Forums | MacLife

resedit wrote:

after-life wrote:

Last time I checked, liberals and conservatives are equally likely to catch the flu, so where's the partisan slant?

Lower income people over 50 tend to like what democrats "promise" - free healthcare, cheaper prescriptions, etc. - and thus would be more likely to vote democrat.

Upper income people over 50 usually have medical insurance that covers things like this, and already see a doctor at least once a year. Thus, they won't show up to vote just because of a free vaxination taking place.

Man, that's quite a supposition you've built up there. Plenty of poor people will also vote Republican (and really, WHO wouldn't want free healthcare and cheaper prescriptions, in any case??).

Like you've gone on about at great length in the Lieberman thread, this is our democratic process, let the people decide! Whatever is wrong about encouraging people to vote? As long as they don't tell people HOW to vote, it's OK.

Your alarm is based purely on a guess how people who would accept the flu shot will vote, which isn't necessarily accurate.

resedit wrote:

Lower income people tend to vote democrat and you know it.

No, I don't know that. There are a LOT of Republican voters in my area, so much so that it's easy for me to consider my vote wasted. Do you think most of them are rich?

resedit wrote:

As far as your second question - there is no free lunch, "free" healthcare and "cheaper" prescriptions come at a cost that is higher to the taxpayer, which is why many people are opposed to the programs suggested by the democratic party. They may decrease the cost at the counter, but they increase the cost to society.

They'll pay as a taxpayer or pay as an individual, either way they'll pay. Do you really think people are THAT motivated by a concern about "the cost to society"? They're more likely to be cocerned about burning through their savings paying for medical care.

resedit wrote:

Letting the people decide is fine. Encouraging them to vote is fine. Using a carrot to encourage them to vote is fine. Using a carrot at the polling station is not fine.

ARE THEY TELLING PEOPLE HOW TO VOTE??

free market, pshaw. Patents are involved.

resedit wrote:

user wrote:

They'll pay as a taxpayer or pay as an individual, either way they'll pay.

It is more expensive as a taxpayer because of the bloat involved with government funding of anything - not to mention lack of free market competition.

No, it's much more expensive to the individual.

user wrote:

ARE THEY TELLING PEOPLE HOW TO VOTE??

Of course not.  In fact, they're not even telling them to vote.  This is not to mention that anyone who was going to vote would have to already have registered, anyway!

The FACTS suggest to me that resedit's claims are without merit.

Democrats do tend to be lower income than Republicans. So what?

By your logic we should shut down Medicaid because it's unfairly keeping more Democratic voters than Republican voters alive.

I can't think of a cheaper and more effective way of administering flu shots than to do it at polling places on election day. As long as they don't make getting the flu shot contingent on voting, I don't see any problem with it.

after-life wrote:

Democrats do tend to be lower income than Republicans. So what?

By your logic we should shut down Medicaid because it's unfairly keeping more Democratic voters than Republican voters alive.

Huh?
I never said any or even suggested any such thing!
You want to run a free vaccine clinic - fine, do it - DONT do it however at a polling station. A polling station shouldn't specifically attract or discourage any specific demographic. It is to be as neutral as possible. That is why you can't campaign within a certain distance of a polling station.

I'm all for a program that offers free vaccinations to people in high risk group. However, there is a proper time and a proper place for such efforts, and using a polling station during elections is not proper time or proper place.

I can't think of a cheaper and more effective way of administering flu shots than to do it at polling places on election day. As long as they don't make getting the flu shot contingent on voting, I don't see any problem with it.

As I already stated - there are plenty of places that people over 50 visit a lot more often than a polling station. Some of those places, such as a pharmacy, are already set up and equiped to provide the shots - they do it there anyway. Thus, you would not have to set up a temporary clinic for administrating the shots, it's already set up. That is thus cheaper, and it is visited by many senior citizens evey single day - wether there happens to be an election that year or not.

Last edited by resedit (2006-11-05 2:22 pm)

resedit wrote:

Huh?
I never said any or even suggested any such thing!
You want to run a free vaccine clinic - fine, do it - DONT do it however at a polling station. A polling station should specifically attract or discourage any demographic. It is to be as neutral as possible. That is why you can't campaign within a certain distance of a polling station.

So you disagree with the Republican officials in the area that claimed the program was completely legal as long as no one was required to vote?

Do you believe you're more informed about their election laws than they are?

I'm all for a program that offers free vaccinations to people in high risk group. However, there is a proper time and a proper place for such efforts, and using a polling station during elections is not proper time or proper place.

How about next door?  Outside the front?

If they program doesn't violate the law, then it doesn't violate the law.  You might take issue with the law, but it's silly to keep calling it "illegal" when you have nothing to support such a claim.

As I already stated - there are plenty of places that people over 50 visit a lot more often than a polling station. Some of those places, such as a pharmacy, are already set up and equiped to provide the shots - they do it there anyway. Thus, you would not have to set up a temporary clinic for administrating the shots, it's already set up. That is thus cheaper, and it is visited by many senior citizens evey single day - wether there happens to be an election that year or not.

I guess when you're running a charity program designed to offer free vaccinations, you can decide where to do it?

Well if you want to talk practical.
We have a new drive through shot clinic here.