Have I gone nuts or something?

Two topics today:
First, how the hell can I like both Johnson and Obama?

This is a question that I've been asked by a number of people, I suspect in attempts to discredit my knowledge of politics. Of course, we all want to believe that those who disagree with us are idiots, or at the very least, ignorant on whatever given subject... and we generally measure the knowledge of others by how much they agree with us. Arrogant, to say the least - to act in such a way assumes that we are the ultimate authority on a subject.

On the surface, perhaps, it would seem that the two are complete opposites - more so than Obama and Romney, even. But, that's only true if your attention is only focused on the current hot-button issues. Government spending, certainly... Obamacare... stuff like that. What about liberties and equal rights? Johnson supports equal rights for same sex couples, and so does Obama. On women's issues, hard to compare... they are pretty close. I guess it would depend on perspective. Obama said he would get rid of the Patriot Act, but sadly renewed it. I figure Johnson would be the one to actually end it. They both advocate internet freedom, although it's easier to trust Johnson's hands-off approach on this. Johnson wants to legalize marijuana, Obama has kept quiet on the subject... but has admitted to smoking the stuff in the past. Gun rights... well, I was nervous about Obama at first, but he has so far stood up for them pretty well even in the face of foreign leaders practically demanding that he tighten gun laws or ban them altogether.

The thing is that both candidates really want about the same thing, though Obama's more a politician (if you've been keeping up with my blog, you know that that's not exactly a compliment). They both want to improve the economy, but they have different plans. They both want America and its people as a whole to be better off, but go about it different ways. Different paths to (hopefully) the same goal. Obama's idea is to give more government aid, while Johnson's is to have the government back off. Both ideas can work, and both ideas can seriously fuck things up, all according to how it's done.

The Republicans, for example, claim to want government to back off. However, their idea of backing off is to deregulate for corporations and to give more and more tax breaks to the wealthiest, and will do any favors they can for the wealthiest while screwing over the rest and and accusing any who object of "class warfare." They are, after all, helping themselves out in doing so. Kind of like voting themselves an off-the-record pay raise. But, that's the extent of their "small government" - they still want to legislate your morals.

The Democrats on the other hand... the nannies. Their legislation tends to intrude on personal decision making, such as Bloomberg's ban on big soft drinks. And while well intentioned, raising the minimum wage in itself isn't going to work - it'll cause lay-off's and price increases, thus increasing the overall cost of living. Let's remember, business owners and execs (even the ones that really are rolling in the money) don't want to take a pay cut just to give their workers pay that they can actually live on. Also, while I don't support relaxing current environmental regulations, tightening them unnecessarily in the US really won't do much until other nations catch up. Comparatively speaking, we're not doing too terrible hear. However, look at China. Look at Mexico. Fiscally speaking, it would take much less for them to catch up to us. We should still always look for improvements, but let's also let our own businesses catch up on their profits a bit and encourage other nations to catch up on their pollution controls.

Anyway, between Obama and Johnson, I think it would be a win if either one of these candidates won. Romney, not so much. For me, the tie-breaker may be Obamacare, which brings me to my second topic:

How the hell can I support Obamacare?

Won't it completely bankrupt the healthcare industry? Think of it this way - you're driving your brand new black 2012 Dodge Challenger (WANT!), then someone runs a red light and smashes into your new beauty of a car. No problem, insurance will take care of that... oh? What's that? The other driver doesn't have insurance? Damn... well, guess it's a good thing you had to pay extra for that uninsured driver coverage, huh? Except while the hell should you have to?

Consider this: a lot of Americans don't have health insurance. It's not because they're irresponsible; it's because they can't afford it. Or they get denied because of pre-existing conditions. Not all employers provide health insurance, after all... my last two jobs didn't. Nonetheless, if someone walks into a doctor's office in extreme pain or in need of emergency help, legally, they have to help at least to stabilizing the patient... thankfully. The value of someone's life shouldn't depend on how rich they are. This leaves the patient with a debt to the doctor's office/clinic/hospital... and in many cases, the patient will not be able to pay off said debt, leaving the doctor's office/clinic/hospital with a bad debt and not much they can do to collect it.

