Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Baby Denied Health Care Coverage For Being "Too Fat"
Son
Member (Idle past 3830 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 91 of 184 (530662)
10-14-2009 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by New Cat's Eye
10-14-2009 10:00 AM


Re: Maybe, but lets hope you can always do that
I think to base you desired leglislation more on invidual cases you've seen than hard numbers. You also have a tendency to generalize individual cases believing the examples you have given represents the majority of people without insurance.
Of course, I disagree with this method of deciding law, to me law should be decided in the interest of society as a whole.
I personally believes that the system that would be benefit the system more as a whole financially as well as for the wellfare of people is the "socialized" one (meaning what they have in Europe). I base this not on emotion or ideology but only hard numbers. Those are some I've shown in this message:
EvC Forum: Baby Denied Health Care Coverage For Being "Too Fat"
In light on the numbers I've presented, I think it makes no doubt the U.S. system is worse because it provides less healthcare for a superior cost. It just means that it's plain innefficient for the purpose of providing healthcare (but it is if you think its objective is to enrich a few only).
That's why I would understand, if you are working in health insurance, that you would defend the current system (even though I would find repulsive the idea of risking people's lives for the sole objective of gain more money).
But if you do not, I don't see how you could defend it if you are not working there, because it is just plain costlier for you without giving you any benefits compared to most other OECD countries.
That's why I would like to know why you prefers the U.S. healthcare system over more efficient and less costly system.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-14-2009 10:00 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 92 of 184 (530689)
10-14-2009 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by onifre
10-14-2009 12:37 PM


Re: freedom of choice, or not?
I am not trying to pick too much of a fight here, but are you seriously quoting TV ratings as a measure of public opinion?
What is popular on TV is what is controversial. Fox news gained in popularity when it gave a voice to Glen Beck and started to disregard any even veneer of an attempt to serve as a legitimate news service.
Are you going to argue with me over this? If so we can start to examine some ACTUAL scientific polling and see how things come out but I am hoping that you were just expressing this as a concern and an anecdote.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by onifre, posted 10-14-2009 12:37 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by onifre, posted 10-14-2009 2:41 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 93 of 184 (530690)
10-14-2009 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by onifre
10-14-2009 12:07 PM


Re: Maybe, but lets hope you can always do that
Perhaps I misunderstood. Sorry for the out of order reply.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by onifre, posted 10-14-2009 12:07 PM onifre has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 94 of 184 (530695)
10-14-2009 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Jazzns
10-14-2009 2:06 PM


Re: freedom of choice, or not?
I am not trying to pick too much of a fight here, but are you seriously quoting TV ratings as a measure of public opinion?
Not as a measure of public opinion per se, especially not as an accurate one. I was just trying to show that CS's type of think, while possibly not in the majority, does draw massive amounts of supporters and doesn't seem to be fading in the least.
More so to the point, the opposing side (me, you, us) should not simply disregard this opinion, but try to understand the opinion and where it's coming from. If you say, "Ah, whatever, you guys are fading fast..." you simply try to sweep the problem of under the rug, but that disregard to public opinion will eventually come back to bit you.
It is an opinion held by many in this country which needs to be acknowledged as such, and it's not fading and never has faded. It may become less aggressive, or less bigoted, but it will remain part of our diverse system. The point is to understand where the misunderstandings are (on both sides of the opinion) and try to find common ground. Which always seems to be a problem in this country, to find common ground, because one side calls the other side ignorant, while the other side calls the other a bunch of liberal pussies. Which is the same ideology that motivates our news networks, and it serves as a continuous tool to divide Americans.
Are you going to argue with me over this?
I will argue with anyone over anything, so feel free to discuss whatever you like. I will meet you there to do battle, Jazzns.
What is popular on TV is what is controversial. Fox news gained in popularity when it gave a voice to Glen Beck and started to disregard any even veneer of an attempt to serve as a legitimate news service.
Not to split hairs, but O'Reilly leads that network and FoxNews has build most of their supporters off of his (insane) opinions.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Jazzns, posted 10-14-2009 2:06 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Jazzns, posted 10-14-2009 3:00 PM onifre has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 95 of 184 (530701)
10-14-2009 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by onifre
10-14-2009 2:41 PM


