We begin with a comment from blk.
The genius of the right is its ability to convince people to go along with them in direct conflict to their own best interests. This is usually done by dredging up some unrelated hot button issue, linking the two and then get people to support something that will directly harm them.
This is unequivocally true. Unless someone is making an ass load of money, the current form of the GOP is basically about making certain private industry continues to rape the shit out of people financially who, in turn, thank them for it. Never is this more true that with an issue like health care, for example.
Next we have this comment from just dave.
Quick, quick, BLK, what are 'My' best interests? Or my interests in general, for that matter... Therein lies part of the problem…contrary to popular liberal belief, I rather feel that I am more attuned to what is or is not in my best interests than you.
At first glance, it would seem that dave has a point. Why should someone else tell him his best interest? If he wants to stand in front of a oncoming train and be smashed, what of it? At closer inspection, however, we can see how misconceptions regarding liberals come up. It's not that liberals want to tell dave what his best interests are...it's that it's terribly obvious what they are and, if dave were logical and looked at facts, he would follow them. If we see dave standing in front of an oncoming train, I think we can all agree that it is in his best interest to move. We won't tell him to move...he may not move...but it is in his best interest to move out of the way. So, blk's statement is one of fact.
Knowing dave the way I do, he believes that our government should only be funding defense and minor amounts of infrastructure. In other words, social programs such as health care are not good. dave believes that the free market can sort out this health care boondoggle and the government is going to only screw things up more than they already are. In fact, if you were to ask dave which of these phrases are more likely to occur...
The Federal Government can solve much of the health care crisis.
The Federal Government will create death panels and pull the plug on Grandma.
...he would, more than likely, choose the latter. Am I right, dave?
dave, like many on the right, has fallen victim to The Cult. He has withdrawn into the group and has quickly shown that he distrusts the outside world--most of which he considers to be ultra liberal. He is convinced that liberals manage his life in an extremely totalitarian way. Remember the cult has a pathological hated of government while also having a 12 year school girl crush (see: the Twilight series) on private corporations. Call them on it and you are a Marxist! How dare you say ANYTHING bad about US corporations!! They are wonderful...they are pure...they are beautiful.
So, then we get comments like this
That Mark thinks there is any answer other than, "your best interests are those you deem to be so" is... revealing.
Yes, it is revealing...revealing in the sense that we can see the excellent work that The Cult has done. In their eyes, we should all be "rugged individualists" who account to no one and, FUCK YOU!, we can do whatever we want. So, in addition to being 12 year old girls with crushes on the corporations of America, they are also 8 year old boys who are self involved to a fault. The problem with this attitude is that we live in something called a...society.
If dave decides to not have health insurance, for example, that affects me through rate increases due to a diminished pool of insurees and hospital bills that someone will have to pay if dave gets sick. Again, that someone is me.
So, dave's actions regarding his "best interests" regarding health care affect the rest of us. He is not an island. He is a participating member of US culture. I'm not sure how much dave makes a year but if he is like most people, he will get a tax cut due to President Obama's policies. And yet, he does not support him because he has been convinced by the Cult that Obama is raising his taxes and forcing him to...well...do what exactly?
At the end of the day, this whole line of thought from dave and anonymous comes down to a child like tantrum. They don't like the rules we have in our culture that have created collectivity or a community. Because, as well know, the word "community" is pretty darn close to that other "C" word and that would lead to this:
26 comments:
Hi, as you can see this is my first post here.
In first steps it's very nice if somebody supports you, so hope to meet friendly and helpful people here. Let me know if I can help you.
Thanks in advance and good luck! :)
"that affects me through rate increases due to a diminished pool of insurees and hospital bills that someone will have to pay if dave gets sick."
Whoa! OK point two first: How about if Dave gets sick he gets billed by the hospital and then sends them a check for the services rendered?
The same thing I did multiple times in my 20's and early 30's.
As for diminished pool creating higher rates?
