Destroying Healthcare in America

Originally Posted by Toby

An interesting point about that was that when Chris Matthews pointed out the poll when it was released a while back, he also pointed to a similar poll showing similar percentages of Democrats buying into Bush being involved with perpetuating 9/11.

Well, in my view those Truthers and Birthers have the same mindset. In brief it is that they latch onto something to oppose who they dislike, regardless of any facts or lack of facts.

KAM

[davidra]

Originally Posted by KAM1138

He pointed out (in regards to Rep Wilson from SC) that he doesn't believe President Obama saw that outburst as racially motivated, because he (graciously in my view) accepted his apology. If he thought Wilson was attacking him as a racist, would he forgive him? I don't know what President Obama's thoughts are there, but Steele called on him to speak out on this.

I realize you aren't trying to say that everyone who opposes Obama is a racist, and I'm glad you are making that distinction.

I can't speak for Southerners (I'm not from the South), but amongst the people I know--some of whom are not at all supportive of President Obama, not one has every mentioned it or alluded to his race. Not one. That's MY experience. I'm not saying my experience is global by any means--I'm just saying what people I know say and do.

There are plenty of REAL reasons to disagree (or agree) with President Obama and his policies and proposals. I'll just end this by stating very clearly that I do not agree with anyone who might attack President Obama due to his ethnicity. I don't live my life that way, and never have.

KAM

Again, I agree with most of what you wrote, but believe it or not, most of the people I hang with at work don't evidence any racism either. And I live in the south. However, on weekends when I'm in a small fishing town on the gulf coast in a county that has almost no blacks and is named Dixie County, has a huge billboard proclaiming it's pride in the Sons of the Confederacy, I hear quite a different story. And some of them are people I respect in some ways, but their racism and hostility towards Obama make "you lie" seem like a joke. I have heard talk about wanting to shoot him on many occasions, in groups of ten to twelve people who are all in agreement. They are not always joking about it, either. Some still have signs in their yards stating that Obama is not their president. Try spending some time in these settings and your opinion might be different. Carter, regardless of your opinion about him as president, has this one exactly right.

[Micael]

Carter just used the same old race card from the same old Democratic playbook. When you want to throw someone off their argument, call them racist. Instant withdrawal from the facts around the argument, and lets go to defense and damage control. Works every time.

But ok, we're waay off Healthcare now. Maybe we need a thread to discuss racism in America?

[groovy]

Originally Posted by davidra

I'll ignore the obvious nationalistic bias in your statement, given the source.

This is exactly why you fail to gain any traction with the substance of your posts. Don't you understand that? I don't care who said what to you in the past. You're a grown man and responsible for your own thoughts.

I'm really sick and tired of every single thread boiling down to a shouting match against Democrats and Republicans. And I'm extremely tired of being accused of racism or jingoism every time I try to express my views. To me, this is the lowest form of "debate" and shows a complete unwillingness to concede one's own views which makes any form of debate moot.

I might come back and address the rest of your post but for now I see no point. It will be just more of the same.

Originally Posted by davidra

Again, I agree with most of what you wrote, but believe it or not, most of the people I hang with at work don't evidence any racism either. And I live in the south. However, on weekends when I'm in a small fishing town on the gulf coast in a county that has almost no blacks and is named Dixie County, has a huge billboard proclaiming it's pride in the Sons of the Confederacy, I hear quite a different story. And some of them are people I respect in some ways, but their racism and hostility towards Obama make "you lie" seem like a joke. I have heard talk about wanting to shoot him on many occasions, in groups of ten to twelve people who are all in agreement. They are not always joking about it, either. Some still have signs in their yards stating that Obama is not their president. Try spending some time in these settings and your opinion might be different. Carter, regardless of your opinion about him as president, has this one exactly right.

How can he be "exactly right" when his statement doesn't discern between those who are racist and those who are not? I'm not discounting your experience that some people have those views, and likewise, I'd expect that mine not be discounted either.