The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) addresses these issues. First, insurance companies won't be able to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions... and make no mistake, they will find any asinine reason they can to do so. Childhood asthma, depression, PCOS (Poly-Cystic Ovary Syndrome... fairly common, many cases go undiagnosed and untreated)... the list goes on. Insurance companies are a business after all, and they want their profits.

Next, the question of insurance companies being hurt, or them jacking up their rates. Obama essentially called bullshit on the insurers on this one in the form of the 85-15 rule. That is, 85% of their funds go to patient care with the remaining 15% used for whatever they feel like - administration, whatever. 

As for the question of the metaphorical uninsured driver... that's where the especially controversial individual mandate comes in. Basically, everyone is going to pay into healthcare somehow, if not through insurance, then through a fine or whatever you want to call it, that is withheld from tax refunds. I suppose you could call said fine your annual insurance dues.

I think that Obamacare does deserve a chance. It likely will reduce overall costs associated with healthcare on the private level as well as the government level as well as giving everyone at least minimal health insurance of some kind.

The Differences Between Democrats and Republicans

Sad to say, the differences between the two main parties are fewer than either of them would like to admit. Democrats tout themselves to be liberal and progressive, while Republicans tout themselves to be conservative and in favor of small government.

If one looks at the dictionary definitions of the two party names, or perhaps their root words, we go a little further in-depth as to the original intentions that brought the parties into existence. The word "Democrat" obviously refers to "democracy," which means government by the people, and most likely a free electoral system. As for Republican, it just as obviously refers to the belief in a republic, which means government by representatives of the people. As you can see, the two definitions are virtually interchangeable today, and I doubt that more than a handful of people (including those leaders who align themselves with one party or the other) know the difference. Historically, a democracy would refer to more direct rule by the people, where a Republic would mean rule by representatives who are thought of as perhaps being wiser or more educated than the people.

With this, the Civil War would be a good example to illustrate this difference. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, and rather progressive for his time. He went against what was popular when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation. Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy, was actually a Democrat, believing in states' rights to secede from the union, in keeping the popular institution of slavery, etc. It could perhaps be described as ironic now that the parties seem to have switched roles, with Republicans talking about secession due to Obama's presidency, and Democrats being the main driving force in Washington for civil rights movements that aren't always popular.

I'll say this bluntly: both parties want big government, though one of them denies this.

With Democrats, you get big government in the form of a nanny-state. Perhaps well-meaning, but still restricting liberties "for your own good." This is where you start seeing excessive regulation, like toys in kids' meals at fast food restaurants being banned, cartoon character mascots on kids' cereal boxes being banned, gun regulations that suggest that no one is responsible enough to really be trusted with guns. By definition, these would actually be more Republican ideals than Democrat ideals, as it is suggestive of a sort of elitism. But again, dictionary definitions simply do not apply to today's reality.

The Republican style of big government tends to be theocratic in nature. The Republicans tend to legislate on moral issues rather than simply sticking with the common good. This meddles in the freedoms and liberties of the people just as much as the Democrats' nanny-state ideas. The Republicans in recent years also has shown a tendency to be big spenders, same as the Democrats. Just a difference on what they spend the money on.

My own thought is that we are adults. I spent eighteen years being treated as a child by my parents with no alternative to simply accepting it. I didn't go through all that just to be treated as a child by the government that supposedly knows what's best for me, either from a Republican or Democrat perspective. I believe in freedom, and with freedom certainly comes responsibility. I also believe in compassion... but compassion in helping someone get back on their feet as opposed to making it easier to stay off one's feet.

If you agree, then it's up to you to demand the change rather than simply accepting what you're offered, like a well cared for child. Don't let a party or anyone else tell you what to believe.