I don't even know what to say. You have a rudimentary grasp on economic principles, but fail miserably on understanding capitalism. Insurance is a private business arrangement entered into voluntarily by people to suit their own interests.
Your statement is no different than saying that my car insurance rates would go down if we forced every single person to carry auto insurance whether they need it or not, whether they had a car or not, whether they were even old enough to drive or not.
That's what you are saying, you want to force the people who don't need or use the insurance to subsidize the costs of those who use it the most. Not that we don't already do that partially when we pay into medicare/medicaid.
GD:
Although I would guess we likely agree on the bigger picture, your analogy (auto to medical insurance) is akin to saying that the government will force every auto body repair shop to fix a wrecked auto and return it to the owner regardless of the available insurance. If nobody pays (and congrats that you did) the auto body shop is stuck with the bill. That is the situation in today's hospitals. They HAVE to provide emergency care. By law.
unequivocally true
I beg to differ. This may be an article of faith amongst the left, but that hardly makes it true beyond the community of true believers.
This is precisely the problem that Thomas Frank experiences with Kansas - they don't behave as he thinks they should. And this is obviously the fault of the observed, not the observer?
it's that it's terribly obvious what they are
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
But ONLY the enlightened left can see what is so terribly obvious. Be sure and ask what "enlightened" means M before you reply.
>It's not that liberals want to tell dave what his best interests are...it's that it's terribly obvious what they are and, if dave were logical and looked at facts, he would follow them.
In the interest of helping you fall flat on your face for the nth time, please oh please - make it clear (since its sort of muddled in your post) what exactly those interests of Dave's are, and what logic and facts would lead Dave to follow said interests?
Anon @6:02
Agree, analogies, as always, do not translate exactly.
he would, more than likely, choose the latter. Am I right, dave?
Remember - there are always only two choices. This is one of the things that W and M (and probably Obama and Palin) agree on. Don't ever think outside of those two choices, because there ARE no choices other than the two that have been given to you. You must choose one of the two.
Whatever happened to that supposed ability of the left to appreciate nuance, gradation and subtlety? M is about as subtle as Glen Beck. It is black or white - that's how YOU define it M (and then have the chutzpah to damn 'the other side' for doing so).
Call them on it and you are a Marxist!
Now, what is so brutally ironic here is that M has made an entire post dedicated to one of the greatest of all Marxist conceits - that the proles don't know what is in their own best interests.
Imagine the NERVE of someone calling him a Marxist, when he has just been expounding on a classic Marxist notion. Where could ANYONE ever get such a crazy idea?
Ah M, you are never so entertaining as when you turn into self-parody.
this whole line of thought from dave and anonymous comes down to a child like tantrum
Yes, yes, of course, just children. You silly little people need to be treated like children because, because -
Hey, wait. You aren't my mother, or my father. Who the FUCK are YOU to call me a child? The govt isn't mommy or daddy either, so no way am I going to tolerate being treated like a child by the govt. And YOU wonder why WE get offended by bullshit like this? Hellllooooooo!
You may want to live in a womb, all safe and snuggly, but you can't ever grow up if you do that. You don't get to wear the big boy pants or do the things grown ups do. Now, sometimes that is scary and if you fuck it up, you can get hurt - but that's just life bub. Stop expecting mommy and daddy to kiss away every little boo-boo.
"If dave decides to not have health insurance, for example, that affects me through rate increases due to a diminished pool of insurees and hospital bills that someone will have to pay if dave gets sick. Again, that someone is me."
Tough shit. Dave has absolutely no obligation to YOU. Forcing him against his will into a pool to lower YOUR costs just fucks HIM over.
This concept is REPELLENT to me. Dave owes you NOTHING.
Parasite.
And here's a novel conept for you:
If Dave gets sick, how about he pays his own way? Just as he owes you nothing, you owe him nothing.
It's in the best interests of everyone in this country for workers not to go bankrupt because they have an illness that causes them to lose their job and their health insurance: in bankruptcy no one wins. Without some kind of universal health care this death spiral will continue unabated, because health insurance companies have no incentive to contain costs.
