Without unions, you are handing disproportionate power to the elites.

But in this matter, no one is talking about the complete dissolution of unions. There are only two things at play in WI... 1. A simple reapportioning of cost to benefits in terms of how much a public union member pays for medical care & retirement. 2. The right to collectively bargain when the average union pay & benefits exceeds the per capita average. They aren't trying to get rid of unions. They're trying to pull them back into a realm that is reasonable, fair, and financially possible. Right now the union contracts and benefits are not financially possible. Unions for years have gotten more and more for less and less to the point where the model is broken. All Walker is doing is trying to fix the system before it implodes and he as to fire thousands.

Now - the pessimist in me believes that the unions and Democrats would be PERFECTLY HAPPY if a GOP governor had to fire 12,000 people to balance the books. That way they could (like the protesters are doing) paint him as Hitler, evil, heartless, etc... But the fact remains that if the union had agreed to more reasonable terms, such an outcome would not be necessary. But rather than give up the right to collectively bargain when their members are ABOVE the per capita index, they would rather burn the house down. Pure idiocy.

>> ^dgandhi:

>> ^NordlichReiter:
Also Planned Parenthood representatives should not be telling people to lie on their forms.

Think about that for a second, Some guy comes in, says he is pimping out young girls, and that he may need to get them abortions. You can:
A) tell him that you can't help and have him go to some back ally butcher, and totally off your radar.
B) tell him to bring the girls in, where they will at least get competent medical care, and might get some legal help.
This is exactly what happened with ACORN, they played to the supposed pimp, TO GATHER INFORMATION, and then they reported it to the AG, that's what they SHOULD do.
PP needs to grow a pair of ovaries and say loudly and publicly that stringing along criminals to assist in the collection of information about the abuse and sexual exploitation of miners is, and should be, part of their job, and deserves federal funding.


That's all fine so long as they do not break the law in the process. Justice is blind and blind for a reason.

>> ^NordlichReiter:

Also Planned Parenthood representatives should not be telling people to lie on their forms.


Think about that for a second, Some guy comes in, says he is pimping out young girls, and that he may need to get them abortions. You can:

A) tell him that you can't help and have him go to some back ally butcher, and totally off your radar.
B) tell him to bring the girls in, where they will at least get competent medical care, and might get some legal help.

This is exactly what happened with ACORN, they played to the supposed pimp, TO GATHER INFORMATION, and then they reported it to the AG, that's what they SHOULD do.

PP needs to grow a pair of ovaries and say loudly and publicly that stringing along criminals to assist in the collection of information about the abuse and sexual exploitation of miners is, and should be, part of their job, and deserves federal funding.

>> ^VoodooV:

I think you just need better examples of "good" atheists than Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and James Cameron.
Wasn't it discovered that Mother Teresa had some journals where she questioned the existence of God?

Who would you recommend?

Mother Teresa is both a poor example of an atheist and a poor example of a moral person. She used the sick people in her "care" to collect donations and then used the funds to evangelize instead of getting medical care for her patients. You should watch Hell's Angel if you haven't already.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

“What I think is different about things like what Angle and Bachmann said is that are incitement of violence”
This claim has been made several times and I have yet to see any substance to it beyond personal opinion and interpretation. Obama, Frank, Ried, Pelosi, Grayson, Franken, or other liberals make outrageous statements that imply violence on a routine basis.

This claim has been made several times, and I have yet to see any substance to it beyond the mere assertion of your conclusion.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Every major point here is based on interpretation and opinion. “I see… Big lie… Armed insurrection”… There is even a statement of agreement that Bachman DIDN’T mean it ‘that way’. But the comment is held to a different standard than Obama’s. HIS rhetoric is ‘not a lie’, ‘traditional electioneering’, and a ‘transparent metaphor’. Bachman bad; Obama good; Motivation – bias.

Stating your subjective view of my motivation isn't proof that my claims of objective qualitative differences are false.

This is another of my frustrations with the way you conduct yourself here. I'm trying to depersonalize this, and not question your motives, while still making the case that my viewpoint (which obviously differs from yours) is based on things that are supported by objective facts.

The burden of proof here is not entirely on me -- you're the one who provided the Obama quote as equivalent to Bachmann's. I think the strongest objection to it is the first one I listed, namely that it's out of context. How do we know whether Obama's meaning was "overwhelm the Republicans with volunteers and ads" and not literally "I want you to bring guns to kill Republicans with" without the context surrounding it?

My point here is that not all gun metaphors are created equal. "We're going to stick to our guns on health care" is pretty different from "If ballots don't work, bullets will".

Obama's quote was a tick more inciteful than the first, Bachmann's was only a couple ticks less inciteful than the latter. I'm saying the bounds of civil conversation lies inbetween.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I see… So – just to make this clear – calling Obamacare’s rationing a ‘death panel’ where Grandma takes a pain pill and gets end-of-life counseling instead of medicine (Obama said this) is over the top.

