We didn't show up to town halls with the intent of stifling debate, powerclown. No equivalence can be drawn there.

that comparison only works at the most superficial of levels.
for example, almost everything that the protestors---with the exception of pacifists, who oppose war on principle---were mobilized over turned out to be correct. so there was, in fact, information at the base of the protests. you might not agree with them ideologically, but even a conservative cannot at this point reasonably deny that the war against iraq was launched for reasons that had fuck all to do with what the public was told.
in fact, were the rightwing protests not getting such an inordinate amount of airtime on cable infotainment outlets this week, you might have heard about tom ridge's book about his tenure with heimat security in which he outlines a number of situation in which he was pressured to issue bogus "terror alerts"...

in this case, powerclown, there is almost nothing in the way of coherent opposition to obama's plan--partly due to tactical blunders on the administration's part--partly due to the sources of this agitation, the demographic to which they are speaking, the ways in which they address that demographic and so forth.

the sad thing is that the debate could easily have gone otherwise. i don't see why people require patently false memes to be opposed to it. there are arguments to be made, really. and they should be made. but they aren't being made.

but the folk who aren't making arguments sure are getting a shit-ton of press.
remember how the protests against the bushwar were treated?
o wait--maybe you can't because you sure as hell didn't see them on tv.
funny how that works in the "liberal" press.

I clearly remember seeing televised marches against the war in washington. I believe they were covered pretty well.

For the record, I agree with you that the reasons the Bush administration gave for invading Iraq have been proven to be unsubstantiated claims. I agree that the administration avoided evidence that would have gone against their claims. All in all, the Bush administration *wanted* to go into Iraq and chose the path of least resistance for the public (alluding to the potential terrorist ability of a willing Iraq during the fearful aftermath of 9-11). The things we are having a hard time doing in Afghanistan right now would have been fairly easy if we had kept at them back in 02-03 (I speculate). Iraq took our eye off of that ball and we've paid for it in losses.

You have to hand it to the GOP....they like pushing the envelope of crazy

GOP: Reformed Health Care System Could Discriminate Against Republicans! | TPMDC

This WHARRGARBBLLL goes to 11

Oh man. I heard an interview with her on the radio this morning. The interviewer lacked the follow-through to hold her feet to the fire.

---------- Post added at 05:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:21 PM ----------

When crazy is a significant portion of your base, you have to cater to that.

I have asked more questions than I have attempted to make arguments. Again, my number one concern is not an argument, it is an emotional based concern! How is the government going to allocate limited health care resources? Please show me where this has been "dispensed", this is a long thread perhaps I have missed it. Then I have other concerns, perhaps I have missed the dispensing of those too, i.e. - Medicare going broke but private insurers being financially sound as required by law - seems to me that private companies have a discipline they operate under that the government has not I am curious how you take these concercerns/questions to be arguments?

You miss the point. I am not saying and never said my response to a set of facts is legit relative to someone else. I have never had a problem with people reaching different conclusion. I will argue my position, explain it, try to persuade, but I don't make value judgments. I accept differences, I generally don't insult people because of those differences unless they insult me first (I am still an imperfect human subject to childish responses occationally), but I know my weaknesses and work on them.

I give some pretty specific examples to illustrate my point of view, I could be wrong but I know that two people of similar intellect/training/experience/etc can have the exact same set of facts and respond in very different ways, I think I know why - emotion. Your answer is...what?

where does that come from??? How did you read what I wrote and conclude the above? How does that happen?

How do you explain something as simple as what I presented, absent an emotional response to the question do I want to use an umbrella in the rain. complicated political theories are not worth crap if they can not address simple decision problems. A good politician knows, perhaps intuitively, how people emotionally respond to facts.

I generally start with a point of view, pro or con on an issue. I provide an opening statement in support of my view. I read responses or opposing points of view and I ask questions and present counter points. It is what I do, it gives me pleasure. It challenges me to think things through. If forces me to read opposing points of view. It helps me understand opposing trains of thought. Occasionally I change my point of view based on an exchange.