If you don't have health care you'll wait until you're deathly ill and then you'll go to the emergency room, and you'll need drastic care that will cost much more than if you had regular checkups and averted the horrible problems that untreated hypertension and diabetes can cause. Then you won't be able to work and you'll be a drain on society, because people who wait that long rarely nearly always suffer some deficit, be it blindness, amputation, cognitive problems, etc.
If you suffer a stroke at the age of 50 and they get you to a hospital in time, odds are they'll do the brain surgery to save your life whether you have insurance or not. Afterwards, if you survive, you'll be put on Social Security if you don't haven anyone else to take care of you.
Better to get everyone covered so that we can all remain productive. It's really that simple. The details should be negotiated in good faith, there should be give and take, and all this political football should be jettisoned.
The framers of the Constitution wrote about establishing Justice, insuring domestic Tranquility, promoting the general Welfare and securing the Blessings of Liberty. What better way to promote the general Welfare than to ensure all Americans get health care?
I believe that the men who wrote those words would be shocked to see what is happening to America. After our rise to world dominance for the last sixty-five years we are on the decline. And it's not because we're turning to socialism. It's because we're turning on each other. We're disintegrating as a society, wanting only to blame our fellow Americans for every perceived ill instead of working on finding solutions to these problems. How can you love America if you hate Americans?
We are quickly becoming a country much like Britain was in the days of the Revolution: extremely wealthy ruling elites living in tiny protected enclaves while the rest of the country is descending into poverty.
The Framers worked out the Constitution with a lot of compromises. Everyone had to give up something to get something they wanted. That spirit of cooperation is very hard to find these days, especially when one side believes that the way to win is to stymie all progress, gum up the works and make everyone feel all hope is lost, to run down the clock until the next election.
Kevin wrote:
"And here's a novel concept for you:
If Dave gets sick, how about he pays his own way? Just as he owes you nothing, you owe him nothing."
And when Dave loses his job and his insurance, and exhausts all his savings, and his relatives are also bankrupted paying his medical bills, what then? Just let him die?
Here's another question: do you consider yourself to be pro-life?
It's in the best interests of everyone...
That isn't the question you were asked blk. What's the matter - you don't have an answer for that question? You doing as M usually does, and going off on a tangent to avoid answering a question?
...because health insurance companies have no incentive to contain costs.
True. Because the health insurance company isn't the actual consumer of health care, is it? Would you agree that health insurance should stop being used to pay for routine health care and instead become what all other insurance is - a hedge, on the part of the consumer, against a catastrophe? Your car insurance doesn't pay for oil changes.
What better way to promote the general Welfare than to ensure all Americans get health care?
Nothing in the Constitution is about YOU providing shit for ME. Why should you think that suddenly, in the case of health care, it is? Why not food - which is a helluva lot more important to everyday life than healthcare - why doesn't the govt guarantee me free food?
I'm not turning on you, I just want to leave you alone for the most part. And I ask the same in return. If you insist on changing the terms of that arrangement, is it too much to ask that you change the Constitution to reflect those ambitions.
And when Dave loses his job and his insurance, and exhausts all his savings, and his relatives are also bankrupted paying his medical bills, what then? Just let him die?
Is he going to die regardless of how much money is spent on his health? Where would you draw the line? Or do you preserve his life without regard to the cost - and at the expense of who else?
Amazing.
blk wrote:
It's because we're turning on each other. We're disintegrating as a society, wanting only to blame our fellow Americans for every perceived ill instead of working on finding solutions to these problems
For answers blk, look to Atlas Shrugged. pages 654-672. It's in the book.
"especially when one side believes that the way to win is to stymie all progress"
Well that's your problem right there. One side thinks what they are doing is progress. The other thinks it is a destructive step in the wrong direction that once taken will never, ever be rescinded.
One side, while calling it 'reform' actually proposes a massive restructuring of the very foundations. They then ignore the other sides suggestions for actual reform all the while claiming that other side is obstructing progress.
