Obama's Health Care Overhaul: Your Opinions

[Jess]

Originally Posted by key

How do we get through to people who refuse to debate in facts, or to even defend their opinion with any clarity. F-you is not a rebuttal founded in information. Even if their information is based on dubious sources we at least have a ground from which to discuss the matter. As far as I can see the biggest concern to Casey is that her taxes will go up. Many people have pointed out that her taxes have actually been lowered. If she recently did her taxes, surely she sees her return is larger this year.

Dreadgeek I totally appreciate all the time you took to present your case. I think what we are seeing in reaction is pretty typical for our tea party citizens and other conservatives. They do not operate from facts, only fears. So all the rational debate in the world simply will not compute for these people. I admit that my facts are peppered with emotional appeals. But even this does not seem to get through.

There must be someone among us with the NLP skills that can instruct us on how best to get through to them.

I am not anti-Republican. In my opinion Eisenhower was the last great Republican President we had. He warned us against the Military Industrial Complex, taxes on the rich (equivalent to about 3 million a year in today's dollars) were upwards of 70-90%. Heck I even praise Nixon for giving us the G-Blessed EPA! What happened to "real" conservative values. As in conserving our environment, conserving our blood and treasure, conserving our economy by not allowing any person (corporate or human) to get "too big to fail."

What to do what to do? I can't stand watching poor people defend the rights of the rich. HELP!

Actually, I just thought of something. Maybe the biggest concern to Casey (and others) is that she not be seen as "taking a hand out." There is a lot of pride/shame going on there. I am sure Casey represent many of our citizens in this regard. They don't want to associate themselves with what they perceive as weakness (the "lazy asses"). How do you convince someone with such pride/shame that getting help is not a bad thing? Again someone with NLP language skills might be able to chime in here and give us all a hand. Anyone?

Perhaps first by not talking about them as if they aren't here. Or talking in a language someone w/o your same skill ( vocabulary) set may not understand.

What I, as a reader, just witnessed in your above post was beyond rude. I know you truly mean well. I know you truly wish to be able to assist someone with seeing things through a different lens. As someone who does take an interest ( completely NON partisan, as I think both parties suck), I am watching you fail miserably.

I agree with many many points you and others ( dreadgeek, Kobi, christie, et al ) have expressed. I am also the adult child of someone who refused "to take a handout" when my dad decided to exercise his right to be a fuckhead. I and my siblings along with my mother suffered at the hands of not only his assholishness but because of my mother's pride. So, I get where the not wanting to be dependent upon what has been seen as a "handout" comes from. My mom may not have had to work herself to utter ruin had she accepted help. She may not have become the willful, self determined, non-negotiable woman she did.

The problem is this... You present a case that may perhaps be unknown to someone else. You present what you see as "positive" and a gradual slide forward. You fail to see how she sees things or take into consideration where she is coming from. You do not speak to her. Get it?

There is good AND bad in this piece of now history. Perhaps if we can reasonably see all sides and figure out where it needs to go next we can begin to forge those bridges. If you can't see the other side, you will never breech it.( By you I mean ANY "you", not just you, key.)

The choice to keep banging your head against a wall, as someone else hinted to, I believe the wordage was "talking to a rock" ( lovely, no? ), or you can try to use a different approach. It's always YOUR choice to engage or not. It's always YOUR choice as to a change in strategy or NOT.

For me the question you asked bears another worthy avenue. Do you REALLY wish to engage, or do you just want to make a point? As I see it, those with the most ammunition should be the ones more willing to offer a different road than tossing it.


Sorry for the further derail. My bad.

[Corkey]

When someone refuses to speak to facts, and only comes at the debate with emotion, then it isn't a debate, it is in fact manipulative and childish. Now did I use any words that were so over the head that they cannot be understood? No. Fact: if one makes over $250 K a year their taxes will go up. Fact: if one makes less than $250 K a year they will go down.
The rest of her argument was lost in emotion.
So while banging heads on a wall and "talking to a rock" which btw weren't exactly used, may seem harsh, they are in fact exactly what is happening.
MY .02

[Apocalipstic]

Many states especially in the South which have large polulations of poor people have been brought up not to be "freeloaders". This goes way back, maybe even to before the Scots Irish (who predominantly settled these areas) came to the US and to the reception they received when they got here.