Why do I need to tell you this? Do you really care why I do what I do? Or, are you just trying to be condescending? Is it some kind of backdoor personal attack or what? Is this "trolling"? Are you trying to incite an emotional response? How is your question adding value to the topic? This is why I don't understand what "trolling" is. because I think based on the definition - you are guilty of it, here.

All of this is directed at me, and not the topic. I am not going to change who I am. You don't like me, the way I communicate, structure arguments, debate, ask questions, why don't you ignore me as an individual and stick to the topic? I have asked you this several times, what the deal? In my post #317 I ask a simple question and I get your response in post #318, why not just address the question and information, why direct you comment at me as an individual? Why is what you do any better or worse than those you think should be embarrassed based on TH meetings?

ace, I would start with the fact that your underlying premise is wrong.
Presidents dont offer specific legislative proposals...that is the role of Congress.

Presidents offer frameworks and goals/objectives and I think Obama has been clear on his broad goals for health care reform....then attempts to shape the details through the bully pulpit, consultations with lawmakers and other means.

Clinton's greatest failing with his early health care reform proposal was he ignored this fact and he had little Congressional support from the start because he attempted to do it all himself and shove his plan down the throat of Congress.

People play to cameras. People who know they have almost no opportunity to have their voice heard, will go to the extreme to illustrate their point. Did you ever watch the show The Price is Right - I remember it because my grandmother watched it every day when I was a child. In order to get picked the contestants did all kinds of crazy things, shouted dressed up, had sign, just to get picked. They acted a fool on the show, however in real life i bet they were pretty "normal". Is it a surprise to you that people would act a fool to get on TV, to get noticed, to make a point? Again, if I were going to hold a TH meeting I would not be surprised by this stuff. Even when I was involved in local city political meetings we would have people do exactly what is happening now. When we knew we had a hot topic we planned for it. No surprises. And we got through it, we did what needed to be done. we did not cry about it or complain.

---------- Post added at 11:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:13 PM ----------

On big issues they do, or a least clearly define what they want. It can be as simple as Kennedy saying we are going to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade. Or, something as controversial as Bush presenting his case for the use of military force for the invasion of Iraq

We simply disagree. Obama has not been clear in my view.

Again I disagree. I think Clinton's problem and Obama's problem is they present there ideas on false premises. Private health care insurance is not the problem. Private health care companies operate under the regulatory environment created by government. They do what the government allows them to do, it is a highly regulated industry.

I dont know how much more clarity you want in terms of broad goals/objective/principles then what he campaigned on and currently has posted on the WH website.
Certainly seems as clear to me as "Kennedy saying we are going to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade. Or, something as controversial as Bush presenting his case for the use of military force for the invasion of Iraq."

Congress makes laws, not the White House.

Why does Obama go off point? Why the attacks against private insurers? Why the backhanded attack against doctors (i.e. -take out tonsils to make more money)? Why the on again off again confusion over a public option? The bullet points don't include being budget neutral, what happened to that? His campaign speeches don't reconcile with the above, no explanation. On and on..., there is confusion.

Do you really not think that I know Congress makes laws? Did you really not understand my point about Obama leading on the issue?

I read your point:
That is NOT what presidents do.

He even offered his preference on a significant portion of potentinal funding....lower the tax rates on exemptions for the top 5% to the same rate as the rest of the taxpayers.

IMO, you just dont like the way he is "leading on the issue" or using the bully pulpit and that is your right.

For the record I agree something needs to be done with health care. The current system cannot possibly sustain itself. No one can afford it now with or without insurance. And as far as the "birther" issue I'm quite positive the Libertarians and Republicans spent several million in Hawaii and other places investigating Obama before the November election. If there was something there I'm sure they would have uncovered it long before now. Heck if the truth was known the Clintons probably spent a little cash investigating Mr. Obama's birthplace during the primaries. The birther thing only serves to take peoples attention away from the real issues and concerns.

