This CNBC story on Yahoo News is really on the mark. So many highly intelligent people are often too stupid themselves to realize... "you can't fix stupid!"

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obamacares-problem-cant-fix-stupid-120000228.html

Oh Goddess not another Obamacare thread!

It will only end up in an argument, and I'm Australian and tired of Moderating Obamacare threads.

Carry on after my whinge

I'm kinda with Cindy on this. How many different ways are there of saying the same things repeatedly?

My insurance has been altered for the worse for the second time now due to the "aca". This might be a tired topic but it continues to have real life implications. I just requested a 6 month supply of hormones to get them under my current prescription coverage before the month ends.

I suppose it is a reflection of the world we live in. The House of Representatives votes over 50 times to repeal the ACA, and the Senate fails to take up the measure over 50 times. When no consensus can be reached, all that is left is argument.

Quote from: Cindy on March 15, 2014, 02:25:04 AM
Oh Goddess not another Obamacare thread!

It will only end up in an argument, and I'm Australian and tired of Moderating Obamacare threads.

Carry on after my whinge

There were two things I found fascinating about this, and they're really not obamacare related.

First, a reporter at CNBC wrote an scathing yet intelligent article critical of this administration AND the editor allowed it to print. Maybe it was meant to be buried on the CNBC website, but Yahoo News found it and linked to it.

Second, even I missed the eventual reality that the majority of the uninsured would not sign up, I thought they would because it's practically free for most of them. Most people signing up are those who lost their current insurance.

But I'm not convinced these people are stupid, they may just be brave and making the choices they want to make even though they do so under serious penalty. Good for them.

Quote from: Hikari on March 15, 2014, 12:53:26 PM
I suppose it is a reflection of the world we live in. The House of Representatives votes over 50 times to repeal the ACA, and the Senate fails to take up the measure over 50 times. When no consensus can be reached, all that is left is argument.

True. Honestly, I stopped caring about what happens in general a LONG time ago. Yes, there are a lot of things that are screwed up in this country. Do they need to be changed for the benefit of the populace in a positive fashion?

Yes.

But no one is going to do anything about it, other than bitch about it or you have the prepper crowds who congregate on sites like Infowars and talk about "revolution".

Things will keep going on as they are regardless of what the population truly wants. It's been this way for a LONG time and has zero to do with whatever wanky political puppet is in the White House at the moment.

Quote from: Hideyoshi on March 15, 2014, 08:25:22 AM

Indeed.

Quote from: Hikari on March 15, 2014, 12:53:26 PM
I suppose it is a reflection of the world we live in. The House of Representatives votes over 50 times to repeal the ACA, and the Senate fails to take up the measure over 50 times. When no consensus can be reached, all that is left is argument.

True, but to be more specific, it's a reflection of forcing people to do things they don't desire. Give people choice and the argument disappears.

Let's take the most extreme case of what's unfair... military service. In case of war, some men and women go and defend this nation and give their lives doing so. Some people of fighting age and capability stay behind and party, get laid, do pot, etc. etc. We've tried making this fair and what happened. It was a disaster and our nation realized a valuable lesson. If we can allow people to choose whether they sacrifice everything to defend all the rest of us or to choose not to, surely we can allow people to choose what health insurance plan is right for them.

Look how well ending the fairness in military service worked out. Again, a teachable moment not taught.

BTW, if you don't want to participate, go away please.

On second thought, I'll go find more tolerant places to discuss real life matters, I'm done here...

Best of luck ya'll.

Quote from: Nikko on March 15, 2014, 01:27:24 PM
BTW, if you don't want to participate, go away please.

Nah...I'm not going anywhere. You just want people to agree with you. Echo chambers only serve a useful function in Experimental Music.

Quote from: Nikko on March 15, 2014, 01:31:51 PM
On second thought, I'll go find more tolerant places to discuss real life matters, I'm done here...

Best of luck ya'll.

Quote from: Laura Squirrel on March 15, 2014, 03:18:28 PM

In b4 'obamacare' works and the GOP says they were for it all along

Honestly, I wish conversations of this nature could be more productive and less antagonistic.  At the end of the day, very few of us will agree on these issues.  That doesn't make anyone else more right or wrong.  Perhaps they just have a different perspective or different circumstances in their lives?  I don't like painting my political opponents as villains nor do I like when they do it to me.  Yet, that's how these conversations often turns out.  Not just here, but everywhere.  Why does it have to be "you're a stupid kool aide drinker" or "you're an evil fascist".  I've read a lot of venom in the past few threads that have been hidden under the guise of tolerance and education.  Yet, not one of those threads showed a desire to achieve those goals.  It seems most wanted to antagonize those who don't agree with them no matter what side you come from. I don't know.  It just seems odd to me.   If we can be grown ups and discuss this in a mature manner, there is no issue.  If we have to become enemies and close our eyes to a different perspective, then what's the point of discussing these things?  I've given up on these topics a long time ago because I saw where this was going and where it's gone before.  I don't mind discussing these things and am open to being shown the errors of my ways, but I don't see the need for disgust or animosity towards one another.  Don't get me wrong, I understand feeling passionate and promoting your beliefs, but we shouldn't make our goal to tear down those who disagree.  Like it or not, that's what was going on for both sides for the most part. As much as people say they want to promote tolerance and build bridges, most of the time the result is just another wall.  Even if that isn't our initial intention.  I know this because I've started conversations like this with pure intentions and have gotten caught up in the hype of an argument leaving only with regret for my actions.   It's not a good feeling.  In the end, there is no winner when we fight rather than discuss things in a civil manner.  Let's all acknowledge that none of us are infallible and perhaps we have something to learn from others.  Maybe a little humility will make such conversations more productive rather than becoming the battle of echo chambers?  This goes for both sides and I don't excuse myself from this either as I've made mistakes in the past.