I want to remodel the house, you want to tear it down and build condo's. You think my compromise should be to debate the color of the condo's carpet.
Your ideas start at the extreme and flow into the absurd, and your idea of compromise with the opposition is to 'moderate' down to the merely dangerously reckless.
What do you expect? You are so adamant on the condos and will settle for nothing less that I have to oppose your very ideas just so you don't demolish my house.
"that the proles don't know what is in their own best interests."
Oh, they know juris. Believe me, they know. They don't want to accept the fact that they are wrong..as is the case with dave.
"entered into voluntarily by people to suit their own interests."
Yet if you don't have insurance, there are serious problems. People die every year because they don't have insurance and can't afford to pay out of pocket. This is a fact.
"Your statement is no different than saying that my car insurance rates would go down if we forced every single person to carry auto insurance"
But for those that do, insurance has gone down. My auto insurance is quite inexpensive because everyone has to have auto insurance in order to drive a car in this state (MN).
"Who the FUCK are YOU to call me a child?"
Uh, juris...I never said you were a part of the cult. In fact, you have taken great umbridge with me lumping you in with them. So why the defensive attitude?
"If Dave gets sick, how about he pays his own way? Just as he owes you nothing, you owe him nothing."
Except that won't happen because health care is so expensive. dave would have to be a multi millionaire to be able to do this. Like the rep from FL said recently...the GOP health plan is 1. Don't get sick 2. Die quickly.
Interesting that you think sharing risk or helping people out is parasitic. That says a lot.
blk, OH NO YOU DI'INT!!!! How DARE you bring our founding fathers into this discussion!!!! Don't you know that THE CULT and only THE CULT (much like the literal Bible interpreter) are the ONLY ones who know EXACTLY what the US Constitution means?!!!???? OMG!!!!!
You are a traitor, sir...a traitor!!!
Your Marxist ways only increase the chances of another terrorist attack by like minded evil doers!!
"For answers blk, look to Atlas Shrugged. pages 654-672. It's in the book."
Mark (shakes head sadly)...Rand's sociohistorical context...
Oh, they know juris. Believe me, they know. They don't want to accept the fact that they are wrong..as is the case with dave.
No, you are the one operating on the premise of an article of faith - Marxist faith in particular. You appear to be ignorant of that simple fact. So of course I expect you to argue in circles (and denying the Marxist origins), making one unsupported claim after another, because in the end, this is the same human need as served by religious belief. Yet more irony in that you accuse the other side of being a cult when your arguments are rooted in that very ground.
I never said you were a part of the cult.
I take umbrage because I have had that EXACT argument aimed at me, even if you didn't. It is a patently offensive argument - offered by smug, self-satisfied pseudo-intellectuals and that does raise a particular response from me: I want to bitch slap that smug stupidity right out of the person making the argument. No motherfucking sonuvabitch is going to get away with treating me like a child, and I expect ANY sane adult to have that same reaction.
Except that won't happen because health care is so expensive.
Day to day health care? Or insurance coverage for something catastrophic? You keep confusing the issue - probably because you are so fundamentally confused in the first place.
Tell me M, riding a motorcycle is dangerous. If we really wanted to save lives (and improve everyones health) we wouldn't let anyone ride one. Once you accept that people have a right to make that choice for themselves, they take on the risk that goes with it, no? Same goes with helmet laws - which are really just a fig leaf covering the otherwise naked risk. If you want to protect that person from their own bad decision making - you are arguing for a totalitarian system.
"But for those that do, insurance has gone down. My auto insurance is quite inexpensive because everyone has to have auto insurance in order to drive a car in this state (MN)."
But M, my insurance rates are based on my risk and the level of coverage I decide to purchase. By forcing all to buy into a health care plan the auto analogy is different.
You would expect to make a person with a clean driving record who needs liability only on his paid for 1974 Corolla buy the same policy coverage at the same rates as a person who has six DUI arrests or the person who has full coverage on his financed Ferrari.