Re: freedom of choice, or not?
So the thing is that the country has been getting more progressive for a long time and I think it only comes back to "bite you" when we get complacent and allow ourselves to be made afraid by people like CS and Phage. They say "don't take my liberty" when they really mean "don't take my money" and we sissy liberals back down and let ourselves be trampled upon.
We are the majority had have been for a very long time. We just don't vote in our numbers and we don't stand up for ourselves. That, I think, is ending. Bush knocked us out of our stupor.
So I wholeheartedly stand by my claim. If the only thing they can bring to the table is some notion that this is not a country of "we", the essential component of a democracy, then they deserve ONLY ridicule. There is no other response IMO to purly bankrupt ideas.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by onifre, posted 10-14-2009 2:41 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-14-2009 3:11 PM Jazzns has replied
 Message 101 by onifre, posted 10-14-2009 6:34 PM Jazzns has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 184 (530703)
10-14-2009 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Jazzns
10-14-2009 3:00 PM


Re: freedom of choice, or not?
So the thing is that the country has been getting more progressive for a long time and I think it only comes back to "bite you" when we get complacent and allow ourselves to be made afraid by people like CS and Phage.
I wasn't talking about progressive vs. conservative...
You said this:
quote:
You are part of a dying and irrelevant minority in America. The "everyone for himself" crowd.
The "everyone for himself" crowd seems to be alive and well in my neck of the woods.
Me paying for their healthcare allows for more of them to become alive and well. I don't care to do that when I feel its gonna be worse off for everybody if I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Jazzns, posted 10-14-2009 3:00 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Jazzns, posted 10-14-2009 4:17 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 99 by Izanagi, posted 10-14-2009 4:56 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 97 of 184 (530726)
10-14-2009 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by New Cat's Eye
10-14-2009 3:11 PM


Re: freedom of choice, or not?
I wasn't talking about progressive vs. conservative...
You certainly were shouting their mantra. Maybe you could have been more clear rather than just...
So fuck them and fuck you too. I can take care of myself and my own, with pleasure. Nobody gives a fuck about me, they're all for themselves. Some of them even masquerade as if they are for others, like I suspect you are. I'd much rather just gladly take care of myself and my own, when everyone else is only for themselves anyways. Thanks but no thanks. Stay the fuck away from me.
...When I wasn't even talking to you you volunteered your vitriol to be in opposition to a policy that the vast majority of your fellow citizens support. What conclusion am I supposed to come to? I am not a mind reader.
Perhaps your problem is with democracy? Do you have a better way? Anarchy?

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-14-2009 3:11 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-14-2009 4:43 PM Jazzns has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 184 (530734)
10-14-2009 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Jazzns
10-14-2009 4:17 PM


Re: freedom of choice, or not?
When I wasn't even talking to you you volunteered your vitriol to be in opposition to a policy that the vast majority of your fellow citizens support. What conclusion am I supposed to come to? I am not a mind reader.
I wasn't in opposition to a policy, I was opposed to your notion that the "everyone for himself" crowd was a dying and irrelevant minority. They're all over the place where I live. They got their hand out n'everything.
And from what I can tell, they are the ones to benefit from the "policy".
I say fuck them if they're gonna be all for themself anyways.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Jazzns, posted 10-14-2009 4:17 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Jazzns, posted 10-14-2009 7:13 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 99 of 184 (530736)
10-14-2009 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by New Cat's Eye
10-14-2009 3:11 PM