Yep. Part of your issue here is that you're not talking about anything in legislation, but something Obama said.

The other issue is, you're quoting him waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of context:

But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that
exists in the system that's not making anybody's mom better, that is
loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence
shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let
doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn't
going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but
taking the painkiller.

And those kinds of decisions between doctors and patients, and
making sure that our incentives are not preventing those good decision,
and that -- that doctors and hospitals all are aligned for patient care,
that's something we can achieve.

It takes removing the context to make what Obama said sound even remotely sinister. Even then, it's clear he's not saying "I reserve the right to compel doctors to pull the plug on your grandma if she doesn't meet my subjective standards on her value to society".

He's saying that we can pull the plug on paying doctors for performing treatments that have been shown to be medically ineffective, so that doctors don't have a monetary incentive to try to convince patients to undergo treatments they don't really need.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
But Grayson saying the Republican plan of privatization (a system that worked for decades)

What Republican plan of privatization that worked for decades are you talking about? The employer-based insurance system that arose as an "unintended consequence" of FDR's wage controls? The one everyone was happy with, could afford, and never left anyone out?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I’ll be honest. I see this as a classic example of distortion bias. “It’s fine when WE do it because we’re RIGHT, but not when THEY do it because they’re WRONG!”

You say "classic example of distortion bias" as if that's some named phenomena. What you mean to say is that it's a double standard.

But see, you're just asserting that, not making a case for it.

I mention Grayson as an outlier. He's unusually inflammatory for a Democrat, and even what he said wasn't particularly inciteful. He didn't say "Republicans are coming to kill you" the way the right often says of Democrats, he merely said "Republicans will leave you for dead."

That's pushing it in my view, but not because I think it runs the risk of sounding like an endorsement of violence against Republicans, but because it's an exaggeration that I think stretches the truth a bit too much.

I say stretch, because Republicans never put together a fully formed plan of their own, and a lot of the rhetoric was based on the idea that there is no need to address the issue of people not being able to afford medical care.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Second, when have Democrats accused Republicans of starving people?
1990s Contract With America. Democrats accused Newt Gingrich and the GOP congress of starving children because they wanted to make cuts in education that would have had some impact on school lunch programs.

Good on them then.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Similarly in 2010, Alan Grayson accused the GOP of starving children and women, and selling people into slavery for black market organs because they wanted to stop the fourth extension of unemployment.

I demand a source on this one. It's gotta be sifted here as a YouTube clip if that's accurate.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
But this is a great teaching moment. This is the origin of your bias. You – Netrunner – AGREE with Grayson. So when he says, “GOP is starving children”, you don’t have a problem with it. You agree with him - so when Grayson is incendiary and egregious in his rhetoric you give it a pass as ‘electioneering’ or ‘metaphor’ or a ‘joke’.

Actually no. Here's an alternative hypothesis: When someone says "So and so is murdering babies", I think it's inciteful. I don't think it's a joke, I don't think it's a metaphor, and I think you better back up your claim.

If you can't, I think you've done something wrong by saying it.

If you can, I think you've probably done something good.

"Cap and trade will be the end of freedom as we know it." Can't be backed up.

"The Republican health care plan is: 'Don't get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly." This one's debatable for the reasons I said above. But I think that the accuracy of the statement has a lot to do with whether that comment was okay or not. This one's at the edge, either way.

"George W. Bush ordered the torture of Guantanamo detainees" is true, by his own admission.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I can see both sides of the debate. I disagree with liberals, but I can mentally grasp their OPINION (even if I reject it) that the conservative method (smaller government, private solutions) ‘takes away’ from social programs. So when liberals get vociferous, I am willing to cut them a little slack.

I don't think you understand the liberal side of arguments at all. I also don't think you are willing to actually engage in any sort of reasonable discussion about their criticism of the right, either. For example:

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Here I personally went one click further and suggested that perhaps this is an intentional strategy to rile up the crazies, so they'll physically intimidate liberals.
So – is leftist rhetoric intentionally done to rile up the crazies so they’d physically intimidate conservatives? You know – stuff like the threats against Ann Coulter that caused a college speech to be cancelled. Or when a liberal man bit off a guy’s finger because he disagreed about healthcare. Or when liberal Amy Bishop killed her co-workers. Liberal Joseph Stack flew a plane into the IRS. Liberals destroyed radio towers in Seattle. Liberals torched Hummer dealerships. Liberals beat up a conservative black man at a Tea Party. A liberal brought bombs to an RNC meeting. Liberals attacked police in Berkley. Liberals threw rocks at animal researchers. Liberals stood outside polling stations with nightsticks. A liberal shot up the Discovery Channel. A liberal said, “You’re dead!” to a Tea party leader. Liberals made death-threats against Palin. Liberals made death threats & assassination movies about Bush. A liberal shot up the war memorial. And let us not overlook the fact that Loughner is a 9/11 truther and that the left is the source for that particular 'rhetoric'.

