objectively, openly, honestly though, there usually is one who is the lessor, even if slightly, of all evils.

"If we keep voting for the lesser of two evils, it will continue to get more evil." - Penn Jillette, among others

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I hear you.

But what if I don't feel right voting for the lesser of two evils? You all carry on about the right to vote and civic duty and all that, but what about my obligation to myself?

The cowardly way out, in my opinion, is to do something you don't feel right about just because someone seems to think you're obliged to.

If I think neither candidate is fit for office, then I will not vote.

Period.

Bingo. Give that man any prize from the top shelf.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I don't know what to tell you, it's an imperfect system. Sometimes it takes a lot of work to find out which turd is best. Do what you want.

As Charlie Munger once said - "You can mix corn flakes in with your turds, but you're still eating turds".

I'll just say in many years talking and reading about people who don't vote, on the surface the explanation is like yours. Dig deeper and I find that people are just to damn lazy to figure it out or cowards who don't want to commit to something so they can preach from atop their tower about how nothing is their fault cause they refused to take a stand.

I've found people who often know more about the issues than the people who do vote.

Case in point: A Facebook friend posted that everyone should vote NO on Proposition A (Missouri). Just to give her crap, I asked why. She told be that if it passed, X, Y, and Z would happen. All of which are not true. None of those things had anything to do with Prop A. So, you have her, an uneducated voter who will vote NO for the wrong reasons, vs me (or Howie) who won't vote at all. Which is worse?

 

[Wildy]

So there are only two candidates to vote for in each district (is that what you call them)?

 

[dc1971]

I don't want to vote for the one who's better. You may be mocking me, but your Stalin/Hitler comparison is spot on. As far as I'm concerned, the Democrats are Stalin and the Republicans are Hitler. (Feel free to reverse this if it offends your particular sensibilities, the Dems can be Hitler if you prefer)

Regardless of what the party you follow has said, they don't care one whit for you and yours, other than you represent one of the votes that will allow them to keep their current lifestyle afloat. If you can vote for a certain candidate and still sleep at night, then I'm glad for you. You have more confidence in these people than I do. I'm cool with that. That's you, but it's not me.

**** 'em all, I say. I'm sick to death of it. And, I'm going to continue to complain, whether you think I have the right or not.

Right on! I say NO VOTE is still a vote!

 

[dc1971]

I won't vote today because I voted today!

Now I have the whole rest of the day in front of me!

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I wish I cared enough to get angry, but I've seen a lot of people get angry over politics and end up with nothing but an ulcer.

Tell your dad I may not be part of the solution, but I'm not part of the problem, either. I pay my taxes. I pay my bills. I'm not a drain on the system. My life is exactly the same under Obama as it was under Bush as it was under Clinton as it was under Bush. I'm working, I have a house and a car, a few goodies, an occasional vacation, a little bit for charity. I'm happy, and I accomplished it all without politics intruding upon my life. Can you see why I'm apathetic? Because it doesn't pay to care.

This. The country basically runs itself. Politicians try to "help" us, but luckily we can route around most of their "help".

As someone once pointed out, if you could wake someone from suspended animation, have them read the news of the day, with no mention of names, etc, they would find it impossible to determine which party was in power.

Don't expect to see any "Felterbush/Scrutinizer 2012" yard signs.

For the record, it would be Scrutinizer/Felterbush.

 

[Kestrel]

So there are only two candidates to vote for in each district (is that what you call them)?

My ballot had 18 elected officers with up to 7 choices for each office. Plus questions on retaining judges and amending the state constitution and enacting new laws. Lots of choices even if you didn't bother voting in the primaries or attending a caucus.

 

[TragicMonkey]

For years the city and district have scratched their heads in perplexity as to why there's such a high voter turnout at the polling place I go to, an elementary school. Is it because that part of the city is full of dedicated, civic-minded citizens with a strong sense of duty and obligation?

No, it's because there's a Dunkin Doughnuts and a Chinese takeout close by. The people who vote in the morning stop for a doughnut along the way and then excuse being late for work "I was voting!", and everybody else votes after work and picks up takeout for dinner "because it's right there".

This evening I shall do my civic duty, and if that happens to result in steamed dumplings and Hunan Chicken, well, I'm prepared to pay a heavy price ($8.99) for preserving democracy.

 

[arthwollipot]

My ballot had 18 elected officers with up to 7 choices for each office. Plus questions on retaining judges and amending the state constitution and enacting new laws. Lots of choices even if you didn't bother voting in the primaries or attending a caucus.