I'm still trying to understand how anyone could think that there could be civil debate at a town hall meeting when there is no centralized plan to debate. Debate is what happens during session in the House of Representatives and Senate. The town hall meetings was designed for our elected officials to hear feedback from their constituents and to let the constituents hear feedback from Washington.

None of our nightly news outlets have been very efficient in reporting what exactly is in the "health care bill" and part of that is because there are three different plans being considered, which plan do they report on? This whole thing has been convoluted from the beginning. Heck half the people participating in this thread can't tell you half the crap in all three of those bills. This whole information vacuum has resulted in the far right talk shows "reporting" everyone's worst fears. Since most people don't get their news online from several different sources like most of the people here participating in this thread there's no small wonder a lot of people showing up at these town hall meetings are confused. They work all day, come home, flip on the news and sit back with a glass of tea. Since there is no in depth coverage of the "health care plan" because the major news networks don't know how to cover all three plans or even which plan to cover these people don't know what the hell is going on. So they go to work the next day and ask people they work with and then all they hear is hearsay and everyone's worst fears. It's a small wonder the town hall meetings are turning out like they are. And for some of these people to be simply dismissed as "birthers" and "racists" is pretty damn shallow. Uninformed, yes definitely, but who's fault is that? This is the core problem as I see it. Resistance to health care reform is from lack of communication, not from some far fetched right wing racist conspiracy. If they are in fact winning this "debate" it's because the other side failed and are still failing to get their message out. Just about everyone you talk to readily agrees something needs to be done about health care so if your side has a plan other than let's vote on health care reform get your message out. How are you going to fix it, what will that mean to the average joe, how will you pay for it without raising taxes or breaking the back of our country. That's what people want to hear. Unfortunately, Obama and the Democrats didn't get the jump and now they are playing catchup.

Personally, I would like to see more of these signs at the town hall meetings.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_lm2JI7sGwY...trageous+1.jpg

No argument here. But why should we add one well-intentioned but ill-conceived and inevitably ill-executed plan onto a previous example which, if the past continuous and inevitable march of increased spending holds, will prove to be even more expensive and possibly deliver on its' promises with even less effect? Just because the opposite wing of the Boot On Your Neck Party is in charge?

I personally enjoy watching ordinary everyday people hollering at their elected officials. As far as stifling debate, I would say this to the democrats: nut the hell up. Holler back if you have to, explain with a little more clarity and backbone what really resides within the bureaucratic labyrinth of the healthcare bill and what it means for the average taxpayer and their families. And explain if you can why members of congress would still be getting better healthcare benefits than private citizens, along with the wisdom of spending a few extra trillion in a time of economic hardship. And maybe also explain the wisdom (or lack thereof) of handing over anything to a bureaucracy that doesn't run anything efficiently, or try explaining that profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness. The list goes on and on.

The purpose of the town hall meetings is to explain the various proposals:

...explain with a little more clarity and backbone what really resides within the bureaucratic labyrinth of the healthcare bill and what it means for the average taxpayer and their families

How can a member of Congress be expected to do that when he/she is shouted down before uttering a word of explanation?

Then, I'm curious how you can reconcile these conflicting positions:

...explain if you can why members of congress (or federal employees, I might add) would still be getting better healthcare benefits than private citizens....

...maybe also explain the wisdom (or lack thereof) of handing over anything to a bureaucracy that doesn't run anything efficiently
(have you ever talked to federal employees about the efficiency, choice, cost and level of satisfaction within the FEHB program?)

Do you want greater choice in your health care or not?

And then explain how, in the field of health care:

....that profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness.

So why are health care costs for the private consumer doubling every 7-10 years?

It seems to me that the free market is not working very well when it comes to health care. In my opinion it is not so much the insurance companies that are the high cost drivers but the non-competitive nature of the prices charged by health care providers. Even if we squeeze the profit out of insurance it is a small percent of the overall costs because of the increasing prices charged by hospitals, doctors, etc..