Litanies like this make it pretty clear that you're you're not interested in examining your own prejudices about liberals.

In case that all by itself wasn't enough:
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
OK – I’ll take one glove off here. I have not accused you of making crap up, and you aren’t providing sourcing either.
[snip]
[Y]ou can find the sources for ALL the examples of liberal violence I listed above. I’ve got the links for EVERY one of them and dozens more, but I don’t go around assuming you're an intellectual cripple that can't find them. Nor do I want to play dueling link banjos here. I extend the courtesy in an online discussion of not forcing the other guy to cite every freaking thing they say because 99 times in 100 the source just gets attacked and ignored anyway.

So what do you think you've done with the combination of these paragraphs?

I see someone essentially saying "I'm right, you're evil, and nothing you say will convince me otherwise".

That's not winning an argument, that's refusing to present one because you're so prejudiced you don't think you need to when dealing with people like me.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I typically don’t jump in a thread until intolerant liberal rhetoric has already reared its ugly face. Liberal intolerance is there before I say a single word. So I don’t care a fig about the leftist vitriol I get, because it is generally only a continuance of the intolerance that was there before I showed up. They don't hate 'me'. They hate the fact that I have dared to hold a mirror up on own intolerance. What they really want to be doing is feeling self-righteous as they spew intolerance at things they hate. Ol' Winstonfield popping up and spoiling the fun wasn't in their plan, and they react badly. Boo hoo.
But you are specifically accusing ME of being vitriolic. I stridently reject that position. I do no more than calmly, fairly, and accurately present an opposing point of view. I may do it sarcastically. I may point out hypocrisy. But I attack philosophies and public figures – not Sifters. Therefore the personal vitriol against myself is unwarranted and unjustified. I bring no vitriol or intolerance to the table here. The only vitriol and intolerance that exists is directed towards me.


To be frank, you're delusional about why people get mad at you. People would respond differently if you tried to actually make an argument for what you believe, instead of just telling people they're wrong and/or evil, that it's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, and there's no point in trying to deny it. You just did that to me here with your litany of supposed liberal crimes against humanity, with the follow-up that sources don't matter because any questioning of the veracity of your sources is proof of the dread liberal bias.

Another example: I gave 4 different reasons why I think the Bachmann and Obama quotes aren't equal. 4 distinct reasons that could all be examined and definitively addressed without making this about me personally. Instead you chose to ignore them, and accuse me of using a double standard.

If you want to show that I am engaged in a double standard, you need to make that case. You need me to define exactly what my standard is, and then show that I'm inconsistently applying it. To prove an overall bias, you need many examples where I've done so. You didn't even try to do any of that. You just leveled it as a personal attack.

My sense is that you don't know (or don't care) about the way legitimate arguments get made. Think Geometry proofs, or science papers. Do they just say "The sum of the internal angles of a triangle always add up to 180 degrees, and anyone who disagrees with me is just doing so because they hate mathematicians!" or do they lay out a proof that clearly states the assumptions and the deductive steps they followed to reach their conclusion?

The topic of what rhetoric is worthy of condemnation is going to be a little more slippery, but it's not impossible to have a civil discussion about what the important factors are in deciding whether a comment is appropriate or not.

“What I think is different about things like what Angle and Bachmann said is that are incitement of violence”

This claim has been made several times and I have yet to see any substance to it beyond personal opinion and interpretation. Obama, Frank, Ried, Pelosi, Grayson, Franken, or other liberals make outrageous statements that imply violence on a routine basis. They are dismissed as a joke… A ‘metaphor’… But when a conservative says something, it is a call for violence. If that’s how someone chooses to roll then so be it, but let that person hold no illusion about their fairness or the justness of their cause.

Case in point…

“I see the word revolution being used literally. I see talk of losing the country, of losing freedom, in the context of saying "I want people armed and dangerous"… the Obama quote isn't well sourced, doesn't involve a lie, was pretty transparently a metaphor for traditional electioneering activities, and I suspect if Obama was asked about it today he'd say it was a poor word choice. Bachmann's quote we have audio recordings of, involves a big lie, was pretty clearly about armed insurrection …”

Every major point here is based on interpretation and opinion. “I see… Big lie… Armed insurrection”… There is even a statement of agreement that Bachman DIDN’T mean it ‘that way’. But the comment is held to a different standard than Obama’s. HIS rhetoric is ‘not a lie’, ‘traditional electioneering’, and a ‘transparent metaphor’. Bachman bad; Obama good; Motivation – bias.

