Originally Posted by Mikebert

Of course you don't. Fox reinforces your world view.

No, not really, I don't share the exact same view as Hannity or Bill O'Reilly or Glen Beck. I go there to learn, add to my view and view individual takes on the issues or the primary issue at hand. I don't go there to be politically or socially fed. I do agree, Fox does some extent reinforce my world view.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

This includes family members that are frighteningly upset.

The view among some of my family is that the bill will be a strain on those who can least afford insurance, since purchasing it will now be mandatory. (Huh?)

Originally Posted by The Rani

It's much like people who follow pro sports talk about how "we" kicked ass when their team wins.

Yes, but even in that analogy, there are two sides... one team or the other. This is equivalent to telling a spectator (someone who just commented on the game) and doesn't root for either team that they're "going to get it next time." Inane, at best.

Originally Posted by The Rani

So politics is actually WORSE than pro sports. I stand corrected.

Aren't they both entrenched in our culture in much the same way?

Or is it the need to be "for" something, with everything else your enemy?

Originally Posted by The Rani

There is no provision for limiting what premiums insurance companies charge, what kind of "coverage" they have to offer, deductibles, limits, etc. In other words, it's required that we buy it, and THEY unilaterally set the terms. Nice.

Untrue. I suggest studying the bill a little more closely.

Originally Posted by James50

I don't know why you single out Fox. MSNBC's evening lineup - Ed Schulz, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Rachel Maddow are just as inflammatory. The only difference is the audience size.(Fox is much much higher.)

There is a difference in how each side caricatures the other.

The Left is caricatured as wimpy peaceniks. The Right say the Left is soft of heart and mind.

The Right is caricatured as aggressive warmongers. The Left say The Right are hard of heart and soft of mind.

Both sides say the other is a threat. For someone in the middle, who is the bigger threat? Both are considered dumb so that cancels out. What's left is "softhearted wimp" versus "hardhearted aggressive". If I had to run into one or the other of these in a dark alley, I'd choose the former.

The American Right seems "less safe" to me than the American Left. And I would suggest that the American electorate agrees. In the 90 years since 1920, the GOP has been handed control of the government three times (1920, 1952, 2002) compared to six times (1932, 1948, 1960, 1976, 1992, 2008) for the Dems. The GOP has had a total of 18 years of control compared to 34 years for the Dems.

This suggests that the public trusts the Dem side about twice as much as the GOP side. A view that is consistent with the stereotype of softhearted wimp (safe) versus hard-hearted aggressive (not safe).

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Of course you don't. Fox reinforces your world view.

No, not really... I do agree, Fox does some extent reinforce my world view.

Didn't you just contradict yourself?

I don't share the exact same view as Hannity or Bill O'Reilly or Glen Beck. I go there to learn, add to my view and view individual takes on the issues or the primary issue at hand. I don't go there to be politically or socially fed.

I didn't say you shared the exact same views. No two people do. What I implied was what you learn there reinforces your view.

You could view Fox for the same reason my wife and I used to view MSNBC--for entertainment. We watched Olberman, even though he is pompous, so we can say skeletor! whenever a particular commentator (his name is richard something, but he looks like skeletor) appears. And to see the worst person in the world schtick and hear Olberman say things like "up with which I shall not put". And we like Ed Schlutz because he is not svelte and is from the Great Lakes region (like us).

If was was on the Right I would probably watch Fox and make fun of their guests, but since their views clash with mine they are too irritating, just like you find the MSNBC folks.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Let the 4T begin.

H-m-m-m-m. You're a bit late to the party, but grab a beer anyway.

Originally Posted by The Rani

You mean this?

Partly. The main provision is the requirement that at least 80 or 85% of premiums go to medical payouts. This limits how high premiums can go.

Why wouldn't raising rates for high risk health insurance buyers be any less "justified" than the way that auto insurance rates go up when you have an accident?
If anyone sues over this ... good luck!

A lot of those without insurance right now are not those who can't get it due to medical conditions but rather those who simply can't afford it because they're poor. The subsidies will make it possible for them to afford insurance, and this will increase the risk pool, at the same time reducing the use of emergency rooms for medical treatment for poor people with no health insurance. Increasing the risk pool holds premiums down directly (especially with the 80-85% requirement noted above). Reducing use of emergency rooms holds down hospital costs which holds down medical insurance premiums indirectly, ditto. The individual mandate will also increase the risk pool thus allowing lower premiums.

As for jacking up premiums for sick people -- that's a good question. I'm not entirely clear how (or if) the current reform deals with that. If it doesn't, that's something for further reform down the road, which will be needed for other things anyway; this is only a starting point. But the individual mandate is mostly to put well people into the insurance pool, not sick ones.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Kiff, the Bush tax cuts benefited everyone. Obama's benefited 95% of everyone other than the top 5%. I would have agree with you on the top 5%. But, at the time fair was OK with me. I don't hate the rich like lefties. You see, the rich man has never held back or held me down.

