Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 30 Jan '10 13:31
    The Republicans' shock victory in the election for the US Senate seat in Massachusetts meant the Democrats lost their supermajority in the Senate. This makes it even harder for the Obama administration to get healthcare reform passed in the US.

    Political scientist Dr David Runciman looks at why is there often such deep opposition to reforms that appear to be of obvious benefit to voters.

    Last year, in a series of "town-hall meetings" across the country, Americans got the chance to debate President Obama's proposed healthcare reforms.

    What happened was an explosion of rage and barely suppressed violence.

    Polling evidence suggests that the numbers who think the reforms go too far are nearly matched by those who think they do not go far enough.

    But it is striking that the people who most dislike the whole idea of healthcare reform - the ones who think it is socialist, godless, a step on the road to a police state - are often the ones it seems designed to help.

    In Texas, where barely two-thirds of the population have full health insurance and over a fifth of all children have no cover at all, opposition to the legislation is currently running at 87%.

    Full commentary: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8474611.stm

    Why do people vote against their own interests when the proposed policy clearly does not help them? Is it just ignorance? Smart propaganda? Something else?
  2. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    30 Jan '10 14:12
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Why do people vote against their own interests when the proposed policy clearly does not help them? Is it just ignorance? Smart propaganda? Something else?
    Consent is manufactured.
  3. 30 Jan '10 14:24 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    The Republicans' shock victory in the election for the US Senate seat in Massachusetts meant the Democrats lost their supermajority in the Senate. This makes it even harder for the Obama administration to get healthcare reform passed in the US.

    Political scientist Dr David Runciman looks at why is there often such deep opposition to reforms that appe d policy clearly does not help them? Is it just ignorance? Smart propaganda? Something else?
    Dr. Runciman makes the faulty assumption that anything more than a tiny percentage of the population have any clue what's in the healthcare plan.

    This was a combination of (1) having a plan that is big and complicated, (2) Obama and Co doing a terrible job explaining what the plan is, (3) the extremely long process during which the plan has been continually changing, (4) many people just don't trust the government to do anything right, and (5) the opponents' intention on making it sound like a Marxist coup no matter what the plan was.
  4. 30 Jan '10 14:32 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    Dr. Runciman makes the faulty assumption that anything more than a tiny percentage of the population have any clue what's in the healthcare plan.

    This was a combination of (1) having a plan that is big and complicated, (2) Obama and Co doing a terrible job explaining what the plan is, (3) the extremely long process during which the plan has been contin the opponents' intention on making it sound like a Marxist coup no matter what the plan was.
    In fact, no one really likes this plan. Those on the far left are upset that it does not go far enough and those on the right are upset with the increased government involvement. They are in no mans land. Add to the fact, as you indicated, that the legislation is so massive and complicated that no one, probably not even Obama, knows everything that resides in it with horrible earmarks and corruption that was crafted behind closed doors after Obama promised transparancy and CSPAN to cover the negotiations, and what you have is what you got which is the masses spewing the legislation all back over them.
  5. 30 Jan '10 14:39
    Originally posted by whodey
    In fact, no one really likes this plan. Those on the far left are upset that it does not go far enough and those on the right are upset with the increased government involvement. They are in no mans land. Add to the fact, as you indicated, that the legislation is so massive and complicated that no one, probably not even Obama, knows everything that resides ...[text shortened]... nd what you have is what you got which is the masses spewing the legislation all back over them.
    Obama addressed the whole CSPAN issue in a no-holds-barred Q & A session with 140 Republicans, televised live.

    http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/01/29/HP/R/29045/House+Republican+Retreat+with+Pres+Obama.aspx

    I made a thread about this. The Q & A was an hour long. I encourage you to watch the whole thing in the link above.

    "OMGZ Obama without a teleprompter!"

    I would kill to watch Bush do anything remotely similar, or to be able to tackle such a wide range of tough topics ad lib in one session.
  6. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    30 Jan '10 15:22
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Why do people vote against their own interests when the proposed policy clearly does not help them? Is it just ignorance? Smart propaganda? Something else?
    The people are given bad information and have a minimum amount of involvement in the process. They have been primed to make poor and uninformed decisions, which they frequently do.
  7. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    30 Jan '10 15:29
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Why do people vote against their own interests when the proposed policy clearly does not help them? Is it just ignorance? Smart propaganda? Something else?
    Partisanship. Bias can turn to nearly full blindness when people start selecting the news sources based on which they tend to agree most.
  8. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    30 Jan '10 16:09 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Why do people vote against their own interests when the proposed policy clearly does not help them? Is it just ignorance? Smart propaganda? Something else?
    Something else. The bill is perceived as being unconstitutional. Since the Constitution was written to limit the role of government to protect the people from tyranny, it is not in the people's interest to have laws that are unconstitutional.
  9. 30 Jan '10 16:18
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    The Republicans' shock victory in the election for the US Senate seat in Massachusetts meant the Democrats lost their supermajority in the Senate. This makes it even harder for the Obama administration to get healthcare reform passed in the US.