This sort of claim is a blanket statement, and has the effect of pointing a finger of accusation at EVERYONE who criticizes Obama. Why? Its not because I don't believe you when you say that you don't think everyone is a racist, but because those sorts of statements are inherently broad.

Have you ever been in a group of people where it is known that someone has done something wrong? Let's take for example a theft--where the only possible suspects are those who are there. The person stolen from says "I know someone here took my X." EVERYONE suffers from that charge, even though only one person is guilty from it. NOT being able to discern who is guilty or who isn't puts the accusation on everyone.

That's exactly the result of charging that "many" people have racism as a "core" motivation in opposing Obama. That points that finger of accusation just as much at me as it does actual racists. I'm not guilty of it, but I'm blamed of it just the same as those who are guilty of it.

Some people might make these claims honestly thinking they are true, and not intending to stiffle opposition, but I think the result is the same. Others are very willing to make these accusations exactly because they know the effect is to broadly accuse which dampens the opposition.

People who aren't racists don't want to be called racists, so they will try to avoid that--how? By taking themselves out of the line of fire--which in this case means being opposed to President Obama.

KAM

[davidra]

Originally Posted by KAM1138

How can he be "exactly right" when his statement doesn't discern between those who are racist and those who are not? I'm not discounting your experience that some people have those views, and likewise, I'd expect that mine not be discounted either.

This sort of claim is a blanket statement, and has the effect of pointing a finger of accusation at EVERYONE who criticizes Obama. Why? Its not because I don't believe you when you say that you don't think everyone is a racist, but because those sorts of statements are inherently broad.

Have you ever been in a group of people where it is known that someone has done something wrong? Let's take for example a theft--where the only possible suspects are those who are there. The person stolen from says "I know someone here took my X." EVERYONE suffers from that charge, even though only one person is guilty from it. NOT being able to discern who is guilty or who isn't puts the accusation on everyone.

That's exactly the result of charging that "many" people have racism as a "core" motivation in opposing Obama. That points that finger of accusation just as much at me as it does actual racists. I'm not guilty of it, but I'm blamed of it just the same as those who are guilty of it.

Some people might make these claims honestly thinking they are true, and not intending to stiffle opposition, but I think the result is the same. Others are very willing to make these accusations exactly because they know the effect is to broadly accuse which dampens the opposition.

People who aren't racists don't want to be called racists, so they will try to avoid that--how? By taking themselves out of the line of fire--which in this case means being opposed to President Obama.

KAM

Believe me, that was not what I intended at all. I am just pointing out that there are many people....and admittedly it depends on how you define "many"....that are racist and base their opposition to Obama on that alone. Not only that, but I think that of those who are the most vehement, holding the most insulting posters, throwing the garbage-can word "socialist" around, disrupting meetings so nobody can actually discuss issues, a higher percentage of those specific individuals are racist. Can I prove that? Nope. Just a suspicion.

That is not at all saying that everyone opposed to Obama's ideas are racist, or even that a large number of them are. In fact, I think just the opposite. To be opposed to his ideas is what we should demand. "Many" of these people are opposed to the man and his race, and not just his ideas. Look at their signs and tell me what you think. Are those people really against his ideas? That's why I would be willing to bet that that subgroup didn't vote for him, are more highly concentrated in the south, and have little understanding of what concepts like "socialism" actually means. This has nothing whatsoever to do with having intelligent conversation, albeit heated, such as on this board. At least there is conversation. On the web, nobody can hear you scream.

[Bujin]

Originally Posted by Micael

His "point" is a false argument, so it was ignored, not missed.

That's true - what does the WHO's data mean, when stacked up to one individual's personal opinion?

By the way, I recently hit a pothole...that conclusively proves that each and every road in the United States is faulty.

This is exactly why you fail to gain any traction with the substance of your posts.

I think the point was that you're arguing that the WHO failed in its assessment, simply because 'anyone can see that we're better than those other countries'. It is nationalistic simply because your only data to support WHO's failure is that we're more American than those other countries, and American is, by definition, better.