“First, medical care is a scarce resource, and any system by which we choose to distribute it is by definition "rationing", whether it's a market, or something else, so saying "Obamacare" has "rationing" is a meaningless statement.”

I see… So – just to make this clear – calling Obamacare’s rationing a ‘death panel’ where Grandma takes a pain pill and gets end-of-life counseling instead of medicine (Obama said this) is over the top. But Grayson saying the Republican plan of privatization (a system that worked for decades) equates to “don’t get sick or die quickly” is fine? I’ll be honest. I see this as a classic example of distortion bias. “It’s fine when WE do it because we’re RIGHT, but not when THEY do it because they’re WRONG!”

Second, when have Democrats accused Republicans of starving people?

1990s Contract With America. Democrats accused Newt Gingrich and the GOP congress of starving children because they wanted to make cuts in education that would have had some impact on school lunch programs. Similarly in 2010, Alan Grayson accused the GOP of starving children and women, and selling people into slavery for black market organs because they wanted to stop the fourth extension of unemployment. Every time the GOP wants to cut any social program they get accused of starving people. This is not unusual.

But this is a great teaching moment. This is the origin of your bias. You – Netrunner – AGREE with Grayson. So when he says, “GOP is starving children”, you don’t have a problem with it. You agree with him - so when Grayson is incendiary and egregious in his rhetoric you give it a pass as ‘electioneering’ or ‘metaphor’ or a ‘joke’. You refuse to give conservatives the same kind of leeway. If a GOP guy says Barak Obama is jacking up the national debt to fund his vision of social justice, and calls it an ‘assault on freedom’? They are ‘inciting violence’ - even though they have just as much 'evidence' of their argument as Greyson.

I refuse to live in such a black and white world of selective bias. I can see both sides of the debate. I disagree with liberals, but I can mentally grasp their OPINION (even if I reject it) that the conservative method (smaller government, private solutions) ‘takes away’ from social programs. So when liberals get vociferous, I am willing to cut them a little slack. It’d be nice if that went both ways.

Here I personally went one click further and suggested that perhaps this is an intentional strategy to rile up the crazies, so they'll physically intimidate liberals.

So – is leftist rhetoric intentionally done to rile up the crazies so they’d physically intimidate conservatives? You know – stuff like the threats against Ann Coulter that caused a college speech to be cancelled. Or when a liberal man bit off a guy’s finger because he disagreed about healthcare. Or when liberal Amy Bishop killed her co-workers. Liberal Joseph Stack flew a plane into the IRS. Liberals destroyed radio towers in Seattle. Liberals torched Hummer dealerships. Liberals beat up a conservative black man at a Tea Party. A liberal brought bombs to an RNC meeting. Liberals attacked police in Berkley. Liberals threw rocks at animal researchers. Liberals stood outside polling stations with nightsticks. A liberal shot up the Discovery Channel. A liberal said, “You’re dead!” to a Tea party leader. Liberals made death-threats against Palin. Liberals made death threats & assassination movies about Bush. A liberal shot up the war memorial. And let us not overlook the fact that Loughner is a 9/11 truther and that the left is the source for that particular 'rhetoric'.

You then support your argument with a litany of asserted facts...that you don't source, and are in direct contravention of what was said elsewhere (regardless of whether it'd been sourced or not).

OK – I’ll take one glove off here. I have not accused you of making crap up, and you aren’t providing sourcing either. I have no interest in making you treat everything you say like you are writing a white paper. You also support your arguments with litanies of asserted facts which you don’t source which are in direct contravention of what is said elsewhere. Why the hypocrisy on this?

I’m an intelligent enough fellow and I can find links myself. I don't need you holding my hand in that regard. I assume you have fingers because you can type. Therefore you can find the sources for ALL the examples of liberal violence I listed above. I’ve got the links for EVERY one of them and dozens more, but I don’t go around assuming you're an intellectual cripple that can't find them. Nor do I want to play dueling link banjos here. I extend the courtesy in an online discussion of not forcing the other guy to cite every freaking thing they say because 99 times in 100 the source just gets attacked and ignored anyway.

I think you should examine the way you're presenting yourself rather than assuming it's all the result of some sort of universal liberal intolerance

I typically don’t jump in a thread until intolerant liberal rhetoric has already reared its ugly face. Liberal intolerance is there before I say a single word. So I don’t care a fig about the leftist vitriol I get, because it is generally only a continuance of the intolerance that was there before I showed up. They don't hate 'me'. They hate the fact that I have dared to hold a mirror up on own intolerance. What they really want to be doing is feeling self-righteous as they spew intolerance at things they hate. Ol' Winstonfield popping up and spoiling the fun wasn't in their plan, and they react badly. Boo hoo.