I watched the McCain town hall the other day and if I understand the Republican plan they want to also make insurance companies eliminate pre-conditions and lifetime caps. They don't want a government option but instead want to give each family $5000 ($2500 for individuals) to help purchase private insurance. I don't think it will take very long for the increased insurance costs due to the proposed reforms to eat up the 5 grand.

Neither party seems to address very well the problem of how to keep the health care providers from increasing prices much more than the average person's income. One thing that President Obama talked about is limiting people's health care costs to about 10% of their income per year. If they pass nothing else, I would like to see this go through. Losing everything I have worked for and bankrupting my family due to an accident or illness is what concerns me the most.

Impossible to police. Liberals/Democrats got slammed for giving money to the poor to buy school supplies because some who received the funds went and bought video games and stuff instead. How do you guarantee that people will spend the money on insurance? And in the grand scheme of things, $5000 is a drop in the bucket over a lifetime of insurance premiums that double every 7 years

I imagine they can make you show receipts when you file your taxes to prove you spent it on insurance. I wonder how far $5000 will go once they impose the new insurance reforms. If the average family plan is about $1400 per month now I imagine it will go up to about $1800 or $2000 per month. (just pulled these numbers out of my hat) $5000 per year will take care of about $400 of that monthly premium. Like you said insurance premiums (and I surmise also health care costs) are doubling every 7 years so I guess the $5000 would have to double also.

My Healthcare reform bill:

"You can buy your insurance in any state in the union, no matter which state you live in."

I just added 49 competitors instead of one (Obamacare), and the government doesn't add one more new bureaucrat.

I think President Obama advocates the same thing with the addition of a government option for even more choices.

WRONG!!!!! He wants to eliminate private insurance. Youtube is your friend.

I think that would be his preference but politically it can't be done at this time. Besides, like I wrote earlier, I don't think insurance companies are the biggest problem it's the out of control health care costs they are insuring.

Ah yes, youtube. Because we all know that youtube is THE source for reliable information. You know, like wikipedia.

Oh, lookie what I found: The White House - Blog Post - Facts Are Stubborn Things

Don't you think this will just cause insurance companies to all move to insurance friendly states? They all move to the state that protects them and harms consumers the most and then the consumers are worse off then when they started.

Agreed.

The current patchwork of state regulations is part of the problem, not the solution.

where did you get this nonsense?

Youtube! ;)

Any insurance company can sell in any state as long as they are state approved. My companies home state is in SC, but most of the business that I do personally is in OH and WV.

I really don't want to do this since I'm actively moderating the thread, but this is absolutely wrong. In order to sell insurance in a given state (unless they're going to operate as an excess and surplus lines carrier, which a health insuror cannot do except in very unusual circumstances) they must file rates with the state as well as agree to operate under certain guidelines.

And getting state approval is not automatic and is not a simple procedure. It can take years. Ask any property insuror doing business in Florida about how long THAT takes.

It looks like Republicans are in favor of at least one government health care plan. If they are concerned about a government option for the rest of us perhaps they could include it in these principles. Or how about including everyone no matter who they get their health care and/or insurance from.

Hilarious. The GOP steps in with a bill to save seniors from something that was never going to happen, thus branding themselves as the heroes who saved them from Obama. Priceless.

Brilliant.

"I introduced the bill to keep the military from sending robotic mice to the moon and eating it (it's made of cheese, ya know). I SAVED THE MOON!"

They've also saved the American Way of Life by abandoning all of the principles associated with it. We haven't had any terrorist attacks on US soil since we started torturing people.

How is what you said any different than what I said?

FDR's inaugural address he lays out his plan that lead to The Emergency Banking Act of 1933. This is an example of Presidential leadership on an issue, this is an example of clarity. There were no wide spread chaos in town hall meetings. FDR demanded that Congress act and within a week he got a detailed plan passed.