Casey, I totally get you not wanting a handout and working for what you have, however, for me I think it is a good thing for us to all share the burden of making sure every single US citizen has health insurance. I have also always paid for myself, never taken unemployment etc. I am lucky to have insurance though and even if I have to pay extra taxes, I want us all to. I want YOU to have insurance. We all need it.

I know you will agree that when people say Southerner's are lazy and don't want to work, we know that is not true. I think most people given the chance of work they can do well at and make a good living would pick to work. I agree that some people do not have this work ethic. My belief is that some have been so beat down over generations that living off the system seems like a good idea, but for most of us, really, we would rather go to work every day.

Think about what a burden would be lifted if we all shared in making sure every single US citizen had insurance. How many Mothers and Dads would sleep better.

For me, it is worth it to help pay for that. I dream of that day.

We don't have to agree, but I do wish you would think about it.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by key

As far as I can see the biggest concern to Casey is that her taxes will go up.

At the risk of going all "meta" on everyone here, I think that there's actually another issue that really comprises the elephant in the room. So I'm going to name it (I will call it George, and I will hug it and squeeze it and call it George! Sorry couldn't help myself). The question isn't about taxes, it's about *merit*. Even more than I heard Casey concerns about her taxes, I heard her concerns about lazy people (undeserving) who don't want to work (not meriting help). That was the theme that I kept reading in different words. And it's a question I think is actually at the heart of our current debates about social programs.

I'm willing to bet that Casey does *not* include wounded veterans in her list of lazy people who don't want to work. (I may be wrong here.) I'm willing to bet that she believes that they ARE deserving of medical care and help going to school. This is a position I don't disagree with. The problem seems to be who 'deserves' help. I (and it seems many others) believe that there are people who fall on hard times and what they need from society is a hand back up to their feet. Some of us may have been born into hard times. Some of us may have fallen on hard times one or more times in our youth or later. My position is that despite the fact that there will be people who game the system, we should be a society that has a safety net and the social contract should be like this: "if you cannot do for yourself because you are disabled, we will do for you. If you can do for yourself, but you have fallen on hard times, we will do what it takes to help you get back on your feet. If you were born into hard times, we will not hold you responsible for the circumstances of your birth and we will help you get into a position so your children won't be born into hard times. For that, we expect you to do your best, obey the laws, maybe do something nice for your neighbors once in a while and generally try to leave the place a little cleaner than you found it when you got here."

Others would disagree with that social contract. I don't know precisely what they would replace it with but, for reasons I'll get into later, I think that the harsher we decide society should be the more short-sighted we are being as a culture.

I want to digress about this whole 'rugged individualism' ethic. While on the surface it's admirable, a couple of people (Jess for one) has pointed to the downside of this. Yes, if one *can* do for oneself one should try their best to do so. However, kids in the mix changes the calculus on that one for me. Think about it this way: Which is more admirable? The mother who has a sick child who *refuses* to take that child to the hospital because "I've never taken a thing from anyone" and she has neither the insurance or the cash to pay or the mother who swallows her pride and goes to the hospital and gets her child medical care even if it means having to ask for charity. I would say that latter. Now, that might be self-serving because that mother was me some 20 years ago. My son was two, I was just out of the Army (not by choice), my marriage had just fallen apart and the only job skills I had were what I'd learned at McDonald's and cryptography. I grew up in privilege, believe that sitting on the doorstep of the county welfare office, my son in my lap, waiting for those doors to open, was the most humbling experience of my life. But I *HAD* to. My parents had cut me off, I had no job skills and my ex-husband had less skills than I did and couldn't hold a job to boot! It was humble myself or watch my kid starve. To this day, I still maintain that watching him starve would've been the easier path at the time, I would have had my pride intact.