But you are specifically accusing ME of being vitriolic. I stridently reject that position. I do no more than calmly, fairly, and accurately present an opposing point of view. I may do it sarcastically. I may point out hypocrisy. But I attack philosophies and public figures – not Sifters. Therefore the personal vitriol against myself is unwarranted and unjustified. I bring no vitriol or intolerance to the table here. The only vitriol and intolerance that exists is directed towards me.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

How is what these guys said any different than what the 'other guy' says (and gets a pass)?

What I think is different about things like what Angle and Bachmann said is that are incitement of violence.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Politicians since times ancient have grossly extrapolated the actions/policies of their opponents.
[snip]
Bachman wanted people 'armed and dangerous'. Barak Obama wanted people "angry, get in their face, hit back twice as hard, bring a gun". I see no difference.

First, you need to source your Obama quote. I only found this as context:

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night. “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”

Kinda sounds like it's a metaphor, does it not?

Secondly, that never became any sort of Democratic talking point or campaign slogan. You didn't hear it coming out of the mouths of everyone on the left every 10 seconds for the better part of a year, the way you heard "death panels".

Thirdly, have you followed the link on Bachmann's full quote, and read it in context? If not, here's more:

I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us ‘having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,’ and the people – we the people – are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States.

I see the word revolution being used literally. I see talk of losing the country, of losing freedom, in the context of saying "I want people armed and dangerous".

Fourth, have I mentioned that this is in the larger context of falsely accusing Democrats of making up global warming?

So, the Obama quote isn't well sourced, doesn't involve a lie, was pretty transparently a metaphor for traditional electioneering activities, and I suspect if Obama was asked about it today he'd say it was a poor word choice. Bachmann's quote we have audio recordings of, involves a big lie, was pretty clearly about armed insurrection against the legitimate government of the United States, and while I suspect she would say "I didn't mean that", she probably wouldn't confess to any kind of issue with her word choice.

I don't see any equivalence.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Palin's death panel is an exaggeration of the rationed care that IS a part of Obamacare. Similarly, Democrats accuse the GOP of starving people when they want to cut a social program.

Really? Neither statement is true.

First, medical care is a scarce resource, and any system by which we choose to distribute it is by definition "rationing", whether it's a market, or something else, so saying "Obamacare" has "rationing" is a meaningless statement. Even if I grant some special meaning of the word "rationing", there still isn't anything even remotely like Palin's "death panel" in the bill anywhere.

Second, when have Democrats accused Republicans of starving people? To be frank, I wish they would, especially since it's true more often than not. The closest I've seen is Alan Grayson saying that the Republican health care plan is "#1 Don't get sick. #2 If you do get sick, die quickly."

For that one to be true you need to wrap some caveats around it, but basically if you can't afford insurance, or have a preexisting condition, that was totally accurate.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Do I like the overblown rhetoric? No, but it is part and parcel of any vigorous debate.
No normal person takes these statements literally though. And trying to pander to the NOT normal people seems to me an exercise in futility. Moreover, trying to be "PC" using the outliers of society as a standard is an impossible moving target, and rather subject to opinion.

To a large degree, this is a response to an argument I'm not making. I actually really like overblown rhetoric. What I don't like is the way the right imputes sinister motives to the left. It's not just "they're corrupt and beholden to special interests (and sometimes mansluts)", these days it's "they're coming to take your guns, kill your family, make your kids into gay drug addicts, take your house, your job, and piss on the American flag while surrendering to every other nation in the world".

The left is getting pretty coarse about the right, but most of our insults are that Republicans are corrupt and beholden to special interests...and dumb, heartless liars.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
There is no nice way to say this, but you are wrong. They were not, and you know it. There is no GOP candidate who would have survived 5 seconds if they'd been calling for armed rebellion if they lost. That is hyperbole.

I'd love to be wrong about this. I am not. Scroll back up to my first comment here, there are two videos of Republicans calling for armed insurrection if they lose. These two were small potatoes, but Michele Bachmann and Sharron Angle both were saying the same thing, just a little less directly. Rick Perry has been a bit more overt, but also a lot less graphic (talk of secession rather than revolution). Not to bring the Tea Party into this, but they kept showing up with signs talking about "Watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants"

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I put it to you kindly that this opinion is another symptom of perception bias. Would you not agree that from Glenn Beck's perspective his infamous 'chalkboard histories' are an attempt to educate and outreach? And quite frankly, I feel very little sense of 'outreach' or 'education' when liberals call conservatives hateful, angry, evil, nazis, corporate shills, mind numbed robots, neocons, teabaggers, racist, sexist, and bigoted.