Here is part two, the more relevant section:


And the key was the FDR stayed on point during all of his talks and speeches.

And the times were different then as there wasn't channels that had 24 hour new coverage which included 23.5 hours of lies, deceit and misinformation.

Sadly we have gotten to a point (largely because of fox news) where truth isn't a vital part of the news.

ace:
We may never see the likes of an FDR again. It is a little unfair to compare President Obama to him, or for that matter any other president since then.

Health care reform has always been difficult to pass even for FDR. President Obama is trying not to make the same mistakes as President Clinton who was accused of coming up with a detailed plan without enough input from others. Perhaps you are right and President Obama is maybe getting a little too much input lately.

Obama needs to quit pussy footing with the GOP. He left the door open for compromise and debate, and the GOP responded with petulance, like teenagers who can't get things their way. You don't negotiate with petulant teenagers. It's time to tell the GOP to fuck off. If they don't want to participate in any meaningful way, then they can go pout somewhere, but enough of the GOP hijacking any progress with their theatrics.

The Democrats may have the majority but that doesn't mean they can just bully this thing through without ramifications. There are plenty of Democrats elected from "conservative" districts and states that will be looking for a job next time they come up for reelection if they don't come up with some sort of compromise. Believe me if it could just be rammed through it would have already happened, before the summer recess. They gave that a shot and we see how far that went.

Again, fuck 'em. Obama has tried to treat the GOP like adults, and the GOP has responded with temper tantrums, so fuck 'em. W sure as hell didn't give a fuck about the minority opinion; why should Obama have to contend with the malcontents? W's whole argument was he was given a "mandate;" hey, GOP, suck on this "mandate."

My point is to illustrate the difference between a leader who is on point and stays on point. Obama seems to create his own problems by sending mixed messages. I am for health care reform, and I could support what DC showed as Obama's guiding principles.

So, why don't I support what he wants to do? My feeling is that he deviates from his message creating too much confusion.

I must admit that I am also skeptical of some of the health care debate on both sides of the issue. Both Democrats and Republicans seem to be ignoring the 5000 lb gorilla in the room which is over use of health care providers in many cases.

Just a little googling turns up some amazing statistics, like the average number of prescriptions filled per capita each year is now over 12. That's like 48 for a typical family of four not to mention the doctor visits required. President Obama did mention an effort to cut back on unnecessary tests and there appears to be data indicating defensive practices by doctors because of lawsuits as well as pressure on hospitals to use (pay for) expensive diagnostic equipment.

Any mention of trying to cut back on these things brings up cries of rationing and neither party wants to be accused if that. I suspect a real honest discussion of these things may be politically impossible at this point. Just look at the Republicans "Seniors Bill of Rights" issued last week calling for no rationing or death panels. People are letting their emotions control the debate. The President may be criticized for not being forceful enough but in his defense there are many special interests fanning the flames.

The truth of the matter is that medical resources do need to be rationed. I think people realize that and understand it, but the folks in Washington can not seem to be honest about it. All I really want is to understand how they are going to do it. What are the priorities? who makes the decisions? What appeals does a person have? My support of a plan will depend on the answers, but before we can even start asking those questions there has to be more honesty.

There is no doubt in my mind that I would spare no resource for children. From there I would want my parents (or all seniors) to be well cared for and end life in dignity according to there wishes. Then I start to have problems based on my biases, for example I have little sympathy for drug and alcohol abusers, people who choose not to be productive members of society (criminals, able bodied men not willing to work, etc.). And, on the other hand I have a problem with people who would want to give me "incentives" to not eat the things I may want, like cinnamon rolls, apple pie, bacon, etc. So I have mixed feelings.

Eating things like cinnamon rolls, apple pie and bacon is the same thing as abusing drugs or alcohol. Both are unhealthy and both are conscious choices. If you are against one you have to be against both. Can't have it both ways

I disagree that people understand that medical resources need to be rationed. Many are upset just at the mention of it and some can be seen screaming at town halls. The Republicans even included no rationing in their "Seniors Bill of Rights.

