Here's the bottom line with respect to DU and the Healthcare/Insurance bill(s)

[Stinky The Clown]

No one, no argument, no recitation of "facts" is going to change one mind.

Side are taken and positions are hardened. No matter your argument, the only people listening to you are those who agree with you.

And some people blame Obama directly, even as some others laud Obama directly.

Sorry, but that's the case. When you're at the top, you get the credit and you get the blame.

DU, like everywhere else, has very little in the way of middle ground.

[ShortnFiery]

1. Bravo Stinky! You've summed up the fray nicely. Time to return to our respective corners?

Five Stars ***** :hi:

[havocmom]

2. You'r wrong! Please read the swill.

;)

Sorry, dear Stinky, couldn't resist. :hug:

You are, of course, spot on.

[still_one]

3. Not entirely. It is also the Democratic leadership /nt

[Fumesucker]

4. Actually I have changed minds on major items before..

And had my mind changed once or twice as well..

It doesn't happen often but it does happen.

[Lerkfish]

7. True, I've changed my mind on capital punishment.

and on the concept of "justifiable war".

over my 51 years.

Ironically, my politics otherwise have not changed much, but the country has shifted so far right that once I was considered a "moderate" and now I am "lunatic fringe lefty", even though my position has not changed a lot.

[Lerkfish]

5. I think its fine that sides are galvanized to their own POV, what i detest

is the mudlslinging back and forth for speaking your mind.

[laughingliberal]

15. +1 nt

[Stinky The Clown]

6. Hi Gumby!!!!!!!

Welcome to my thread!

[Political Heretic]

8. There's that. There's also informed and uninformed opinion.

But there's also the process the lead up to "hardened" positions - which in some cases was a meticulous, grueling process of research and policy analysis. If you've done due diligence and then formed conclusions based on concrete facts that aren't changing, it pretty much makes sense not to waver too much.

[Lerkfish]

9. Global warming is a good example

Just because some denounce it, and some do not, doesn't make their respective opinions equally valid.

merely having an opinion does not make it factually correct.

[Stinky The Clown]

10. Facts have nothing to do with hardened positions

Which is my point

[Lerkfish]

12. oh, I was not in disagreement with either you, or the other poster I was talking to

I was giving a supporting example.

[Stinky The Clown]

17. I just came back to this thread ........

.... and this is NOT arguing with you ....... but global warming is actually not such a good example. Global warming is factually provable. The deniers are very few and very well paid to deny the science.

Health care is very different. There is no science. Just opinions. Some economist thin ks it is a bad idea. Some medical theorist thinks it is a good idea. But Glenn Beck gets a voice in it too. So does Dennis Kuncich. So do you and me and Gumby. And in the end, all any of us have are opinions and hunches and examples in other societies as to what works and what doesn't. And more to the point of the OP, we all have opinions as to whether or not our elected leaders are doing the best thing they can for us ..... or for some other overlords.

No .... global warming is a fact and science based debate. Health car ...... oops ...... insurance reform is much more about opinions and unproved theories.

[Political Heretic]

14. Depends on what you mean by "hardened."

There's nothing wrong with, after careful investigation, reaching a point where you can say given the facts at hand, I'm resolute in my opinion.

This is especially true with value judgments.



For example(and laying all this out in detail is important to the point,) public policy analysis is a huge part of my professional life, as well as a personal passion, especially as it is intertwined with political economy.

Having put in quite literally ten or more hours a week of my personal time studying health care policy throughout the last year - meaning reading briefs and analysis from the CBO, Keiser Foundation, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Economic Policy Institute and so on (many of which are favorable toward this current bill. Meaning reading economists, listening to town hall meetings, participating in conference calls with health care briefings, etc. Meaning reading the bills. Meaning listening to the feedback of organizations whose opinion I consider important, such as Nurses Unions and Labor (and of course, big-labor unions support passing the bill)

There comes a point however, after having done all this, when you quite literally have enough facts and understand enough concrete specifics about what the bill does and does not do to form a concrete opinion, based on your values.

A question like "should this bill be passed" is a value question.

You can say yes after having clear and accurate information about the bill and what it will do, based on your beliefs and values about what is most important (example: its more important to do anything now because something is better than what we currently have and some help is better than no help - this bill provides some help. Pass it.)

You can say no after having clear and accurate information about the bill and what it will do, based on your beliefs and values about what is most important (example: its most important to first do no harm with new legislation on this issue and then to leave the door open for future improvement by creating a strong foundation of ongoing reform. This bill contains no cost containment measures against out of control rising premium costs, no control over the deceitful ways in which insurance avoids payment by erroneously denying claims or cancelling policies, this bill does nothing about the actual cost of care for the 46 million Americans it dumps into the hands of private insurance, thus making it certain that millions of families will go to be each night praying the exact same prayer they prayed before this bill: God, please help our family never to get really sick, because if we do it will bankrupt us. It does nothing to regulate or break up insurance monopolies and continues to leave the insurance industry exempt from anti-trust laws. Thus this bill does not even lay a solid foundation for future reform. It creates long term harm, not help. Kill it.)

See since I believe its more important to focus on long term impact over short term benefits (a value) I look at the facts, correctly identified and understood and conclude something completely different from someone else with a different focus and set of values.

My positions is "hardened" in the sense that the only thing that will move me is new facts. Opinions given by others who share different values that I do are not moving, nor should they be, in my opinion.

[defendandprotect]

13. Was just reading that 50% of public doesn't believe in GW!! RW Propaganda works --!!

And it works on all issues --

Corporate control over the Global Warming debate is not letting go --

ExxonMobil was called out by the Royal Academy of Science less than two years ago

for their lies, misinformation, disinformation -- propagandizing to distort facts in

BILLION dollar campaigns. Certainly hasn't stopped them!

I try to hold confidence in the public -- for instance, who have we really "elected"

over the past 50 years considering that the voting computers began coming in during the

late 1960's? Are Americans dumb? Or have our elections been generally distorted by

computer hacks?

[laughingliberal]

16. +1 nt

[defendandprotect]

11. Sides can change: But no one can deny corporate control over this debate . . .

IF the corporate control were ended --

we could have a more meaningful debate.

Common sense and sanity say that single payer and MEDICARE FOR ALL should have

been considered from the very beginning -- only corporate influence has stopped that sanity.

And replaced it with insanity of insurance and pharma controlling the debate and the outcome!!


In other words, from the beginning, the plan wasn't to do what is right --

the plan was to do what powwer wanted -- corporatism.


Until we elect candidates who are free from corporate bribery and corporate ownership, we

are only involved in game-playing and PR. An exercise to hide corporate control.

Is it hidden? Peek-a-boo? Anyone see it?

[laughingliberal]

18. There is, however, a middle ground

As hopeless as it seems right now, there is still a little time to pressure the WH and the Congress for improvements to the bill. May not help but doing nothing sure as hell won't accomplish anything.

So, every negative word here is seen by the supporters as trying to kill the bill and murder thousands of people a year. Is their position that we should not keep working to get some improvements to the bill? I'm not sure who that position supports but it ain't us.