Let's settle this once and for all. The Bush tax cuts, and the Reagan tax cuts before them, benefited the top 1% ... period! They were the only ones who rode the economy through the gauntlet and came out winners on the other side. The rest of us got systemic debt, little if any income gain (a loss for many), and the devastation of our retirement assets.

All because a few rich guys needed to have more and keep it all.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

I assure you the anger you see is not fear induced, it is pure anger.

All anger is fear-induced.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Why do people never learn that you can't get something for nothing.

Because they're Idealists who are used to living off credit. Logic is not an option.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

There is a difference in how each side caricatures the other.

The Left is caricatured as wimpy peaceniks. The Right say the Left is soft of heart and mind.

The Right is caricatured as aggressive warmongers. The Left say The Right are hard of heart and soft of mind.

Both sides say the other is a threat. For someone in the middle, who is the bigger threat? Both are considered dumb so that cancels out. What's left is "softhearted wimp" versus "hardhearted aggressive". If I had to run into one or the other of these in a dark alley, I'd choose the former.

The American Right seems "less safe" to me than the American Left. And I would suggest that the American electorate agrees. In the 90 years since 1920, the GOP has been handed control of the government three times (1920, 1952, 2002) compared to six times (1932, 1948, 1960, 1976, 1992, 2008) for the Dems. The GOP has had a total of 18 years of control compared to 34 years for the Dems.

This suggests that the public trusts the Dem side about twice as much as the GOP side. A view that is consistent with the stereotype of softhearted wimp (safe) versus hard-hearted aggressive (not safe).

You left out 1980 and 1988. Which of the two would you want on your side in a fight, the hardhearted agressive or the soft hearted passive? Which of the two do you want guarding your door, the hardhearted or softhearted? Which one do you want guarding your wallet or fighting your war, the hardhearted or softhearted? It could also suggest, one group is less self reliant than the other. It could also suggest one group dishes out more money than the other as well.

Originally Posted by TnT

All anger is fear-induced.

Are you saying my kid scares me to anger? Come on. Anger is induced by frustration or dislike. When my kid keeps doing something I don't like, I get angry. The chances are more likely you have to get over the fear to get angry.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Are you saying my kid scares me to anger? Come on.

There are lots of different kinds of fear. For example, if your kid "makes you" angry, it's because he/she either did something dangerous that imperils his/her welfare, or he/she did something that challenges your control of your family's environment.

In the first case it's obvious why you got angry ... you were scared for his/her welfare.

In the second case, you're fearful of loss of control over your environment.

It takes many years and a lot of self-examination, and a lot of motivation to want to do that in the first place, to get to an understanding of the underlying roots of one's own anger.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Not if payouts increase, which they will if sicker people are covered.

As I said, the main expansion will be adding well people to the insured roles, not sick ones, and lowering use of emergency rooms for primary care. Payouts should not increase more than premiums do.

Which is why people see it as a move towards socialism.

Of course it is. But as long as you don't attach that boogie-man label, people generally like socialism. Witness how popular Medicare has become.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

You left out 1980 and 1988. Which of the two would you want on your side in a fight, the hardhearted agressive or the soft hearted passive? Which of the two do you want guarding your door, the hardhearted or softhearted? Which one do you want guarding your wallet or fighting your war, the hardhearted or softhearted? It could also suggest, one group is less self reliant than the other. It could also suggest one group dishes out more money than the other as well.

Shorthand that has been repeated many times. Dems are the mommy party. Repubs are the daddy party. (I am not describing gender. Either gender can act in the role of mommy or daddy.)

James50

Documenting: Tea Partiers Vow Revenge Over Health Overhaul

More documentation:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/...ms.vandalized/

http://www.13wham.com/news/local/sto...IAGYDut-A.cspx

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

More documentation:

I'm beginning to think HCR won't be the catalyst I expected... it's likely going to end up being one of many things on a list that escalate to violence. So far, these incidents are too mild to really go anywhere.

Yeah, but at this point a lot of the right-wing energy is still being put into legal challenges and the effort to repeal. People don't turn to violence until they're ready to give up on getting what they want by law.

Good point.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Yep, I didn't like Gore or his position on control. I made my decission at the ballot box. As for 04', Kerry was a joke and my position was basically... it's wise not to change the captain in mid-stream...stay the coarse. I'll never vote Democrat or left again, I can see very clearly both are alligned with government control. My view is, we are on a natural coarse or path towards seperation or conflict.

You didn't see the Patriot Act as an expansion of government control?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

If was was on the Right I would probably watch Fox and make fun of their guests, but since their views clash with mine they are too irritating, just like you find the MSNBC folks.

I watch Olbermann and Maddow -- Olbermann more for opinion and Maddow for news and analysis.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

You didn't see the Patriot Act as an expansion of government control?

Yes, as matter of national defense. Does healthcare fly planes into buildings or run inside buildings strapped with bombs? Healthcare wasn't a national issue which required a massive government take it over. Did Obama inform America in advance that he was going to take over healthcare? Your dude is high on ideals, but short on principle.