Re: freedom of choice, or not?
Me paying for their healthcare allows for more of them to become alive and well. I don't care to do that when I feel its gonna be worse off for everybody if I do.
I know why you are arguing that way and I've heard that argument before. Your argument is similar to the one about why people should never split the bill evenly because someone inevitably orders a steak dinner while everyone else orders light meals. It doesn't seem fair. And you're right; there will always be people who will take advantage of the system. The problem is, that's always true, no matter what. You, at this moment, are being taken advantage of. Your insurance company's overhead runs roughly 30% of the administrative costs. Compare that the systems in other countries with a hybrid system where the costs are generally lower ranging from 20% to 10%. In 2004, that overhead cost was $400 billion out of $1.6 trillion. Think about the savings if we only paid 20% overhead. That would be a $100 billion savings. Per year. But the only way we can get the health insurance companies to lower their costs is by introducing competition. Otherwise, those insurance companies will continue to raise your co-pay, shrink your benefits, and when you need it, find some way out of paying your medical bills. But it's your choice - perhaps getting fleeced by the company you rely on to help you in your time of need is much better than having the security of knowing your medical bills will never bankrupt you even though some people will take advantage of the system.
But for me, the costs of allowing some people to take advantage of the system are much less than the benefits of having a universal healthcare system.

It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott
----------------------------------------
Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy
----------------------------------------
You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-14-2009 3:11 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 184 (530738)
10-14-2009 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by onifre
10-14-2009 12:24 PM


Re: Maybe, but lets hope you can always do that
Nothing yet. I'm just suggesting a system that allocates the money that would otherwise be pocketed by los politicos and using that to set up a universal-type healthcare system.
Would you be for something like that? Remembering of course that the money is taken from you in either case.
I dunno, I suppose. What money are you talking about? My current taxes?
Well lets look at the bigger picture and not just isolated situations.
I'm looking at my community. Whatever is happening in Califonia or New York doesn't really impact us very much.
I guess I should ask first, overall, do you believe people who can't afford healthcare are lazy freeloaders who are unwilling to get a job?
What are we talking about here? $100/month?
http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/
Quotes as low as $36 a month. I dunno if I can believe that or not though.
I guess if you see everyone like that (not saying that you do) it's hard to convice people that others need help.
You can't help people that aren't willing to help themselves.
I'm not just talking about black people (although they do seem to be the only ones with $200 herr-do's). There's plenty of white trash aroud here too.
And spic-trash too, I know. It's not a race thing, but you seemed like you were going to a specific character, so I called you on it.
Its just cause I know a Pharmacist who bitches about all the black people comming in using Medicaid cards when they've got gold jewelry and fabulous herr. There's not a lot of white or spic trash in the area they work so... yeah, whatever. I was just describing something I was familiar with.
That's the crux of the issue, IMO. How in fact can it be done properly?
I have no idea.
I'm just opposed to the idea, in general, of perpetuating these poeples' lack of desire to help themselves by giving them more free shit... especially if I'm going to be legislated to pay for it. And that's my biggest beef here.
Nothing currently is being suggested that works properly. Curretly Obama's plan helps the Pharm industry control drug prices and that will increase insurance and medical bills. It changes nothing in the long run.
But if it were done in a way that neither the Pharm industry was dictating drug prices, or the insurance companies bogusly jacking-up prices, and if it were managed so that equal share of the funds are used for all class of people, the way it would benefit you would be in reduced medical bills and drug prices.
I'm not totally opposed to healthcare for everybody.
Remember, the money is taken from you now with high medical costs and high drug prices; you're already losing the money, you're just losing it to CEO's, lobbyist, politicians, etc.
I don't really think that I am losing any money. A small portion of my paycheck comes out before taxes to pay for medical coverage, that my employer chips in on. I pretty much self medicate myself unless I need an antibiotic. But those aren't very expensive.
I pay $20 copay to the doctor when I very rarely go (< 1/year).
I don't see where I, personally, am already losing the money.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by onifre, posted 10-14-2009 12:24 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by hooah212002, posted 10-14-2009 7:00 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 104 by onifre, posted 10-14-2009 7:40 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 101 of 184 (530751)
10-14-2009 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Jazzns
10-14-2009 3:00 PM


