Voting against your own interests

[Labarum]

I am conscious of the sensitivities of expressing a view on how another nation orders its affairs, and therefore I offer no personal opinion; but this article on the BBC news site I found interesting. It suggests even those who would benefit most from health care reform, are against it; and attempts to analyse the psychology.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8474611.stm

 

[Nobeard]

I also find this interesting.

I can happen when the opponents of an issue are allowed to take control of the issue in the media. They then give their own definations to the issue, demonize the issue. Make up stories about the issue. Like "death panels" while ignoring that insurance companies are the ones with "death panels" when they decide that a medical procedure is too expensive, etc.

They use simple, one sided, easy to remember ideas and especially simple easily repeatable phrases that convey their ideas. "death panels" "social ism" "nazi" (yes they can make people think that someone is a social ist and a nazi at the same time!!)


((I JUST FOUND OUT THAT YOU CANNOT WRITE "S O C I A L I S M " ON THIS SITE WITHOUT IT BEING CHANGED TO Soc....sm)))

I've heard followers of these ideas say "keep govermnment out of my Medicare" Now, since Medicare and Social Security are both highly popular GOVERNMENT programs, You would think that these people would indeed look at what might be best for them. Or at least try to think thru the issue. But they get all fired up. The opponents play on their fears.

But mostly they define the issue before clear thoughts can take hold.

And its financed by the corporate interests that stand to loose money because of the issue.

 

[AdrianR]

Brian
I am assuming you are British...

You should be aware that the BBC is a very left-biased organization that supports governmental control over our lives, and wishes no malice against the NHS or the idea of social medicine. They are also very pro-Obama.

Now, I see this as a part of the ongoing narrative in the USA that seeks to classify those who would disagree with, or oppose the government - especially in a policy area that may appear, at first glance, to have wide-ranging benefits - as some type of derangement.

The tone of this article is patronising in the extreme to those who value their liberty above the idea of financing mediocre healthcare for all.

 

[Nobeard]

I feel that the BBC is one of the best places to go to find the news presented fairly.

I thought it was an accurate article. This is how the rest of the world see us. Sadly, this is how politics are played in America.

 

[red71veloce]

Yeah, the only thing worse than politicians telling us they know what is best for us is possibly a foreign journalist telling us he knows what is best for us.

 

[Obsessed]

((I JUST FOUND OUT THAT YOU CANNOT WRITE "S O C I A L I S M " ON THIS SITE WITHOUT IT BEING CHANGED TO Soc....sm))

FYI, it's not political censorship - the name of a certain medication for ED that is often the subject of spam happens to be contained within the word you can't type. I think they block it to prevent spam from inundating the board. After all, one can type "communism" and "state ownership of the means of production" and "dictatorship of the proletariat" without any problems!

By the way, I agree with the rest of what you said in post no. 2.

 

[curtis909]

I feel that the BBC is one of the best places to go to find the news presented fairly.

I thought it was an accurate article. This is how the rest of the world see us. Sadly, this is how politics are played in America.

+1 I find the same and the news reported there seems to get to me a day before the major papers in america have something to say about it and then make it out like they broke the story. Long live the BBC....

 

[RBE17]

It suggests even those who would benefit most from health care reform, are against it;

I didn't read the article nor do I plan to. My only thought on the situation is that perhaps even some folks that could benefit from it feel it's wrong.

 

[Nobeard]

Yeah, the only thing worse than politicians telling us they know what is best for us is possibly a foreign journalist telling us he knows what is best for us.

But the USA is so important in the world that people in other countries have a lot of interest in what we do.

Picture the world as a room with several lions, 50 collies, 50 doberman dogs, 1 bull dog, a lot of squirrels, a few lambs.

The lions don't care what anyone else is doing. But its not in the lions interest for a fight to start.
The others are all concerned with the lions. They talk about what the lions are doing.