[Woof]

Originally Posted by davidra

SNIP... Carter, regardless of your opinion about him as president, has this one exactly right.

Adding three letters to your statement here would do so much to increase your credibility and increase the perception that you don't think you know everything or that your answer is always the right one.

IMO. Stick that in the Carter sentence and suddenly you don't look so sanctimonious.

You make some good points but lot's of times you come across like everyone should just accept that you know nest and it really turns many us off to your point. Sell it as opinion and you'll get alot farther. Sell it as an absolute and get nowhere.

For what it's worth.

[Toby]

Originally Posted by davidra

[...] That's why I would be willing to bet that that subgroup didn't vote for him, are more highly concentrated in the south, and have little understanding of what concepts like "socialism" actually means. This has nothing whatsoever to do with having intelligent conversation, albeit heated, such as on this board. At least there is conversation. On the web, nobody can hear you scream. [...]

Interesting that the people pictured all seem to be Larouche supporters.

[Woof]

Originally Posted by Bujin

That's true - what does the WHO's data mean, when stacked up to one individual's personal opinion?

By the way, I recently hit a pothole...that conclusively proves that each and every road in the United States is faulty.

Since I think it's been stated that the WHO's data was from 2000, could it be safe to say things have changed in 9 years?

[Bujin]

Originally Posted by Woof

Since I think it's been stated that the WHO's data was from 2000, could it be safe to say things have changed in 9 years?

How have we improved since then? Our costs have certainly gone up, and our coverage has gone down. Is there anything that you can point to as an improvement?

For evidence that it's not safe to say things have measurably changed, the Commonwealth Fund's report (cited above) was from 2007:

Among the six nations studied—Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States—the U.S. ranks last, as it did in the 2006 and 2004 editions of Mirror, Mirror. Most troubling, the U.S. fails to achieve better health outcomes than the other countries, and as shown in the earlier editions, the U.S. is last on dimensions of access, patient safety, efficiency, and equity.

Originally Posted by davidra

Believe me, that was not what I intended at all. I am just pointing out that there are many people....and admittedly it depends on how you define "many"....that are racist and base their opposition to Obama on that alone. Not only that, but I think that of those who are the most vehement, holding the most insulting posters, throwing the garbage-can word "socialist" around, disrupting meetings so nobody can actually discuss issues, a higher percentage of those specific individuals are racist. Can I prove that? Nope. Just a suspicion.

I believe you when you say that you are not intending to broad brush everyone who opposes Obama's policies. Let's remove you from this equation for the moment.

Do you see what I'm saying about blanket statements? How, when there is no ability to determine who really is and who really isn't a racist, that it tends to cast suspicion on everyone.

Originally Posted by davidra

That is not at all saying that everyone opposed to Obama's ideas are racist, or even that a large number of them are. In fact, I think just the opposite. To be opposed to his ideas is what we should demand. "Many" of these people are opposed to the man and his race, and not just his ideas. Look at their signs and tell me what you think. Are those people really against his ideas? That's why I would be willing to bet that that subgroup didn't vote for him, are more highly concentrated in the south, and have little understanding of what concepts like "socialism" actually means. This has nothing whatsoever to do with having intelligent conversation, albeit heated, such as on this board. At least there is conversation. On the web, nobody can hear you scream.

First, let me address "socialism." While just throwing labels at people isn't generally constructive, I think that President Obama has certain socialist views. Unfortunately, that is probably true of many people. After all, we literally have the government owning major portions of Companies--like US Auto Makers now. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were always government-associated, but now the government has taken them into "conservatorship." It differs from nationalization only technically. These are socialist leaning practices. Now, these things can't all rightfully be put on Obama, because some of this happened under Bush as well.

JUST throwing labels around--like Socialism or racism is somewhat meaningless, but it doesn't mean that either or both cannot apply to specific policies/people.

I think those types of signs are pretty ridiculous. I didn't like when people made Bush as ****** signs, and I don't like it when they do it to Obama. I've previously expressed my distaste and disagreement for this "birther" stuff (the "go home" sign). It's idiocy in my view.
I would point out that the ******/**** signs have the LaRouchePac labels on them. Those people are their own special brand of Crazy, and NOT embraced by Republicans or Democrats.