We the people
So the thing is that the country has been getting more progressive for a long time and I think it only comes back to "bite you" when we get complacent and allow ourselves to be made afraid by people like CS and Phage. They say "don't take my liberty" when they really mean "don't take my money" and we sissy liberals back down and let ourselves be trampled upon.
The media and the powers that be have divided this country so much that it's become a fight between ourselves.
Nobody should be afriad of anybody, but nothing can be accomplished if we assume why people have the opinions they do. Open discourse (something the government fights very hard to avoid) can help everyone find common ground on any and all matters.
There is no stable majority when it comes to these opinions. Americans are swayed by the media easily and are never fixed to one single ideology.
So I wholeheartedly stand by my claim. If the only thing they can bring to the table is some notion that this is not a country of "we", the essential component of a democracy, then they deserve ONLY ridicule. There is no other response IMO to purly bankrupt ideas.
So instead of dealing with their opinions head on and try to understand one another (because, as you say, we are a country of "WE" even the "we's" we disagree with) you'd rather ignore them?
Doesn't that in effect make them feel less like a "we" and more like an "I"...?
It seems like your idea of what to do about people who we disagree with is to ignore their opinion and call them a dying minority. Which works counter to your other position that we are a country of "we". Or is it just that we should all be force to one single opinion? Is that the kind of "we" you're talking about, only the "we's" that agree with you?
Here's a fact: racism is alive and well in this country, and racist people vote. Ignore them and their opinion all you want; call them a dying minority all you want; call them ignorant and backwards all you want - but they still get to vote. And all you're doing is feeding their racism by making them feel less and less a part of this country.
Instead, a better approach might be to talk to people. Find out why they feel "their country is being taken over by n*ggers and f*gs." Maybe they're just miss informed, maybe they're just scared of what the right-wing media keeps telling them, maybe they're upset that their opinions aren't being heard - who knows??? But ignoring them won't help. Ostracizing them from society will only feed their anger, and not making people feel like they're part of the country their parents fought for will cause great descension, breed malitias, cause unwanted violence, etc.
They won't "die off" like you're thinking.
People are closed off from discourse between people of a different opinion, and it's due to the media feeding everyone lies about what the other side thinks of each other. I travel a lot and meet a lot of people from different backgrounds. And even those who we would consider "backwards" only want good things for everyone around them. The key to a progressive society is to knock down those walls of isolation and bring everyone to the table and try to find common ground.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Jazzns, posted 10-14-2009 3:00 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Jazzns, posted 10-14-2009 7:42 PM onifre has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 102 of 184 (530764)
10-14-2009 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by New Cat's Eye
10-14-2009 5:05 PM


Re: Maybe, but lets hope you can always do that
I just did a cursory search for the ehealthinsurance site you linked to. I looked at the cheapest one just for my son and I. (note: I have 3 kids and a fiance, but I just did 1 child aged 5)
Plan TypeNetwork Office Visit for Primary Doctor: Not Covered
Office Visit for Specialist: Not Covered
Coinsurance: 20% after deductible
Annual DeductibleFamily:$20,000($10,000 per person)
Separate Prescription Drugs Deductible: None
Prescription Drugs Generic: Not Covered
Brand: Not Covered
Non-Formulary: Not Covered
Annual Out-of-Pocket LimitFamily:$6,000($3,000 per person)
Does not include deductible Lifetime Maximum$: 3 Million per person Health Savings Account (HSA) Eligible: No
Out-of-Network Coverage:Yes (Details in plan brochure below)
Out of Country Coverage: Emergency Care Only Find Doctors (Search to see if your doctors are part of this plan's network.)
Physicians Primary Care Physician (PCP) Required: No
Specialist Referrals Required: No Preventive Care Coverage
Periodic Health Exam: Not Covered Periodic
OB-GYN ExamMammogram, Pap Smear, PSA Testing: 20% Coinsurance after deductible
Well Baby Care: Not Covered
Prescription Drug Coverage
Generic Prescription Drugs: Not Covered Brand
Prescription Drugs: Not Covered
And thats just half of it at 62 bucks a month. I didn't copy all the shit they don't cover. Does THAT look like a plan you would sign up for?? If so, be my guest.
Private insurance is fucking expensive my friend.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-14-2009 5:05 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 103 of 184 (530767)
10-14-2009 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by New Cat's Eye
10-14-2009 4:43 PM