Are they wrong to talk about the lions? What if a collie has a good idea. Should a lion listen to the idea or tell the collie to "shut up"

 

[Nobeard]

FYI, it's not political censorship - the name of a certain medication for ED that is often the subject of spam happens to be contained within the word you can't type. I think they block it to prevent spam from inundating the board. After all, one can type "communism" and "state ownership of the means of production" and "dictatorship of the proletariat" without any problems!

By the way, I agree with the rest of what you said in post no. 2.

OK, sorry that I jumped to conclusions

 

[Baloosh]

I feel that the BBC is one of the best places to go to find the news presented fairly.

That's some heavy-duty lol right there. BBC is pretty left-leaning, by even left-leaning standards.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411846/We-biased-admit-stars-BBC-News.html

 

[82R100]

Sovia-gram would be a difficult term to express, too.

 

[Bertilak]

I didn't read the article nor do I plan to. My only thought on the situation is that perhaps even some folks that could benefit from it feel it's wrong.

Amen.

It is also best to look at the long term picture. Health care is not "free" no mater what you do. The only question is who do you believe will be better at delivering it: the free market, social-ism (House version) or fascism (Senate version) -- if I have that sorted out right. One wants explicit takeover (the "public" option) and the other wants to keep symbolic private ownership but elevate every important decision to government bureaucrats (e.g. the "death panels"). There is probably a different mix of those in each version.

People whose interest is in somehow getting a free ride are not only selfish (or attributing selfish motives to others) but sadly mistaken about how free the ride will be and where it will actually take them. Don't get me wrong. I believe there should be some sort of safety net for those in unfortunate circumstances but you don't convert a whole industry to a department of the government for that. And to be fair, most people in need do NOT support the government takeover -- thus the OP's question.

By the way, much of the health care industry *supports* the government takeover as it gives them locked in customers. Many corporations are big on Capitalism but not so fond of a free market. (Maintaining that free market is one of government's primary and legitimate functions. Think anti-trust.) Of course any unions involved also support it.

The widespread dislike for Obama-Reid-Pelosi-care is one of the things that gives me hope for this country. The fact that we came so close to getting it anyway is one of the things that saddens me.

I often post this link as a starting point to think about *real* health care reform: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html. That is written by John Mackey, the founder of Whole Foods, and far from a right-wing apologist for the health care industry.

 

[RexHavoc]

They use simple, one sided, easy to remember ideas and especially simple easily repeatable phrases that convey their ideas. "death panels" "social ism" "nazi" (yes they can make people think that someone is a social ist and a nazi at the same time!!)


((I JUST FOUND OUT THAT YOU CANNOT WRITE "S O C I A L I S M " ON THIS SITE WITHOUT IT BEING CHANGED TO Soc....sm))((aparently "nazi" is ok to write)

What is the difference, care to explain?

 

[82R100]

What is the difference, care to explain?

To clarify, you want to know the difference between a social-ist and a nazi?

 

[RexHavoc]

To clarify, you want to know the difference between a social-ist and a nazi?

yes especialy since the term "Nazi" is derived from Nationalsozialist.

 

[Bertilak]

What is the difference, care to explain?

Google might help.

EDIT: I didn't mean to be curt or sarcastic. It is just that there are *many* aspects of both fascism and social-ism. Some are similar and some are different. Hard to summarize in a simple post.

 

[RexHavoc]

•The truth of the matter is that in actually ideology the differences between communism and fascism are very small. fascists are often mislabeled as "right wing" and anti-communists because during the rise of Stalin all ideas different from the main Moscow approved, line of communism were dubbed "right-wing."

stolen from the interwebs


since I don't want to get this thread locked...........I am going to go shave now

 

[Stubblefield]

To clarify, you want to know the difference between a social-ist and a nazi?

Without invoking Godwins's Law, I just want to point out that Hitler was in many ways a Social-ist. A quick reading of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich will fill you in on the details.

Good luck and have a nice day.

 

[CCMphysician]

Godwin's Law!