In the end, there isn't much I can do except disagree with this sort of thing. It's not my way, and I put them in the same "kook" category as the "anarchists" and their stupid puppets and burning things in effigy.

I greatly dislike that these whack-jobs get the attention, while there are actually people out there who have legitimate concerns and things to say (on any side), but they don't make for entertaining news I guess.

KAM

[groovy]

Originally Posted by Bujin

I think the point was that you're arguing that the WHO failed in its assessment, simply because 'anyone can see that we're better than those other countries'. It is nationalistic simply because your only data to support WHO's failure is that we're more American than those other countries, and American is, by definition, better.

Reread my post and then read the WHO link. I think you'll find that your paraphrase of my post was not at all what I said.

[davidra]

Originally Posted by Woof

Since I think it's been stated that the WHO's data was from 2000, could it be safe to say things have changed in 9 years?

Post #2361. The answer is no. IMO, if that will make you feel better.

[davidra]

Originally Posted by KAM1138

I would point out that the ******/**** signs have the LaRouchePac labels on them. Those people are their own special brand of Crazy, and NOT embraced by Republicans or Democrats.
KAM

Not really much difference between racism and anti-Semitism, is there? Especially among fascists. But they are out there, along with the others wanting Obama to go back to Kenya. I really don't need to paint anything with broad strokes. But to many, there's something called "guilt by association". Would you be comfortable feeling like these people were representing your "side"? And I guess the thousand dollar question: if Obama were white, what would the turnout be? What signs would be held up? Interesting consideration.

Originally Posted by davidra

Not really much difference between racism and anti-Semitism, is there? Especially among fascists. But they are out there, along with the others wanting Obama to go back to Kenya. I really don't need to paint anything with broad strokes. But to many, there's something called "guilt by association". Would you be comfortable feeling like these people were representing your "side"? And I guess the thousand dollar question: if Obama were white, what would the turnout be? What signs would be held up? Interesting consideration.

Racists and Anti-semites are very similar in nature. I guess this comes down to whether "race" is a proper term at all. Ethnicity I think is more accurate.

Guilt by association...well, that's really the key point here isn't it. Because these LaRouche nuts oppose Obama (actually apparently LaRouche advocates a Single payer system--according to wikipedia), and I also oppose certain Obama policies we are (by some) improperly linked, when there is no link whatsoever.

I have an individual view, not a collective view. Others may share my views and they may do so for their own reasons, but in the end--I'm responsible for my views and myself, not them. I wouldn't want to be mistaken for one of those people, but again--that's what happens when someone says "those people are racists." It targets me just the same as it targets them (well, not really--I'm not protesting). That is inaccurate.

President Obama's Pastor--his chosen spiritiual leader is an anti-semite. He chose to associate with him for many, many years. Does that make him an anti-semite? That is certainly a lot closer connection than someone standing next to a racist at a protest isn't it?

As to your question if President Obama was white what the turnout would be? I can't say, but turnout against President Bush was significant, and regular. He is Caucasian. They portrayed him as ******.

Look at this more broadly for a moment. President Bush was subjected to nearly constant criticism and many protests. President Obama is subjected to criticism and some protests. Many attacks on President Bush were of a personal nature (calling him an idiot was common). He was called a war criminal, ****, etc, etc. Members of Congress called President Bush a liar.

The motivation of individuals is difficult and many times impossible to determine. Is the result much different? Does it matter if President Bush's detractors are anarchists or socialists, of that President Obama's are racist? What if they are those things, but also actually disagree with his ideas?

Hmmm, I didn't think of that before. Would a racist who wants healthcare reform, protest against him? I don't know the answer to that. Does one override the other? Does someone's views that we deem unacceptable (like racism) negate their ability to have a political view?

