Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Should people who willfully refuse the vaccine pay higher health insurance premiums?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ThatRobGuy" data-source="post: 75972158" data-attributes="member: 123415"><p>That scenario falls into the classic category of</p><p></p><p>"Everyone understands the pitfalls surrounding that system, but nobody knows how to fix it"</p><p></p><p>Obviously, with money injected into the equation, it muddies the waters...but on the flip side, if money were completely removed, then it introduces a whole new set of challenges.</p><p></p><p></p><p>In order for people to learn about candidates, they need to get exposure to them. That type of exposure costs money to facilitate on a national and state level (which makes fundraising somewhat of a 'necessary evil'), however, with that fundraising comes potential conflicts of interest.</p><p></p><p>So the choices are</p><p>A) Be able to learn a lot about candidates (but there's a chance they may opt to please their financial backers instead of you)</p><p></p><p>B) Minimal issues involving money-corrupting, but having to pick between people you know very little about (if you're not one of the fortunate few who lived in the same area as them or knew them personally)</p><p></p><p>The latter also all but guarantees that only wealthy people could make a strong bid for office. The Bezos' and Musk's of the world could afford to run their own ad campaigns without taking a dime from everyone else. Most typical people with political aspirations wouldn't have that luxury.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ThatRobGuy, post: 75972158, member: 123415"] That scenario falls into the classic category of "Everyone understands the pitfalls surrounding that system, but nobody knows how to fix it" Obviously, with money injected into the equation, it muddies the waters...but on the flip side, if money were completely removed, then it introduces a whole new set of challenges. In order for people to learn about candidates, they need to get exposure to them. That type of exposure costs money to facilitate on a national and state level (which makes fundraising somewhat of a 'necessary evil'), however, with that fundraising comes potential conflicts of interest. So the choices are A) Be able to learn a lot about candidates (but there's a chance they may opt to please their financial backers instead of you) B) Minimal issues involving money-corrupting, but having to pick between people you know very little about (if you're not one of the fortunate few who lived in the same area as them or knew them personally) The latter also all but guarantees that only wealthy people could make a strong bid for office. The Bezos' and Musk's of the world could afford to run their own ad campaigns without taking a dime from everyone else. Most typical people with political aspirations wouldn't have that luxury. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Should people who willfully refuse the vaccine pay higher health insurance premiums?
Top
Bottom