No, Beck's not trying outreach with his blackboards. He's painting a false picture of history in which liberalism is about violence and domination, and entirely overrun by a conspiracy of nefarious interests. That's not outreach, that's poisoning the well so that it's impossible for people who think he's illuminating some sort of truth (and to be clear, he is not), to talk to the people who haven't subscribed to Beck's belief that liberalism progressivism is just the new mask the fascists have put on to insinuate themselves into modern society so they can subvert it from within.

It's true that the left isn't engaging in outreach when they're calling you names. I suspect you haven't seen much outreach, given the way you personally tend to approach topics around here. You don't seem like the kind of person who's open to outreach.

That said, if I thought there was a way to show you what I think is good about liberalism, I would do so. I'd be happy to give you my take on what liberals believe and why, if you're genuinely interested in trying to understand the way we think.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Sure - just be sure to allow that both ways. Criticize conservative pundits all you want. But don't get all testy if conservatives criticize liberal ones. And if you try to pin accessory to murder on conservatives, don't be surprised when they get their back up.

Yeah, I didn't. See, the right's been calling us murderers and tyrants quite a bit lately. They've been making the case in countless different ways that government run by Democrats, and especially by Obama is fundamentally illegitimate. Not "something we strongly disagree with" but a total break with the fundamental principles of our government that present a direct threat to people.

Here I personally went one click further and suggested that perhaps this is an intentional strategy to rile up the crazies, so they'll physically intimidate liberals.

Again, I'd love to see someone prove me wrong about that. Ad hominem tu quoque arguments won't really do the job.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
That is because I'm bearding the lion in its metaphorical den, so to speak. The sift is liberally slanted. I'm not. So even when dare to challenge the consensus groupthink - even when done respectfully - I get blowback. I would say that I am incredibly patient, respectful, and moderate in my tone. I rarely (if ever) make things personal. Even when I'm on the receiving end of some rather nasty abuse I tend to keep it civil.

I think then there may be room for me to maybe help understand the kinds of reactions you get.

Part of the issue is a lot of your comments are of the formation "What liberals are saying is utterly, demonstrably, and obviously false, and in fact, they're more guilty of it than the right". You then support your argument with a litany of asserted facts...that you don't source, and are in direct contravention of what was said elsewhere (regardless of whether it'd been sourced or not).

Part of the issue with making an argument purely on challenging facts is that you run headlong into questions about the legitimacy of the source, and those can be some of the ugliest arguments of all, especially if the only source cited is yourself.

I'd recommend trying to make philosophical or moral arguments that don't hinge on the specific circumstances, especially when we're talking about events we only know about from news stories. I find it helps move conversations from heat to light when you shift the discussion to the underlying philosophical disagreement like that.

I also think you'll get farther with making a positive statement about what you believe, than a negative statement about what you believe liberals believe. (i.e. instead of "Liberals just want to boss people around with their nanny state", try "Conservatives are trying to give people more freedom to choose how to run their own lives")

People will likely still disagree with you, but at least there's a chance they'll respond to what you said, rather than just hurl invectives at you.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I don't apologize for being a rare conservative voice in a chorus of liberals, but that doesn't mean that "I" am responsible for 'increased vitriol'. The vitriol comes when people other than myself. I simply present a different point of view.

I don't think you should apologize. However, I also think you have to be willing to accept some responsibility for how people react to what you say. I'm self-aware enough to know that what I say is going to sound inflammatory to some people, and I certainly don't feel like criticism of my own inflammatory speech is somehow an assault on my free speech.

If you're getting a lot of vitriol (and I know you are), and that's not what you want, I think you should examine the way you're presenting yourself rather than assuming it's all the result of some sort of universal liberal intolerance.

This place has a bunch of really thoughtful people who enjoy civil discussion with people who they disagree with. If that's what you want, I gotta say I think you're just pushing the wrong buttons.

So, the problem with medical costs rising is because it is a private industry? So, unlike nearly ever single other industry on the planet dealing with services, costs will rise with medicine because it is in private hands. That makes no since, and begs the actual answer to the question, why is does it behave that why...if in fact it is behaving that way at all.

Building a house is a very complex thing. Wiring, insulation, foundation, structure, are just a few of the numerous components that specialists install. But, house building in the USA is a completely streamlined, relatively inexpensive thing. Houses, like medical care, are at the very base of the Maslow's Hierarchy. So this isn't a case of a dear good being horded to the loss of all. IMO, the problem remains with the intractable slowness of government and an inability to act in a disinterested way. Meaning, they are ALWAYS going to write laws in a way that there is a winner and a loser, and always be so cumbersome in adapting to the rapid changing medical situation at hand. The same can't be said for normal economic activities. When I buy a house that I like for the price I wanted I feel as much a winner as all those who got paid to make it.

