Why should I vote Democratic?

[Selatius]

39. An answer to some of your questions.

Question 1:

I generally don't think the gun issue is a winner for Democrats. Historically, it hasn't. The laws on the books are fine, and most of the mass shootings in recent years, on closer examination, occurred with people who had no business having guns, such as those with major mental illness. This is a problem of lack of enforcement and an appalling lack of cohesive response to the issue of mental health in this country.

Question 2:

The idea is that everybody has skin in the game. If you own a financial empire and make huge profits, that's fine, but with great power comes great responsibility. You wouldn't be there if it weren't for other people's labors; a power grid that others built with public money; a sewage system other people built, also with public money; a communications grid built with public money; and roads, bridges, and rails that other people built with public money. You need all of that before you can even run a business. The point is to run such a huge enterprise requires a lot of resources that we all use, and the view on the left is that if you use up that level of resources, you should pay some of it back, kind of like how if you use up more electricity than others, you pay more than others when the bill comes due. It's not about punishing success but paying for disproportionate use of collective resources, especially in a time of war and struggle. I, for one, supported a war tax to pay for the war, but you never saw any Republican say that on television.

Question 3:

The United States doesn't really fit the definition of a meritocracy; it never did, and it never will. No nation does. It's as much who you know as what you know. That's as true in business as it is nationwide. Otherwise, George W. Bush would never have become president given his track record of failure. A program like Affirmative Action isn't a neat fix, but it likely is the best answer given the reality of the situation.

Question 4:

I think letting a woman decide for herself on the issue of abortion is best left up to the woman. At any rate, effective safe sex education and affordable access to contraception for a female is probably less of a cost than having that female be a teen mother on food stamps, Medicaid, and drawing other public services. As somebody who lived in Massachusetts and currently lives in Mississippi, you don't want to emulate Mississippi's example, having some of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the country, in the Bible Belt of all places, and has one of the highest percentages of people on public assistance in the nation. Abortion should be the absolute last resort; I'd rather have a baby placed for adoption than to see an abortion, but I'm simply not going to take the freedom to choose away from a woman, especially those who were raped or have an ectopic pregnancy.

Question 6:

I don't speak for others except myself on this part, but the simplest measure at the current time with respect to health care coverage and cost is the breaking up of monopolies and oligopolies in the health insurance market and with conglomerates that own chains of hospitals. The market for medical parts and supplies is dominated by monopolies as well. I believe in freedom from unfair competition and monopolies, and health care in the United States is an example of everything but freedom from either. The result is that health insurance companies, medical parts suppliers, and hospitals are free to charge as high as they possibly can without fear of being undercut by competition (that doesn't exist). To further increase competition after the monopolies are smashed, the government should offer a Public Option to people who wish to use it and runs at-cost. For those who like private health insurance plans, they should be allowed to keep it. Let competition and the freedom to choose between either bring down the prices.