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).

Wait a minute! Did you leave out 1980 on the Republican side? And let's not forget 1968.

Fact checker:

Since 1920...

1920 - 1932 - Republican (12 years) - Harding, Coolidge, Hoover
1932 - 1952 - Democrat (20 years) - Roosevelt, Truman
1952 - 1960 - Republican (8 years) - Eisenhower
1960 - 1968 - Democrat (8 years) - Kennedy, Johnson
1968 - 1976 - Republican (8 years) - Nixon, Ford
1976 - 1980 - Democrat (4 years) - Carter
1980 - 1992 - Republican (12 years) - Reagan, H.W. Bush
1992 - 2000 - Democrat (8 years) - Clinton
2000 - 2008 - Republican (8 years) - W. Bush
2008 - ???? - Democrat (2 years so far) - Obama

Quickly calculated to:

Democrat - 42 (that's if you include 2008 - 2010)
Republican - 48

So in actuality, the government, at least in terms of Presidents, the Republicans since 1920 have held more years in office than the Democrats.

It's only if you take it back to 1912 that Democrats start picking up the majority, adding 8 years:

50
48

However if you discount the 2008 election cycle (since we're still in the midst of it) then you come out with:

48
48

Meaning that Democrats & Republicans from 1912 - 2008 have equally held the Presidency. If you stretch it to a century: 1912 - 2012, then Democrats win by a small 4 years. So up until this point the country has given power to Republicans & Democrats quite equally.

Unless you were including the changeover in Congress, then you are correct since from 1960 until 1992 is a long Democratic Congress while many Republican Presidents come in and out of office.

It appears, in terms of Presidents, Americans favor a hardhearted warmongering leader instead of a softhearted whimpy leader. See Carter vs. Reagan for a microcosm of such a debate:

"Commander-in-chief" 1980 Carter Campaign - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtUhn0n9eg4 (emphasizes his military experience & peace experience simultaneously)

"Peace through Strength" 1980 Reagan Campaign - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z0VQ4vFwPU

For equality's sake I'll put other campaign ads from 1980 here:

"Fearing Ronald Reagan" 1980 Carter Campaign - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcNi5DoprK0

"Door Slam" 1980 Reagan Campaign - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZHRz_-G748

"Peacemaker" 1980 Carter Campaign - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLBZ_-pgA1g

"The Ayatollah Votes" 1980 "Democrats for Reagan" Campaign - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLKMXnsxHZM

"Nancy Reagan" 1980 Reagan Campaign - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvMYqYesCrA

"Reagan's Record" 1980 Reagan Campaign - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ4CCQRDxKo

"Democrats for Reagan" 1980 Reagan Campaign - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErosyL95VqA

"Jimmy Carter for President" 1980 Carter Campaign - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2vdvzMSKS8

"Re-Elect President Carter" 1980 Carter Campaign - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmT0gIEpMY0

~*~*~*~

And just because I find it utterly ridiculous:

"The Bear" 1984 Reagan Campaign - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpwdcmjBgNA

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

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.

I wouldn't be to concerned about violence until 2012.

Originally Posted by James50

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

I once heard the government described as this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyHQ9geKmtU

Enjoy the satire!

~Chas'88

Chas, I think Mike was talking about one party controlling both houses of Congress and the White House, which did not happen in 1980.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

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.

This comment reminds me of this scene from Donnie Darko. I hope you enjoy the depiction of an Xer defying the Boomer (probably more likely a War Baby cusper) in the scene.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_puc8ojNctA

Everyone enjoy!

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Chas, I think Mike was talking about one party controlling both houses of Congress and the White House, which did not happen in 1980.

I figured, but I wanted to be sure by provoking someone to say as much or for Mike to clarify that.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by TnT

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.

Kid not doing what it is told, kid doing something I don't like, kid drawing on table, sparks anger.I don't fear hitting my thumb with a hammer, but I sure get angry afterwards because I don't like doing it and I don't like myself for doing it. You can move on with fear if you want, but I know what makes me angry.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

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.

Obama is NOT taking over health care.

Originally Posted by The Rani

This forum has officially jumped the shark.

Liberalism is a Mental Disorder.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Not if payouts increase, which they will if sicker people are covered. Why do people never learn that you can't get something for nothing.

You make one of the greatest errors in analysis. You assume that all variables are fixed, except the one you find important. Here is the simple answer: we already pay.

Unless you assume that sick are just swept aside to die in an alley, the cost is already borne by the system somehow ... typically in a less than ideal way. Hospitals eat the cost of charity cases, then pass those costs through to their paying customers. You MDs do the same, as do drug and device companies. If every customer is a paying customer, then the calculus changes, and overcharges can be eliminated. If they aren't, then expect the next round of reform to focus on your costs and profits.

Originally Posted by James50

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

Actually, the two parties have spent the last 10 or 15 years moving to their respective extremes. The Daddy Party is now pompous arrogant drunken abusive Daddy, while the Mommy Party is weepy apologetic self pitying Mommy. Of the two, the Daddies are still getting worse, but the Mommies seem to be in recovery ... some of them at least.

The GOP had full reign when the Dems were seen as unreliable. Now, the roles, at least the degrees of reliability, have reversed. It's the photo-opposite of the early '70s, when Nixon was reeling and the Dems were smelling blood. Of course, McGovern didn't do so well, even though he was a war hero.

Whether the GOP has reached that point yet is still up for discussion.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Kid not doing what it is told, kid doing something I don't like, kid drawing on table, sparks anger.I don't fear hitting my thumb with a hammer, but I sure get angry afterwards because I don't like doing it and I don't like myself for doing it. You can move on with fear if you want, but I know what makes me angry.