Re: freedom of choice, or not?
Ok then, pardon me for being unable to "read between the fucks".
Salud.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-14-2009 4:43 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 104 of 184 (530772)
10-14-2009 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by New Cat's Eye
10-14-2009 5:05 PM


Re: Maybe, but lets hope you can always do that
I dunno, I suppose. What money are you talking about? My current taxes?
No, the money that is currently being paid by you for medicine through your insurance payments.
Let me correct it. The money that is being paid by your fellow Americans for medicine (to include you - maybe to a lesser degree) through their insurance payments. We pay ridiculous money for drugs in this country (and not for the good kind either).
My kids had their share of illnesses that I had to financially deal with. Now, I'm not saying I wouldn't pay for it, because I will, but not the ridiculous prices these Pharm fucks have jacked it up to. But I'm fucked 'cause I have no option. Either my kids die or I literally make Pharm executives richer... those are my 2 options.
I'm looking at my community. Whatever is happening in Califonia or New York doesn't really impact us very much.
I think you're mistaken. All progressive changes that have taken effect (segregation, womens rights, etc.) start off in places like NY and Cali. So what happens there affects you, eventually. Legalized pot will eventually be a country wide thing (IPU willing) and it will be because it helped Cali with tax revenue.
Not everyone that cant afford health insurance is a free loading lazy-ass. Keeping in mind that we're not just talking about single coverage CS, I'm talking family insurance. And, what about those who do work, very fuckn hard, but their company doesn't provide insurance? What then? What does someone like that do for their family?
Well, they go to the emergency room. And what does that do? Makes you and I pay more medical insurance to cover their cost.
What are we talking about here? $100/month?
What?! For family insurance? I don't think so dude.
Back in my 9-5 days, for family insurance, through the company I worked for, was close to $300 per month. Of course, before taxes.
You can't help people that aren't willing to help themselves.
I agree. But I don't see how that's relevant.
Its just cause I know a Pharmacist who bitches about all the black people comming in using Medicaid cards when they've got gold jewelry and fabulous herr. There's not a lot of white or spic trash in the area they work so... yeah, whatever. I was just describing something I was familiar with.
Lets look at the numbers though. Blacks are a minority, and blacks without jobs are also a minority within themselves. So what impact, if any, do a few people who take advantage of a system have on the overall outcome of the system?
All that does is make dialogue impossible when anyone without healthcare or the means to afford it is looked down upon automatically without so much as a chance.
I'm just opposed to the idea, in general, of perpetuating these poeples' lack of desire to help themselves by giving them more free shit... especially if I'm going to be legislated to pay for it. And that's my biggest beef here.
But you're talking about a minority of people that will always exist, regardless of what kind of plan is out there. How is the current plan helping aviod the situation? It's not is it? Because if it did *they* wouldn't exist. But they do, so clearly the "system" has no impact on what happens.
What universal healthcare WILL do is help those who do have jobs but just can't afford health insurance for their family or the high prices of medicine. AND, by giving them healthcare, your own cost to insure yourself (or your family when you have one) will be greatly reduced because YOU aren't paying for other people without insurance.
I'm not totally opposed to healthcare for everybody.
Then we agree. I would then suggest we ALL need to find a system that we can all agree is fair.
Open discourse, thats all we need at that point. And I think we can find common ground.
I don't really think that I am losing any money. A small portion of my paycheck comes out before taxes to pay for medical coverage, that my employer chips in on. I pretty much self medicate myself unless I need an antibiotic. But those aren't very expensive.
I pay $20 copay to the doctor when I very rarely go (< 1/year).
I don't see where I, personally, am already losing the money.
Well whatever it is for you personally pay (remembering that it will increase once you start a family, have kids, and hopefully your kids aren't sick children) it would be less, if not completely free.
Then with the money you save, you can buy a new gun rack and a "Get-R-Done" hat.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-14-2009 5:05 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-16-2009 12:23 PM onifre has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 105 of 184 (530773)
10-14-2009 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by onifre
10-14-2009 6:34 PM