I don't know the answers to all these things, and like I said--I can really only be responsible for myself. I think I deserve to have views whether they support or oppose those of any politician and the right to voice them. I don't deserve to be called a racist because I'm not. That's really all that I'm saying, and I think you've clearly stated that is not your intent.

KAM

[davidra]

Originally Posted by KAM1138

The motivation of individuals is difficult and many times impossible to determine. Is the result much different? Does it matter if President Bush's detractors are anarchists or socialists, of that President Obama's are racist? What if they are those things, but also actually disagree with his ideas?

Hmmm, I didn't think of that before. Would a racist who wants healthcare reform, protest against him? I don't know the answer to that. Does one override the other? Does someone's views that we deem unacceptable (like racism) negate their ability to have a political view?

KAM

Of course I'm biased, but Bush was another situation entirely. It had to do with war. All you have to do is think back a few years (or at least I do; not sure you were even around then) for it to become very real. People weren't vehemently opposed to Bush because of his personality or his Texas/silver spoon roots. Most democrats were opposed to him because of his support of the religious right....until the war. Until people started dying and it wasn't clear why. One of my best friends, a pediatrician, had his son killed while getting a coke at a coke stand at a Baghdad university. Someone walked up to him and shot him in the head. No use going over all that stuff again, but it just doesn't compare to providing a public option, does it? Maybe it does to some people, but I just don't see it.

From what I've seen, my guess is that people would vote against their best interest. That is what has made the republicans powerful in the past, getting a large number of blue collar workers who traditionally would have been democrat to vote in favor of the party of big business which has always been anti-workers rights. That's the brilliance of wedge issues. Prochoice? That's against my basic tenets of living, so even though the republicans will make my life more complicated by obstructing unions, I'm voting for them anyway. Besides, my pastor told me I should. I'm exaggerating, of course, but wedge issues have changed the course of American politics, from what I see. And race is one of them, re the Dixiecrats. Whatever, I think they would vote against Obama even if they had no health insurance and were facing bankruptcy. That's how powerful those hostile sentiments are. IMO, of course.

[Woof]

Originally Posted by Bujin

How have we improved since then? Our costs have certainly gone up, and our coverage has gone down. Is there anything that you can point to as an improvement?

For evidence that it's not safe to say things have measurably changed, the Commonwealth Fund's report (cited above) was from 2007:

And you have proof that all the countries in question measure everything the same?

Originally Posted by davidra

Of course I'm biased, but Bush was another situation entirely.

SNIP

but it just doesn't compare to providing a public option, does it? Maybe it does to some people, but I just don't see it.

These are different situations for sure, but I don't think it changes the principle of the discussion we are having.

Originally Posted by davidra

From what I've seen, my guess is that people would vote against their best interest. That is what has made the republicans powerful in the past, getting a large number of blue collar workers who traditionally would have been democrat to vote in favor of the party of big business which has always been anti-workers rights. That's the brilliance of wedge issues. Prochoice? That's against my basic tenets of living, so even though the republicans will make my life more complicated by obstructing unions, I'm voting for them anyway. Besides, my pastor told me I should. I'm exaggerating, of course, but wedge issues have changed the course of American politics, from what I see. And race is one of them, re the Dixiecrats. Whatever, I think they would vote against Obama even if they had no health insurance and were facing bankruptcy. That's how powerful those hostile sentiments are. IMO, of course.

Well, I think people vote for what they think are their best interests. That is for them to determine of course. I know at least a few people who voted for Obama, but who are realizing they thought they were voting for something they wanted, but are getting something they didn't expect.

As far as Unions...hmmm, well, I question whether Democrats or Unions are good for workers, but that's another issue.

KAM

[davidra]

Originally Posted by Woof

And you have proof that all the countries in question measure everything the same?

And you have proof they don't? The Commonwealth Fund is an internationally known source of information about health care. Feel free to be suspicious of whoever you want....but when there are multiple studies that say essentially the same thing, that's a concept known as consistency. Consistency is one of the criteria used to determine causality....which means that the findings are likely to be true. But you don't have to believe data. You can do like some on this board and just believe what you have first-hand knowledge about.