Not to say that the situation of insurance and hospitals even work right now. But legislating this form of care only provides incentive to this system, which may not be the best system to use. Legislation in this critical area of life will only slowdown, derail, hijack, make more costly, overlook, overshadow, real solutions. It is the same reason you don't want the government regulating (and by regulation in this since I mean overseeing the business process) how cars are made, or steal is poured, or food is eaten, or marriage is conducted.

As an aside, I really do wonder why there are no non-profit health insurance companies, like credit unions of health care. Seems like a good idea, has it been done, or does it already exist?

Edit: In reading this back to myself, it sounds overly negative. I like a lot of what this lady had to say, but I just disagree with her diagnosis of the MAIN problem. She seems smart, and non-dogmatic, and I like that; just think she is a bit off the mark.

What gets me about the whole situation is that right now, the economy is in the toilet and no matter what they seem to believe and say about indicators showing economic turn around never seem to actually cause a turnaround.

So we continue to limp along with all these broken systems, because "some day soon" it will be better. Yet when we have the chance to get a system in place that would improve our livelihood and the ability to work when work is available, the people representing us can't even get enough of their people to stop jerking off their corporate overlords to make it happen.

And while all this goes down, more and more people are forced onto the welfare system and receive BETTER medical care than they did when they paid out of pocket, because they don't have to worry about if they can afford thousands of dollars of out of pocket expenses to get things fixed that if dealt with earlier would have been simpler, cheaper, and safer procedures..with less recovery time and better long term results...and a whole hell of a lot less suffering.

Yet, we still can't see that this current system is just a losing battle, you either spend money on insurance you don't need 99% of the time and waste money on peace of mind and little else. Or you spend money on insurance which you need, but you can't actually afford to address the medical problems in a more permanent fashion. I've needed surgery on my hands for carpal tunnel for 5 years, can't afford it. Got a shoulder that is now screwed up, which may be partially due to pain radiating from my carpal tunnel or something else...it's just guess work until I can afford to eliminate causes or pay for high dollar specialists. Allergies that are under control most times, but can't afford allergy shots anymore to even out the reactions. Asthma where they won't cover the medications that work, and they discontinued the CFC versions that worked better. Bruxism issues, can't afford to get any kind of dental made appliance to deal with it, so using cheap over the counter guards......which cause my jaws to shift so now my jaws and teeth don't line up for a proper bite (they hit in the front). And now I probably need braces to fix that issue, which could have been addressed years with less expensive means more than likely. Have a cracked tooth from the bruxism that I can't afford to fix, cracked one prior to it think it ended up being about 800 dollars in the end.

It shouldn't be an issue of money when you have a medical need to have something fixed. It's in everyone's best interest to keep people able bodied, otherwise more and more people end up on disability and never come off of it.

Downvoting because that is some awful reporting. Here is a New York Times article:

Health Rules Are Waived More Often
By REED ABELSON
Published: November 9, 2010

As Obama administration officials put into place some of the new rules that go into effect under the federal health care law, they are issuing more waivers to try to prevent some insurers and employers from dropping coverage and also promising to modify other rules because many of the existing policies would not meet new standards.

Last month, federal officials granted dozens of one-year waivers that were aimed at sparing certain employers, including McDonald’s, insurers and unions who offer plans that sharply limit the coverage they provide. These limited-benefit plans, also known as “minimeds,” fail to comply with new rules phasing out limits on how much policies will provide in medical care each year.

Concerned about the potential disruption that would be created by enforcing the new rules, the administration has granted dozens of additional waivers and also made clear that it would modify other rules affecting these policies. Last week, the Department of Health and Human Services issued more guidance, saying it would use a different method of calculating spending for these plans so they would be able to meet new regulations dictating how insurers should use the premium dollars they collect.

While critics say these moves could water down the new law, the administration says it is responding to concerns from employers and others that many workers have no other alternative. The new rules also require that the policies clearly say how much coverage they provide and that they do not satisfy the law’s new standards.

“This new guidance helps improve transparency so that consumers know the value and quality of the plan they have,” said Steve Larsen, the director of oversight in the agency’s office of consumer information and insurance oversight. “In 2014, higher-quality coverage will be offered at an affordable price in the new exchanges. Until then, the annual waiver process preserves limited benefit plans offered by employers, preventing significant premium increase or loss of access.”

But a spokesman for Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, a West Virginia Democrat who favored strict rules on insurance company spending, said he planned to hold a hearing on the issue.

Among the waivers recently granted were for employers like Darden Restaurants, which operates the Red Lobster and Olive Garden restaurants, for 34,000 of its workers. Federal officials have granted 111 waivers to employers, insurers and union plans, who are responsible for covering about 1.2 million people.

Darden said the waiver would allow it to offer employees access to affordable coverage as the health care law is started.

In addition to granting waivers, the administration also said it would establish a different way of calculating the spending for these plans for the first year that “takes into account the special circumstances of minimed plans.”