Honestly, from what you say I'm not sure you even know what anger is, or what its fundamental organic, biological function is.

Genuine anger is a biological response to an outside life-threatening phenomenon. A dog bites you ... it hurts ... you get angry and use the energy to try to defend yourself. That's fundamental and natural.

Your kid doesn't do what he is told ... you feel disrespected ... you feal fearful that something is wrong with you ... you feel fearful that you are losing control ... you fly into a rage. Raging is quite different from genuine, authentic anger.

Again, it takes a lot of effort and self-examination to sort out the differences between one's rage attacks and genuine anger.

Think about it ... what can a little kid possibly do that requires, or justifies, a mature adult to fly into a fit of anger?

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Yes, as matter of national defense. Does health care fly planes into buildings or run inside buildings strapped with bombs? Health care 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 health care? Your dude is high on ideals, but short on principle.

You whine about freedom, and accept the most intrusive form of snooping. You claim the reason is "national defense", but what you really mean is "personal defense".

In the aggregate, far more Americans die from bad health care than from all the wars we've ever fought. While you're at it, you can throw in the harm inflicted by the criminal element for good measure.

I know you're afraid. Be afraid of something real for once. It's highly unlikely that anyone will climb through your window and rape your wife ... or you. Cancer and heart disease, on the other hand ...

Originally Posted by wtrg8

Liberalism is a Mental Disorder.

In terms of livability and overall desirability, the most successful countries on the planet are the social democracies of Europe. I guess insanity has its perks.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

... If they aren't, then expect the next round of reform to focus on your costs and profits.

They won't be, and people aren't going to wait around for round 2.

Why? So far, the Medicare crowd has been happy for over 40 years, and that program is still morphing. This plan can do the same.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

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.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty for Temporary Security deserve neither and will lose both." -Ben Franklin

This is getting bad. Bricks are being thrown at Dem offices and the Teabagger monsters are targeting the CHILDREN of lawmakers of ASSASSINATION.

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

This is domestic terrorism. Time to throw Beck and Limbaugh in jail for inciting this sh*t.

Originally Posted by The Rani

He knew about this health care bill?

Why do you respond to those who oppose themselves?

Ok, I do it too.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Oh dear. Ask any physician whether or not Medicare reimbursement is worth the bother.

The physicians I know, especially the internists, say it is not. They say the lose money on every Medicare patient and must limit the number to stay in business. For the procedure people (cardiologists, radiologists, orthopods, etc) , it may not be so bad, but then that is the problem. Docs are reimbursed for procedures not results.

I have no clue about psychiatry, but expect it can't be all that good.

And of course, I think one of the big money savers is to cut reimbursements even further. It doesn't do you much good to have free care if there is no one available to provide it.

James50

Originally Posted by Odin

This is getting bad. Bricks are being thrown at Dem offices and the Teabagger monsters are targeting the CHILDREN of lawmakers of ASSASSINATION.

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

This is domestic terrorism. Time to throw Beck and Limbaugh in jail for inciting this sh*t.

Thanks for posting this. The teabaggers know that they are losing the war. So out of desperation, they are abandoning any attempts at convincing the people through sound argument (something of which they never fully attempted) by resorting to verbal insults and violence. Anyone out there who is egging these people on are a disgrace to the country. It seems as if they would rather have the country go up in flames than let their ideology be defeated.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Most psychiatrists I know don't even accept insurance, of any kind. I wonder if that will be regulated also.

My experience has been mostly with child psychiatry. Like you say, no insurance accepted is the norm. I was thinking about Medicare. There must be such a thing as geriatric psychiatry, but I don't know anything about it. Yet.

James50

Originally Posted by The Rani

Most psychiatrists I know don't even accept insurance, of any kind. I wonder if that will be regulated also.

I wasn't aware of that.

I suspect that regulation won't be necessary. If everyone has policies that cover psychiatry, everyone will expect psychiatrists to accept insurance payments. Those who will not, can instead get by with none.

I will say that if the power balance between psychiatrists and their patients is so lopsided that psychiatrists can actually dictate not only how much they will be paid but whether their patients can use their medical coverage or must bankrupt themselves, then it's time to rectify that balance, one way or another.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I will say that if the power balance between psychiatrists and their patients is so lopsided that psychiatrists can actually dictate not only how much they will be paid but whether their patients can use their medical coverage or must bankrupt themselves, then it's time to rectify that balance, one way or another.

Jerko absurdum ad infinitum.

Thus the sickos take over the asylum. , I guess. I mean, what better describes the current nutty scene in Washington D.C.?

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

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

Nowadays when I see Olbermann all I can think of is Ben Affleck's rendition of him complaining about "Miss Precious Perfect". Can't take him seriously anymore. I agree with you on Maddow though. I find her to be amazing (and I must admit, a little hot-- and yes I know "what" she is). I can't stand the Ed guy. Matthews spits too much.

I force myself to watch Scarborough and O'Reilly as often as I can stand and catch David Brooks on PBS when I can for other points of view.

But for FULL DISCLOSURE my favorite sources of TV news are The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. For my money, it doesn't get any better.

America is what, like 50th in doctors per capita?

Obviously: doctors are overpaid, have too much freedom, and too much free time. We'll have to use the lawyers and insurers to take them down (another) notch before they try to complicate this reform with their own selfish interests.

'Cuz god knows its those paper pushing lawyers, insurance middle-men, and bankers that we really value here in America.