<p>that is assuming they do not coincide. For eg. tax cuts (more money in the pocket) vs funding universal health care (assuming you already have health care) ?</p>
<p>Principles. We are supposed to be more evolved than animals.</p>
<p>principles.
But I also believe doing the right thing floats all boats. We don’t live in a bubble. If our fellow Americans are suffering, so are we. So, voting for your principles CAN also be lined up with self interest - but not the kind that gives you instant gratification (i.e, money in your pocket).</p>
<p>self interest.</p>
<p>Should a libertarian with a chronic disease vote against UHC?
Should a liberal small business owner vote for new regulations that would stifle income and keep him from putting food on the table?</p>
<p>Principle, but I think in the long run most of my principles lead to a collective self-interest. For example, I may have healthcare now, but if dh lost his job, I’d lose my healthcare. If we had universal healthcare it wouldn’t matter.</p>
<p>Maybe I look at this a little differently than others, especially regarding UHC. My self interest tells me I need some form of healthcare. But my principles tell me that I do NOT support UHC. Anyone can see what countries like Canada and the UK are experiencing in this area, enough to show that UHC is not the answer.</p>
<p>That should keep your husband more motivated at work. Last thing we need is people goofing off because the government will take care of them.</p>
<p>barrons, I totally agree.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh i didn’t know that one mandate leads to communist downfalls and i also didn’t know that healthcare is the only motivation for work.</p>
<p>Sometimes one can hold dear several principles and have to weigh in balance which is more important. For example, I consider myself both pro-life and pro-gay marriage. Both are carefully considered but, ultimately, I vote on neither.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Universal health care, as proposed by the candidates in favor of it, consisted of mandatory access to and subsidized purchase of private insurer health insurance. It had nothing to do with the Canadian system of government provided health care.</p>
<p>But, it doesn’t matter. It appears that both the Republican Party and the New Democratic Party are opposed to universal health care. Prominent members of the New Democratic Party have already taken health care reform off the legislative table.</p>
<p>You pose a truly touchering (sp) question, and of which I have no immediate answer. </p>
<p>And I would be suspect of any immediate reply.</p>
<p>I lived for five years under universal health care in Germany and it was great. Good care, no paper work for me, no nitpicking copays. I’d love to have it again.</p>
<p>Principle. In the long run I think I’d pay too high of a price (economic well being of the nation, national security and perception of our country on the global stage, societal issues, opportunities for our kids, health of the planet) for voting according to pocketbook or self interest - even if it would temporarily benefit in the here and now.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Same with Canada. Just moved here from US last year. Been to a doctor 5 times, no hassle. Seeing a specialist in 10 days, no hassle. No need to worry about in plan/out of plan, exclusions & billing codes. :D</p>
<p>My cancer treatment was covered by the european country where I live. I have health insurance as well, but I have never had to pay one cent for all my breast cancer treatment nor fill out one piece of paperwork. It has been wonderful right when I needed that sort of care. The little card they gave me since I am a resident though US citizen said they would take care of me until the year 2099. Good enough.</p>
<p>I would expect most people to “talk principles” but “vote self-interest”.</p>
<p>Funny, Canuckguy, that I think our elected politicians make that choice! Different from voters, though, they are in office to serve the people.</p>
<p>Is there a price on changing one’s votes ? Say, one year of college tuition ? 2 years ? the whole thing ? Or some of us are so principled that we won’t change at all ? </p>
<p>In another scenario, how about stem cell research ? Say you are against stem cell research and now a member of your family is ill and will greatly benefit from it ?</p>
<p>The question is, I believe, flawed if it is intended to get to the essence of an individual’s responsibilities to their families and the world in abstract.</p>
<p>If I were to say instead,</p>
<p>Do you think, in principal, one should vote what is best for your family or what is consistent with your ideology, I would think that you would get different answers. In this formulation one would arrive at a practical answer that comes with a real cost benefit. In other words, it would be realistic and clear-eyed. Not dreamy. The end result would be superior.</p>
<p>When all is said and done, the pontificating over, one should submit their ideologies and philosophies to the reality of their own life. At least then you will know that your hopes and philosophies have been tested in the crucible of your own life and you, and others, will likely be able to live with the often flawed results.</p>
<p>.</p>