from a political perspective, I dont have a problem voting for a Mormon like Mitt.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

so I believe it should go like this..

You sign up your new baby with your insurance at birth.
you get cheaper insurance for your child for about the first 5 years, and after that its back to the normal changes.

But as the child grows and gets their first *** at age 15, or 16 or so, they would see that their insurance company takes a bit from each of their checks.

no untill the child reaches age 21 - 30 (or whatever age you signed the child up to be under the plan for) would that have the chance to drop that insurance, but we could make this hard to do, like point out that they may face a hard time getting other insurance that will cover their own children as cheaply.

then at the age when they are even first thinking about dropping their insurance, their parents would pull them aside and tell them that the whole family would get a slightly lower rate if they stick with the same plan, and if they sign their own future children up too!!!!!.


so we dont need a mandate to have everyone in a family covered for their whole lives....we just need the correct motivation!

true persuasion is like this,.,,,,it's more quiet.

You dont try to change people's actions, you try to provide a path that allows people to change it for themselves.

I do think that having companies pay for insurance is not a good idea, but that we should have individuals pay and allow people to see the actual costs. This is what the Swiss do and it does lower costs because if someone could choose a $30,000 total coverage plan or a $5,000 major medical only--most people pay the cheaper and then pay for most things out of pocket. This does lower the costs dramatically. But M***. is a liberal state and so Mitt would have to work within that liberal parameters of what the M***. society wanted and if they want a more communist approach to health care, that is their choice--that is also freedom.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

But M***. is a liberal state and so Mitt would have to work within that liberal parameters of what the M***. society wanted and if they want a more communist approach to health care, that is their choice--that is also freedom.

That right there is why so many Christian Conservatives will never vote for Mitt.

It has nothing to do with him being Mormon, (But that doesn't help)
It's the fact that Mitt has such a poor track record in being sucked into accepting ideas based on Liberal thinking.

The true "Leader" is able to stand up to liberal pressure .

a Flip-Flopper bends in the political wind.....



So what do I think Mitt actually does 'respect?"
Not much,

I dont think for a moment he respects either the pro-Life of the pro-Choice side.
Rather I believe he manipulates both sides for his own political advantage.



What I see in Mitt is a guy who licks his finger and tests the political winds, and thats the direction he goes in.
Once Mitt sees the direction people are going in, he runs to the front of the line and leads the charge....

This means that Mitt actually has no core to his own views...
Mitt has nothing he 'stands" for.


When he sees the pro-Choice people are the growing in political power as a movement, he becomes pro-Choice and leads the pro-Choice ticket.

if he sees that the pro-Life people now are the growing movement, guess who is suddenly pro-Life?

In conversations he is now saying, "Oh I have always felt a great respect for the lives of the unborn"

and in a few years Im sure he will be quoted as saying > "Oh I have always respected the right of women to decide such matters in private"

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

That right there is why so many Christian Conservatives will never vote for Mitt.

It has nothing to do with him being Mormon, (But that doesn't help)
It's the fact that Mitt has such a poor track record in being sucked into accepting ideas based on Liberal thinking.

The true "Leader" is able to stand up to liberal pressure .

a Flip-Flopper bends in the political wind.....

Interesting. I don't see Mitt as a flip-flopper but a person who worked with his cons***uents the solve the problems in a manner that THEY wanted. So, do you want a leader who forces his views on others or do you want a leader who forces your views on others or do you want a leader that represents YOUR views and works with others who do not support your views to solve the problems? I think that is what Mitt did in M***. He did what the people wanted. Now, as he runs, he runs based on what he thinks will work to solve the problems in this country. You do realize that the founding fathers compromised, right? Those ones who felt like freedom was so essential that they voted for the freedom for states to choose for themselves.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

That right there is why so many Christian Conservatives will never vote for Mitt.

It has nothing to do with him being Mormon, (But that doesn't help)
It's the fact that Mitt has such a poor track record in being sucked into accepting ideas based on Liberal thinking.

The true "Leader" is able to stand up to liberal pressure .

a Flip-Flopper bends in the political wind.....


What I see in Mitt is a guy who licks his finger and tests the political winds, and thats the direction he goes in.
Once Mitt sees the direction people are going in, he runs to the front of the line and leads the charge....

This means that Mitt actually has no core to his own views...
Mitt has nothing he 'stands" for.


When he sees the pro-Choice people are the growing in political power as a movement, he becomes pro-Choice and leads the pro-Choice ticket.

if he sees that the pro-Life people now are the growing movement, guess who is suddenly pro-Life?

In conversations he is now saying, "Oh I have always felt a great respect for the lives of the unborn"

and in a few years Im sure he will be quoted as saying > "Oh I have always respected the right of women to decide such matters in private"

Well, if you think this election should be decided on abortion issues---then, by all means ****yze everything Mitt did said or voted on regarding abortion (although, I think his abortion votes have been pretty much pro-life.) I also don't see Mitt as bending to political pressure, but deciding for himself what he thinks is best and I see him as more moderate as myself. I am not like most "christians" who don't consider the life of the mother at all or see rape or incest as just tough luck.

I personally do not think that Roe vs. Wade is going to be undone in the next four years and I don't think we could get a much further leaning left president when it comes to abortion.

That said, I see the problems of this country centered more on the economy and if we don't get that figured out--maybe someday we will be owned by China and can adopt their one-child, abortion for all the rest, policies.