Doing so would sure lower the costs for the drunk driver. The guy with the Ferrari would be happy as well. The guy with the Corolla is just out of luck for the common good huh?
How, a whole article just on me…now I know you love me.
Although it’s vexing to me not to respond in full, your diatribe is so all over the board, it would take days to even try and address…and now that several valid points have been made it’ll be time to change the thread anyway. And besides, such an exercise would be pointless as your base analogy is so seriously flawed. You say I can’t see the oncoming train but you can’t even effectively illustrate what that train is. Your mythical train is about as scary as my son’s Thomas engine.
The end all is that I’m quite happy with my healthcare and my job is quite stable. And at the risk of speaking for someone else, my friends are reasonably content as well. And to extrapolate a bit further, from what I garner from listening to everyone here, I don’t think I’m stretching to say that most of those here are well enough off to have some type of healthcare as well. So, I ask you, what is the train? What is the danger?
Healthcare is already readily available. And would be even more so if Democrats allowed a wee bit of deregulation (at no cost!) to allow insurance across state lines or the connection to employer sponsored healthcare was removed. So, it’s available if you want to pick some up. In fact, if you need it, I can give you the name of an agent who can set you up. That’s the wonderful thing about America, you can buy just about anything. Everyone has access to healthcare. Everyone. You just have to buy it. And there is the rub. Money. You were rightly thrashed for your views on corporations because, in the end, you didn’t want to pay the gas company what was owed. Can we assume the same here? There’s lots of healthcare options out there, you just want someone else to pay for them.
Beep, beep…look out everyone, here comes Thomas!
"now I know you love me."
Yes, it's true:)
"So, I ask you, what is the train? What is the danger?"
As less and less people being to not be able to afford health care, the rest of us are going to start to get uncomfortable as our rates go up. That stable job may not be so stable any more either. While I won't go as far to say that we are all going to perish in flames (that's the Cult), our lives will be irrevocably different if we don't reform health care and increase the pool of risk.
"to allow insurance across state lines"
Well, then you'll have most companies incorporating in a state that has looser regulations.
"You just have to buy it. And there is the rub. Money."
Ah yes, the welfare mother in a caddy meme. Dave, most of the people that are uninsured work two or three jobs and can't afford it. To be honest, you're going Marie Antoinette on all of us and clearly have no concept of what is going on out there.
There's a very large country out there, Dave, filled with people that are working very hard. Your solution?
Work harder.
Work smarter.
While I won't go as far to say that we are all going to perish in flames
WE'RE ALL GOING TO FUCKING DIE A SLOW HORRIBLE DEATH!!!!!!
Ah yes, the welfare mother in a caddy meme.
It must be terribly crowded inside your skull - what with all the imaginary people that you argue with.
So, M no love for my question about motorcycle riding? C'mon dude, don't you want to save lives AND lower your share of the country's medical costs? Don't you CARE?
That same rep from FL (Alan Grayson) Mark mentioned also liked to rail against military contractors like Blackwater. Then a couple weeks ago, Blackwater saved his life in Africa. Good times.
What a pointless discussion. Somebody could tell Mark what their best interests are only to hear in response "They don't want to accept the fact that they are wrong..as is the case with dave.".
So a pretty personal, subjective opinion-type question only has one answer that is either right or wrong...and the grade on that test is only able to be given out by blk and Mark.
Loved the observation by Juris about only being 2 choices with those 2 choices being firmly planted on the far ends of the political spectrum.
So the "best interests of Dave" is definitley something that exists and Mark thinks Dave should vote based on his best interests. How is that relevant to the usual discussion on this blog about the benefits of sharing the wealth and making sure that everybody is taken care of? Am I supposed to vote based on my best interests or the interests of my fellow man?
Now that Dave has been informed what his best interests are, we see that the advice given to Dave, in the end, is intended to benefit Mark...see "that affects me through rate increases due to a diminished pool of insurees".
I've always said that a whole lot of advice that is given is intended to benefit the person giving the advice.
Post a Comment