Re: We the people
There is no stable majority when it comes to these opinions. Americans are swayed by the media easily and are never fixed to one single ideology.
This is generally true on an issue by issue basis. But it is not necessarily true in general. The country has been getting more progressive despite almost total right-wing control of many mainstream news outlets. Political ideological trends are much more sophisticated than that.
So instead of dealing with their opinions head on and try to understand one another (because, as you say, we are a country of "WE" even the "we's" we disagree with) you'd rather ignore them?
I don't mind disagreement. I am much more likely to have a good argument with someone where the only issue is a disagreement. Take a look at the "Obama is full of it" thread and the most recent posts there for some proof of that. But if you look back and Phage's replies to me, he was doing more than disagreeing with me.
It seems like your idea of what to do about people who we disagree with is to ignore their opinion and call them a dying minority. Which works counter to your other position that we are a country of "we". Or is it just that we should all be force to one single opinion? Is that the kind of "we" you're talking about, only the "we's" that agree with you?
Who said anything about ignoring anybody? In fact I was explicitly saying NOT to ignore them. I was making a call to ridicule them. There a points at which the discussion is beyond disagreement and one side ONLY has a totally bankrupt position. Creationism is a good example. There is a GOOD reason why most prominent science populizers will not debate a creationist. It is because even the fact of the debate gives something which deserves NO legitimacy some minute semblance of it.
That is what happend with Phage. I could have ignored him, but instead I mocked him like he deserved. Its not as though he was presenting a serious argument and I was maliciously shutting him down. He was saying that baby with cancer out to get a loan to pay for his health care. There was no serious position of his to listen to even if I could have considered it.
People are closed off from discourse between people of a different opinion, and it's due to the media feeding everyone lies about what the other side thinks of each other. I travel a lot and meet a lot of people from different backgrounds. And even those who we would consider "backwards" only want good things for everyone around them. The key to a progressive society is to knock down those walls of isolation and bring everyone to the table and try to find common ground.
I am all for bringing people into the fold of civilized discourse but in some cases that is not possible. In some cases the best thing to do is to bury the nonsense like the crap it is. You really think you are going to extract a rational discussion from the tea-baggers? They have proven beyond any reasonable suspicion that they are entirely incapable of it. So we can either:
1. Ignore them, which I don't think we should do. That makes us seem weak and giving them all the spotlight.
2. Answer them, mock them, show the world what they truly are which is a sad and bankrupt minority.
That is exactly how the Auguest recess went. Town halls were filled with idiots and nobody said anything. The news filled up with only their filth and what changed it was when real people who care about getting this right responded and started showing up in vast multiples of the astro-turf crowd. They didn't show up to "debate" with those morons. They showed up to flex their muscle and put them in their place.
Don't get me wrong, if someone wants to legitimatly discuss the issues of a private verus public system I would love to talk about it, and I have. But lets not pretend thats what happened here. I for one am not standing by the sidelines anymore when crazy people try to claim that they are more patriotic or call progressive ideas fascist or against liberty in some way.
Freedom is the ability to vote in a government of the people, to decide the people's business. And as long as the Constitution is protected, it is within the right of Congress, ( I would go further to say it is their solemn responsibility ), to provide for the general welfare of the people with a universal healthcare system.
If some people feel that "taxes" are impinging on their "freedom" then I suggest they pick up a history book and learn what real freedom means. It does not mean the ability to have unlimited money, or the ability to divorce yourself from responsibility to the society that protects your rights every single day.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by onifre, posted 10-14-2009 6:34 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by onifre, posted 10-14-2009 8:40 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024