Pfft! In my last election there were 84 candidates that I had to put in order of preference.

 

[Unabogie]

I don't know about voting the same way, but you can guarantee that both will vote to spend money we don't have. Both will lie in order to win. Both will avoid giving direct answers to questions. Both will say they are going to shake up Washington, but both will become part of the problem.

I challenge you to find a race where this is not true.

All kidding aside, how about 2008? In 2008 we elected Barack Obama and a large Democratic majority.

Early this year they passed a health care bill that reformed some of the ways we pay for medical care. In late 2009, my best friend and business partner had a severe stroke at the age of 40. As of right now, he's still in the hospital (he's been there almost a full year) and in fact is back in ICU because he caught pneumonia.

His medical bills are easily going to top $2,000,000 since his original ICU bill was $800,000. Because of the Democrats being in office and passing the bill they passed, he can't be dropped from coverage and there are no lifetime limits on his policy. If our company ever folds, he cannot be denied health care for a pre-existing condition.

Because of the Democrats, 2010 is not the year his family had to sell their house and file bankruptcy.

That is a concrete difference since you can't name a single GOPer who isn't running on repealing the law that's saving my friend's family from becoming destitute.

Elections matter.

 

[Wildy]

Pfft! In my last election there were 84 candidates that I had to put in order of preference.

That's because you voted below the line.

 

[Augustine]

If our company ever folds, he cannot be denied health care for a pre-existing condition.

Because of the Democrats, 2010 is not the year his family had to sell their house and file bankruptcy.

HIPAA has been law since 1996. Your friend wasn't in any danger of selling his house (unless he wanted to) or filing bankruptcy.

 

[Unabogie]

HIPAA has been law since 1996. Your friend wasn't in any danger of selling his house (unless he wanted to) or filing bankruptcy.

What is it you think HIPAA did that would have prevented the lifetime cap from kicking in?

 

[Augustine]

What is it you think HIPAA did that would have prevented the lifetime cap from kicking in?

Nothing, but approximately 40% of health insurance plans have no lifetime cap, and the ones that do have caps tend to be between 2.5 and 5 million. The few plans that offer higher caps (7 million) have never had anyone's health care costs exceed that amount. Nothing to stop your friend from purchasing additional insurance to cover whatever gap he felt existed in his coverage, but it would cost him, as do all things.

 

[The Mutha]

It's election day finally! I'm so sick of political calls and advertisements! Tomorrow it will be all over and I'll only have to deal with my co-workers cackling with glee at the results (should the polls actually prove to be fairly accurate).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Nothing, but approximately 40% of health insurance plans have no lifetime cap, and the ones that do have caps tend to be between 2.5 and 5 million.

So your argument is that since only some people were financially ruined or unable to afford medical care by the lifetime caps (not to mention rescission and post-claim underwriting) that we didn't need to get rid of these caps?

The few plans that offer higher caps (7 million) have never had anyone's health care costs exceed that amount. Nothing to stop your friend from purchasing additional insurance to cover whatever gap he felt existed in his coverage, but it would cost him, as do all things.

Nothing to prevent that except the guy not having enough money--what with the medical costs, you know (deductibles, co-pays, even the premiums for the coverage he already has).

 

[Unabogie]

Nothing, but approximately 40% of health insurance plans have no lifetime cap, and the ones that do have caps tend to be between 2.5 and 5 million. The few plans that offer higher caps (7 million) have never had anyone's health care costs exceed that amount. Nothing to stop your friend from purchasing additional insurance to cover whatever gap he felt existed in his coverage, but it would cost him, as do all things.

Our cap is $2,000,000 which he was about to hit until the new law affected UHC and they removed the cap. I know, since I spent hours on the phone with my insurance agent discussing options. And which plan would have offered a stroke victim who's still sitting in a hospital bed coverage under the previous law? My wife was denied coverage on an individual plan because she once had acid reflux. No Oregon company would insure her at any cost.

I think you're just grossly misinformed about how the system worked.

 

[Augustine]

So your argument is that since only some people were financially ruined or unable to afford medical care by the lifetime caps (not to mention rescission and post-claim underwriting) that we didn't need to get rid of these caps?

The caps were not imposed upon anyone by government mandate; the caps were chosen by the people when they selected their healthcare plan. My argument is that government does not exist to protect people from the consequences of their own decisions, nor should it.

Nothing to prevent that except the guy not having enough money--what with the medical costs, you know (deductibles, co-pays, even the premiums for the coverage he already has).

Do you have evidence that he does not have enough money?