Also I think this carries over even for children. As I understand it something like 10% are diagnosed with AHDH every year with about 4% to 5% prescribed the drug Ritalin. So in every classroom there are about a couple of kids taking this drug. I'm no expert but could it be that young kids with a lot of energy are just figity sometimes.

At Michele Bachmann's TH last Thursday, it was the libs throwing barbs and trying to start shit. I'm afraid that the conservatives showing up to the Dem's town halls are doing the same thing. With that attitude, nothing is going to get done. It is a sad state of affairs and it is no wonder that our country is having the issues that it is currently.

That is my point. I like what I like, others like what they like - I should not be the judge of them nor they be the judge of me - these are really private matters. My gut tells me government simply should not be involved, so to those who suggest government should be, how do they suggest government do it? In the private sector there is choice. Note: I do not believe that if there was a "government option" that it would lead to more choice, in the end we would only have one choice in my view and that would be the government option.

your view is wrong and not based on facts. or is this another "emotional response" to an issue?

I think they understand it, and I think there fear is don't take away from me to give to others. I think (non-judgmental - it is what it is) the problem in this country is that most of us are self centered, perhaps that is why we will never see universal health care.

Also, I think it angers people when politicians stand up a pretend we can do everything for everybody without sacrifice, or that we can do it by only taxing the "rich". Most know that is bull.

Humans, especially little boys, were not made to sit without activity for hours and hours at a time. Boys need to be boys - they need to run, fight, scream, play with bugs, get dirty, etc. - let them do that and it becomes much easier to live with them. My first wife never really understood that, but my current wife does:thumbsup:.

---------- Post added at 04:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:18 PM ----------

Pure emotion.

It is an emotional issue to me, I can't separate emotion out of it. Can you? How do you do it?

ace...perhaps that is why some find it difficult and frustrating to engage you in the issue.

You complain that Obama showed no clear vision comparing it to Kennedy/the moon and Bush/Iraq. When the vision is pointed out to you, you agree with the vision, but dont like his leadership style..and play the irrelevant FDR card.

Its simple...you dont like the Democratic proposals....that doesnt make them fraudulent..at the same time, you show no willingness to acknowledge the fraudulent demagoguery by the opposition.

I give Obama credit for trying to build consensus...evidently that is not leadership to you or the Republicans in Congress. They have shown no willingness to engage unless they get every thing they want..they, like you, would rather criticize than work together towards a solution.

Its time for the Democrats to forge ahead....resolve their own differences between the liberal wing and the blue dogs and to hell with the Republicans.

Honesty?

Obama has been all over the place on this issue and you think it is my problem, even after I agree we need reform? Perhaps, it is clear to you. All I am saying it is not clear to me. Given the magnitude of the issue I am not going to give him the benefit of the doubt. In my book he needed a disciplined message, he needed to transmit that to his party and then to the nation. If he had, I bet he would have gotten what he wanted.

I can give reasons, I can list my concerns, I ask questions, I read what people like you say, and I get "you don't like Democratic proposals..." - so it is that simple?

The fraud is based on the dishonesty. The fraud is based on the strategy to rush an il conceived plan through before the nation had an opportunity to understand it, ask questions, etc.

I know you don't read everything I write, but I did state that there are those who have adapted a strategy simply to disrupt anything Obama wants to do. I also said this should not be a surprise to Obama or anyone else. I stated there are those who simply throw "everything" out there just to see what sticks. However, there are also those with legitimate concerns and questions. Wisdom is knowing the difference.


I give him credit for being a good basketball player. Neither is relevant at the end of the day.

As Yoda says: "there is no try. There is do and there is not do." Yoda was a very wise Jedi.



That is a good start, or would have been a good start. Obama should have used his leadership to get consensus within his party before all these TH meetings and all the confusion. With that approach, ironically, he would have won over centrist Republicans - because centrist Republicans and centrist Democrats are not that different.