@ltl:
The problem is for the most part, that no one changes their mind. News articles are rarely posted for people to discuss and understand they are posted because someone is outraged...In fact most news it seems is just thrown out here to shock or outrage one group or another; rather than be truly informative.

I can't say it doesn't effect me, there isn't any argument that could be made that would make me for example do away with welfare (TANF, SNAP, etc). When I was a child, my family was homeless, and welfare got us off the street, put food in my stomach, and helped my father get a job, and out of that terrible housing project the government put us in. What sort of text on an internet screen could make any sort of impact that would make me change my position on welfare being helpful?

Therein lies the issue, the "sides" rarely have any sort of consensus at all. When one side wants something totally gone, and the other wants it expanded, where is the common ground to build bridges to?

This means when someone takes a middle ground approach such as I did in thread on guns, despite the fact I do support the private ownership of firearms, I was told that me and my ilk were secretly plotting to take them away anyway, just because I wanted some reforms. I am sure I wouldn't satisfy any who wanted total banning of guns either. Of course, I ended up setting that thread to ignore out of sheer frustration of being called essentially a liar, by people who don't know me. I really don't know how to have civil conversation when I say I want one thing and people tell me I am lying and I really want something else.

My point is, I am not so sure any sort of civil conversation is there to be had, because I am not sure there is anything to build a bridge to. I wish I had some sort of solution to this, but I really don't.

Kia Ora,

Politricks ....it's all swings and roundabouts no matter whose in the driver's seat

Metta Anatta

Quote from: learningtolive on March 15, 2014, 06:28:06 PM
Honestly, I wish conversations of this nature could be more productive and less antagonistic.  At the end of the day, very few of us will agree on these issues.  That doesn't make anyone else more right or wrong.  Perhaps they just have a different perspective or different circumstances in their lives?  I don't like painting my political opponents as villains nor do I like when they do it to me.  Yet, that's how these conversations often turns out.  Not just here, but everywhere.  Why does it have to be "you're a stupid kool aide drinker" or "you're an evil fascist".  I've read a lot of venom in the past few threads that have been hidden under the guise of tolerance and education.  Yet, not one of those threads showed a desire to achieve those goals.  It seems most wanted to antagonize those who don't agree with them no matter what side you come from. I don't know.  It just seems odd to me.   If we can be grown ups and discuss this in a mature manner, there is no issue.  If we have to become enemies and close our eyes to a different perspective, then what's the point of discussing these things?  I've given up on these topics a long time ago because I saw where this was going and where it's gone before.  I don't mind discussing these things and am open to being shown the errors of my ways, but I don't see the need for disgust or animosity towards one another.  Don't get me wrong, I understand feeling passionate and promoting your beliefs, but we shouldn't make our goal to tear down those who disagree.  Like it or not, that's what was going on for both sides for the most part. As much as people say they want to promote tolerance and build bridges, most of the time the result is just another wall.  Even if that isn't our initial intention.  I know this because I've started conversations like this with pure intentions and have gotten caught up in the hype of an argument leaving only with regret for my actions.   It's not a good feeling.  In the end, there is no winner when we fight rather than discuss things in a civil manner.  Let's all acknowledge that none of us are infallible and perhaps we have something to learn from others.  Maybe a little humility will make such conversations more productive rather than becoming the battle of echo chambers?  This goes for both sides and I don't excuse myself from this either as I've made mistakes in the past.

I have to agree with Hikari.  People don't come to politics forums to change their mind. 

But I do, to a certain extent, vilify my political opponents.  Do you know why? 

Because it's people like them who vote for the old white men who strive to systematically dismantle everything that helps the poor and disadvantaged. 

It's those old white men who are preventing me and the love of my life from getting married because it's against their 2,000 year old book of fairy tales. 

It's those old white men who have no interest in social progress, no interest in social justice, no interest in science, education, or environmental conservation.

It's hard not to look at their supporters with a degree of disdain.

The Art of politics is diplomacy.

Essentially finding some common ground, or if no common ground to find points that will or will not be discussed as they are too divisive, with the hope that you can tackle divisive issues later when some trust has emerged.

Politics started by two people throwing stones at each other. Generally the person who can throw the biggest stone wins. It doesn't mean they are right or wrong. It means they can throw the biggest stone.

Having a debate on politics is healthy. Standing at each side of a trench throwing stones at each other is not.

It is meaningless and achieves nothing.

I am locking this thread as the 'discussion' is going down the drain; as usual.

I shall unlock it if people give me sensible argument why I should and what will be achieved.

Cindy