Normal market forces don't apply when the customer is under duress. You don't have time to shop around for the cheapest emergency room, so they charge whatever extortionate rate they want. The same thing would happen if we had a private fire department. They would charge you $10k for less than 2 man hours of actual work putting out your fire.

This is why every decent civilized country in the world has some form of national health service. The USA is not a decent civilized country.

But the guy in the video should have gone to a private practice GP instead of a hospital because it would be a lot cheaper.

Another thing, for most medical services, there is an apalling lack of diclosure of what things will cost before they're bought. Even if you ask a doctor, they don't even know. Now, IANAL, but forming a contract requires the actual informed consent of both sides. You can't become obligated to pay them jack shit unless you sign something agreeing to pay all the as-yet-unspecified costs, which is like handing them a blank check so they can pull ridiculous numbers out of their ass and make you pay it. Such a contract is not really enforceable; you are only obligated to pay the reasonable market costs of the serviced rendered. In a perfect world you shouldn't have any obligation to pay anything unless you are informed of the exact cost before purchasing the service. Unexpected complication costs should be amortized so that there is a clear up-front price that enables competition to exist properly. In addition, there is a strong argument that contracts of adhesion in the context of obtaining urgent medical care are signed under duress and therefore invalid. The guy in the video could just refuse to pay and see if the bastards try to take him to court to get their money. I bet they won't.

>> ^Tymbrwulf:
My brother broke his nose surfing, and after a 3 hour stay at an emergency room, our Insurance covered the whole thing.


Odd, I didn't have to go to hospital for a broken nose until it had been broken more than 60 times, at which point the cartillage needed reinforced. Admittedly that was a particularly nasty instance of breaking my nose, but thankfully the whole procedure of inserting metal rods into my nose to reinforce and retain its original structure cost *opens xe.com for a quick conversion to US dollars* $312.37.

Seriously though, it shouldn't matter whether or not someone has health insurance. The price paid for medical care by health insurance companies is significantly less than what a person who does not have health insurance will be asked to pay. Why should the individual have to pay a premium when they are perfectly okay with paying for health care on an as-required basis? I'll tell you why, it's because the insurance companies have the health industry so tied up. There is no justifiable reason why someone should be expected to pay a monthly fee just to avoid being shafted by fees that are typically triple what the actual insurance companies are required to pay to hospitals.

Right, i think that's like telling someone:

"Would you please stop bitchin' about traffic and your expensive commute?

Welcome to the world of privatized helicopter services. Hello!
My Brother and I, after being stuck in traffic for 7 minutes, just OnStarred our HSP [Helicopter service provider] and they airlifted us and the car directly to our box seats at the Lakers game!

...I'm just saying, this is exactly what Helicopter Service is for in a country that has terribly planned, underfunded infrastructure."


>> ^Tymbrwulf:

Welcome to the world of privatized medicine. A call for an ambulance alone costs over $1000 just for it to show up.
If you're not insured in the United States and you need medical care, this is exactly what happens.
My brother broke his nose surfing, and after a 3 hour stay at an emergency room, our Insurance covered the whole thing. I'm not saying the prices are fair, I'm not advocating privatized medicine, I'm just saying this is exactly what insurance is for in a country that has privatized medicine.

Welcome to the world of privatized medicine. A call for an ambulance alone costs over $1000 just for it to show up.

If you're not insured in the United States and you need medical care, this is exactly what happens.

My brother broke his nose surfing, and after a 3 hour stay at an emergency room, our Insurance covered the whole thing. I'm not saying the prices are fair, I'm not advocating privatized medicine, I'm just saying this is exactly what insurance is for in a country that has privatized medicine.

Sometimes blankfist, I think you are obtuse on purpose, just to aggravate me. Lately though, I think you just lack the mental capacity to have rational conversations.

@NetRunner, your cognitive dissonance shows every time you make an ad hom attack. This is progress!

What's completely and utterly false is the assertion that all types of intervention will always raises costs. What's also utterly false is that our medical cost inflation is a result of government intervention.

Well, Captain Contradiction, I'd agree that it's false that "all types of intervention" will raise costs. I never asserted that. In fact, here's my quote: "It's been proven that government intervention in the medical industry has driven the cost of medical care up." And it's true. 100% correct for the medical industry.

And you know how I know you know it's true? Do you? Because when I wrote "By forcing hospitals to treat every person that comes into the hospital, people tend to use it as a welfare clinic and come in with hangnails and common colds. They can then refuse to pay for the service which drives the costs up." You responded with "Increases costs...but also increases the number of people alive at the end of the day, no?"

See that? That's affirmation of my statement. So you both agreed and disagreed that government intervention in the medical industry raises costs. Now, who's being obtuse? You're holding two belief systems, NR.