Ace you specifically said that you have a problem with people who abuse drugs or alcohol, then you said you have a problem with others who might have a problem with the things you eat. You can't have it both ways. Either you punish all bad choices in healthcare or none.

ace....politics in the US does not operate on Jedi principles. The rest is your same old rehashed gibberish regardless of the issue.

Once again, taking all of your recent posts here, you're all over the map.

I honesty dont know how to engage you further..particularly when you have made it clear that your emotions dictate your responses and it doesnt matter to you if those emotions get in the way of the facts.

I said I had mixed feelings on the issue. What more do you want? I thought I made the conflict clear. It is a conflict. I think many have the same problem, even if they don't admit it.

In your mind why would punishing smoking or alcohol be ok? Why would the same principle not apply to eating mcdonalds 4 times a day?

O.k., for the record there are no real Jedis, and I know that. The wisdom as presented by this fictional character was not created by George Lucas. the priciple presented is as old as time (figurative not literal). this type of wisdom has driven a lot of the progress of the human race.

Got thousands of questions, and thousands of follow ups. Stated that. Also stated it is an emotional issue for me. Also stated the mixed feelings I have, i.e. - willingness to have single payer system but not trusting government. the difference is that I am not selling my plan to Obama, Obama is trying to sell his plan, to me.

My only advise is that If I cause you problems don't engage me. That is what I generally do in life. I either confront things head on or I avoid them. Keep it simple.

---------- Post added at 05:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:25 PM ----------

Would this be trolling? Kinda going off topic. I am more than happy to address this but I think I would be accused of something bad, like trolling, or going all over the place, circular logic, emotion, making others uncomfortable, etc.. Probably already guilty.

Would this be trolling? Kinda going off topic. I am more than happy to address this but I think I would be accused of something bad, like trolling, or going all over the place, circular logic, emotion, making others uncomfortable, etc.. Probably already guilty.[/QUOTE]

Why is it so hard to answer a direct question with a direct answer. You made a statement, I called you on it, then you changed your position, I called you on it again and now your try to avoid the question.

Ace every now and then you do raise some good points, but when it comes to asking you questions for which you have no answers you panic and change subject.

I can have an emotional response to the issue (compassion for the uninsured, for example, or frustration with those who oppose UHC based on selfish reasons).

I can also have non-emotional responses to the FACTS contained in the proposed bill.

You seem to conflate the two.

Saying "I have a gut feeling that Obama's government option plan will lead to a single payer system" is not an emotional response. It's projecting your fears/biases onto something where there are no facts to support it.

It would be like me saying "I support Obama's plan because my gut tells me that if it passes, we'll all get a free pony."

It is not.

I am confused by what you say "called you on it". I pointed out a bias and conflict that I am fully aware of. I am not sure what you want. I have a bias that is based on my feelings. I don't think it is fair, I don;t think it is reasonable for me to be subjected to the biases of others, nor them to mine. My conclusion is that perhaps government should not be involved. I don't know how government can reasonably referee this. Do you?

I get accused of so many bad things it is difficult for me to keep them all straight.

---------- Post added at 04:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:13 PM ----------

This is what I do not know how to do. This is what I think is not possible to do. Even if I am presented with a simple math problem, 2+2=4, I have an emotional response, I get a good feeling knowing the answer, I get a positive response to the concept of addition, meaning growth, expansion. It brings back memories of primary education and makes me feel good. I don't know how you can look at facts/information devoid of emotional response.

True.

I gave justification for my view. The justification is based on my observations and knowledge of economic and business systems. True, I can not predict the future with certainty, but I can project expected results in an informed manner.

The probability of that would be close to zero, however, I think the probability of a government option restricting choice in the private sector is much greater than zero and is high enought for reasonable people to be concerned (assuming they care) and I actually think overtime is close certainty. and I clearly state it is my view and that is not a "fact". On the other hand are you suggesting the opposite is a "fact"? If true what is the difference between what you are doing and what I am doing?