Back to the issue of merit. Here's why I think having a truly harsh society is against ALL our interests. As long as I could get welfare, food stamps and medicaid I had no reason to steal or turn to other forms of crime. There was an *option* so I never really had to face my son starving--maybe sometimes there was less food, maybe sometimes I went a couple or three days without eating to make things stretch, but I didn't have to turn to stealing bread from the grocery store so my son could eat. But I can well imagine what I might have been driven to had there been no options. And that is the short-sightedness that mystifies me. One, to me obvious, lesson of history is this: as long as people can feed their children, put a roof over their head, give them some kind of bed to sleep in, some clothes on their backs and some shoes on their feet, they are very, very unlikely to revolt. But when people are watching their children starve or die from malnutrition or disease that *could* be cured but they cannot get the cure, they *will* revolt. It seems to me that social welfare in all its forms, is an insurance policy society pays to keep the wolves of temptation to revolution outside the door. It strikes me as short-sighted to not see a lesson that so obviously litters the fields of history (French revolution end-stage Weimer Germany, Zimbabwe at the end of the last century, the Russian Revolution of 1917, and on and on.)

Originally Posted by Corkey

When someone refuses to speak to facts, and only comes at the debate with emotion, then it isn't a debate, it is in fact manipulative and childish. Now did I use any words that were so over the head that they cannot be understood? No. Fact: if one makes over $250 K a year their taxes will go up. Fact: if one makes less than $250 K a year they will go down.
The rest of her argument was lost in emotion.
So while banging heads on a wall and "talking to a rock" which btw weren't exactly used, may seem harsh, they are in fact exactly what is happening.
MY .02

I have to say I so agree with this. At some point you have to have your human reaction and just holler! One of the problems we have right now, as a society, is that we are in the grips of a meme that makes dialog difficult. That meme is that 'facts' are just a synonym for 'opinion'. It's not. Everyone has a right to their own opinions but no one has a right to their own facts. If someone refuses to acknowledge that there's one set of facts about he world, it really DOES feel like talking to a rock.

[key]

Originally Posted by Jess

Perhaps first by not talking about them as if they aren't here. Or talking in a language someone w/o your same skill ( vocabulary) set may not understand.

What I, as a reader, just witnessed in your above post was beyond rude.

"key you are an ass hole"..... ~Casey35

Maybe it's just me, but I prefer to not correspond directly to people who call me an asshole.

And excuse me, but you are assuming that Casey did not understand what I was writing? Darling, I am a high school drop out, my vocabulary is not *that* advanced. Who exactly is being condescending to who?

Casey has been asked very direct very simple questions to which she has refused to answer. Instead she resorts to name calling. There is no point for me to address her directly anymore. But I do not believe that she is the only one with her fears and freak outs (mostly due to conservative media's Misinformation and Propaganda Machine). I would like to learn how to talk to people like her.

So what is your suggestion for when someone calls you an asshole and refuses to answer simple questions about their beliefs and opinions?

[Jess]

Originally Posted by key

"key you are an ass hole"..... ~Casey35

Maybe it's just me, but I prefer to not correspond directly to people who call me an asshole.

And excuse me, but you are assuming that Casey did not understand what I was writing? Darling, I am a high school drop out, my vocabulary is not *that* advanced. Who exactly is being condescending to who?

Casey has been asked very direct very simple questions to which she has refused to answer. Instead she resorts to name calling. There is no point for me to address her directly anymore. But I do not believe that she is the only one with her fears and freak outs (mostly due to conservative media's Misinformation and Propaganda Machine). I would like to learn how to talk to people like her.

So what is your suggestion for when someone calls you an asshole and refuses to answer simple questions about their beliefs and opinions?

To be honest key, after she said she had left the conversation, I would have dropped it. I try when I can to help people see things from perhaps a different point of view than their own frame of reference. Sometimes I don't execute it very well. At some point I just give up, especially after someone has either made an afront to me or asked me to disengage. I will respect that.

We all have relatives or neighbors or someone we know who we argue with about just about anything political. Sometimes it feels like pulling your hair out trying to get them to hear what you are saying. It hurts and can be exasperating to continue to try to make someone "hear" something other than what is firmly implanted in their head.

I truly do believe you were trying your best to engage. I have seen nothing from you that would suggest otherwise. I don't think the name calling toward you was deserved. That kinda tosses anyones argument out the window in my opinion and at least for me, closes that door of communication.

I get called lovely names for attempting to try to help some folks see something different. It can enrage me. It can hurt. What it cannot do is force my hand or my mind to do anything other than keep trying. I eventually learn that some folks will just never see anything or any point of view other than their own. My best option is to continue trying elsewhere.

The energy you have put into this discussion tells me you do care. My own investment in conversations that are important to me can sometimes feel very sad. I try like hell to see all sides and it is really difficult when engaging with others who can't. I try add helpful items, but ya know, sometimes they are overlooked or dismissed and all that is focused on is the negative counterproductive position of folks stuck in their own frame of reference.