    Political scientist Dr David Runciman looks at why is there often such deep opposition to reforms that appe ...[text shortened]... d policy clearly does not help them? Is it just ignorance? Smart propaganda? Something else?
    I must admit, I haven't studied the healthcare reforms proposed in America, but if they are looking to duplicate the total shambles we have in the U.K., I'm not surprised that people are resisting it. In my teens the system worked, and it was a source of national pride, but since politicians became more involved in an effort to cut costs, it has become a vastly expensive disaster. A large percentage of the budget is spent on the huge army of overpaid administrators who now run the service. Twenty-five years ago I took out private health insurance for my family. This was due to the fact that our national health service is cutting corners to the extent that there is now a very good chance of catching one of the deadly viruses that now infest many of our hospitals. I lost two relatives to these infections. One went in for simple corrective surgery, the other had a broken pelvis. They never came out of hospital alive.... and the worst aspect of it all was the attempt by the hospital involved to brush it under the carpet. I would stick to your private health providers if I were you.
  10. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    30 Jan '10 16:27 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by acb123
    One went in for simple corrective surgery, the other had a broken pelvis. They never came out of hospital alive.... and the worst aspect of it all was the attempt by the hospital involved to brush it under the carpet. I would stick to your private health providers if I were you.
    That's a pretty damned good reason right there too. Thanks for sharing that. We're trying, but our public servants, duly sworn to uphold and defend our Constitution, are still trying to cram it down our throats - for our own good, of course.
  11. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    30 Jan '10 16:30
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    Something else. The bill is perceived as being unconstitutional. Since the Constitution was written to limit the role of government to protect the people from tyranny, it is not in the people's interest to have laws that are unconstitutional.
    What a ridiculous assertion! Play present ANY evidence that people don't support health care reform because they believe that to do so would be "unconstitutional".
  12. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    30 Jan '10 16:32
    Originally posted by acb123
    I must admit, I haven't studied the healthcare reforms proposed in America, but if they are looking to duplicate the total shambles we have in the U.K., I'm not surprised that people are resisting it. In my teens the system worked, and it was a source of national pride, but since politicians became more involved in an effort to cut costs, it has become a vast ...[text shortened]... ed to brush it under the carpet. I would stick to your private health providers if I were you.
    PSST, the reforms mentioned in the US do not create a "public health service".
  13. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    30 Jan '10 16:51
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    What a ridiculous assertion! Play present ANY evidence that people don't support health care reform because they believe that to do so would be "unconstitutional".
    I'm incredulous that this argument is a new concept to you. If so, then where have you been for the past year? Try Googling something like "Health care" mandate unconstitutional

    But to save you some time, try this January 2, 2010 Op ed piece by Senator Orrin Hatch in the Wall Street Journal.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703278604574624021919432770.html

    An excerpt:

    ------------

    President Obama's health-care bill is now moving toward final passage. The policy issues may be coming to an end, but the legal issues are certain to continue because key provisions of this dangerous legislation are unconstitutional. Legally speaking, this legislation creates a target-rich environment. We will focus on three of its more glaring constitutional defects.

    First, the Constitution does not give Congress the power to require that Americans purchase health insurance. Congress must be able to point to at least one of its powers listed in the Constitution as the basis of any legislation it passes. None of those powers justifies the individual insurance mandate. Congress's powers to tax and spend do not apply because the mandate neither taxes nor spends. The only other option is Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce.

    Congress has many times stretched this power to the breaking point, exceeding even the expanded version of the commerce power established by the Supreme Court since the Great Depression. It is one thing, however, for Congress to regulate economic activity in which individuals choose to engage; it is another to require that individuals engage in such activity. That is not a difference in degree, but instead a difference in kind. It is a line that Congress has never crossed and the courts have never sanctioned.

    In fact, the Supreme Court in United States v. Lopez (1995) rejected a version of the commerce power so expansive that it would leave virtually no activities by individuals that Congress could not regulate. By requiring Americans to use their own money to purchase a particular good or service, Congress would be doing exactly what the court said it could not do.

    Some have argued that Congress may pass any legislation that it believes will serve the "general welfare." Those words appear in Article I of the Constitution, but they do not create a free-floating power for Congress simply to go forth and legislate well. Rather, the general welfare clause identifies the purpose for which Congress may spend money. The individual mandate tells Americans how they must spend the money Congress has not taken from them and has nothing to do with congressional spending.

    A second constitutional defect of the Reid bill passed in the Senate involves the deals he cut to secure the votes of individual senators. Some of those deals do involve spending programs because they waive certain states' obligation to contribute to the Medicaid program. This selective spending targeted at certain states runs afoul of the general welfare clause. The welfare it serves is instead very specific and has been dubbed "cash for cloture" because it secured the 60 votes the majority needed to end debate and pass this legislation.

    A third constitutional defect in this ObamaCare legislation is its command that states establish such things as benefit exchanges, which will require state legislation and regulations. This is not a condition for receiving federal funds, which would still leave some kind of choice to the states. No, this legislation requires states to establish these exchanges or says that the Secretary of Health and Human Services will step in and do it for them. It renders states little more than subdivisions of the federal government.

    This violates the letter, the spirit, and the interpretation of our federal-state form of government. Some may have come to consider federalism an archaic annoyance, perhaps an amusing topic for law-school seminars but certainly not a substantive rule for structuring government. But in New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997), the Supreme Court struck down two laws on the grounds that the Constitution forbids the federal government from commandeering any branch of state government to administer a federal program. That is, by drafting and by deliberate design, exactly what this legislation would do.
    ----------------
  14. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    30 Jan '10 16:55 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    I'm incredulous that this argument is a new concept to you. If so, then where have you been for the past year? Try Googling something like "Health care" mandate unconstitutional

    But to save you some time, try this January 2, 2010 Op ed piece by Senator Orrin Hatch in the Wall Street Journal.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487032 and by deliberate design, exactly what this legislation would do.
    ----------------
    I didn't ask if Orrin Hatch thought health care reform was unconstitutional. I asked for ANY evidence that the majority of the PEOPLE did (as you asserted). You know the same majority who support a "public option" that would compete with private health insurance. http://www.pollingnumbers.com/poll-of-polls/public-health-insurance-option.html
  15. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    30 Jan '10 17:08
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    PSST, the reforms mentioned in the US do not create a "public health service".
    Hear, hear!