Anyway, don't give up being open minded. I know you are and appreciate it a lot. Sometimes ya just got know when to fold 'em.

As far as this law goes, I have consulted an atty and have found out what legally I need to do to protect my home so I can now join the ranks of those who cannot afford care and use the resources available to get help. I still do not understand why politicians make things so much more difficult than the simple common sense book keeping procedures they should be. But hey, they would all be out of work if they actually made things make sense.

[MsDemeanor]

Originally Posted by Jess

I still do not understand why politicians make things so much more difficult than the simple common sense book keeping procedures they should be.

2 words - corporate donations

[AtLast]

Thinking that only reasonable people can recognize reason. Or even their life's experiences. Doesn't matter what level of education they have at all. Neither of my parents were educated in terms of formal schooling. Yet, they both had the capacity to listen to other people's views.

The health-Care Reform measures haven't even been fully implemented and won't be for a few years. Time will tell us if these measure work well for the many. I am hopeful even though I don't think the bill does enough to knock down the real culprits behind increased costs- the private health-care companies. There is no way that they can continue to make profits of more than 400% and costs be decreased.

I don't have a problem with businesses making a profit, but not over 400% and executives raking in multi-million dollar bonuses with people being denied needed health-care!

Looking at this along with the arrogance of the Wall Street bandits now appearing before Congress, I see no other way but government intervention to protect consumers. And the fact of the matter is that I come from a multi-generational small business family. There is a big difference between private businesses in which there exists honesty and honor in making a fair profit and not screwing people.

[key]

Originally Posted by MsDemeanor

2 words - corporate donations

Do you know about www.youstreet.org ?

For a measly $6 a year from every voting age citizen we could publicly fund every Federal Election. NO corporate donations at all.

Of course we have to hand count every paper ballot (instead of outsourcing our votes to private companies).

But once these two item are in place

(heck throw in instant run off voting - so make it 3, oh yeah and repeal Citizen United - 4 - God these Cons have screwed us but good)

Then

maybe then

We the People will have our country back.

[MsDemeanor]

Originally Posted by key

Do you know about www.youstreet.org ?

For a measly $6 a year from every voting age citizen we could publicly fund every Federal Election. NO corporate donations at all.

I'd like to see every election in this country, right down to dog catcher, publicly funded. The millions of dollars that Meg Whitman is wasting in CA right now is beyond disgusting.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by MsDemeanor

I'd like to see every election in this country, right down to dog catcher, publicly funded. The millions of dollars that Meg Whitman is wasting in CA right now is beyond disgusting.

Absolutely! Every US election! And I'd like to see the US do what other contries do... LIMIT campaigning time! One month, period! We live in a constant state of campaigning in the US and this is one of the top reasons nothing gets done! It is what so much of the deadlock in Congress is about..... and I thik this goes on with both major parties.

Yes, Whitman appears to buying her way right into office!

Actually, I am always discusted about the sums of money spent on political campains. To say it lights, it is a pet peeve of mine!

[Diavolo]

Originally Posted by MsDemeanor

I'd like to see every election in this country, right down to dog catcher, publicly funded. The millions of dollars that Meg Whitman is wasting in CA right now is beyond disgusting.

I don't even like Steve Poizner and Meg Whitman's ad was so offensive to me that I would never cast a vote for her. Even for dog catcher. Especially for dog catcher.

[Jess]

Originally Posted by MsDemeanor

2 words - corporate donations

two more words.. very true

[Jet]

jus' checkin' to see how the thread is going. some constructive opinions and good food for thought i hope.

bye
j

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Jet

jus' checkin' to see how the thread is going. some constructive opinions and good food for thought i hope.

bye
j

I'm curious. This is your third post on this subject and the only one that wasn't a copy-paste of some article somewhere. We know what you think other people think about this bill, what we still don't know is what *you* think about this bill. Pardon me for quibbling about this but I’m far less interested in what you think of the articles written about the bill (clearly you think they are well-written) than I am in what *you* think about the bill. So if it's not too much of an imposition, would you mind telling us what you think about the bill in your own words and why you think that, in your own words? Thanks in advance.

Cheers
Aj