Why are people so ready to believe fearful things?

Because they are spoon fed these ideas from scare-monger conservative radio jocks. It amazes me what people will believe simply because they are told to. It truly boggles the mind.

@AstroChuck OK, but why do they believe those people and yet totally disbelieve people recounting the facts?

It’s amazing to me how fearful people are of folks who have opinions (perhaps poorly founded, but then that should be easily defeated) and are energized to enter the debate.

—

Really, the only thing I fear in this is that our legislators don’t feel the need to actually read, let alone comprehend, thousand page opus bills before voting on them. Either way!

In my experience it seems that reason only effectively works when the listener is above a certain level of intelligence, and emotional appeal works when the listener is of low intelligence. Maybe it’s not just intelligence, but willingness to accept new ideas and investigate and think for oneself (which in my experience does correlate with intelligence). That is to say, no matter how much facts and logic you have (everyone knows the concept of “death panels” is ludicrous and laughably false), the recipient has already been affected by the emotional appeal (in this case, as it is in most cases, fear) and thus they will discredit/ignore your evidence, or even worse, they will use it to confirm their initial fears even though the evidence clearly says the fear is misguided. This is well documented, including in my often recommended book “Risk, the science and politics of fear”, and in the results of a scientific study into confirmation bias and how our brains interpret data… I’ll see if I can find a link to that latter article.

Edit, who am I kidding, I read so much it’ll be impossible to find it, and it was a PDF so I can’t just search my history. But a last comment about the entire situation… it seems many people are not only content but pleased and proud to not have to think for themselves. I would have to include every viewer of Fox News here because my god does that network just shit streams of misinformation and awful crap all the time… Glenn Beck, enough said. And I don’t think it’s at all a coincidence that many of the people in hysterics about the “death panels” are ones who view this station.

it all comes down to evolutionary benefit.

you live longer if you’re afraid of something you don’t understand.

I must be really out of touch with the news because I have never heard of this “death panel” concept. Could somebody please explain what this is and why people believe in it?

@robmandu If our legislators aren’t reading the bills that they are required to vote on, then what are we paying them for?

I think it is the same as conspiracy theorist crackpots (the ones with aluminium foil hats, no tthe ones who do serious research).
Most of these people already have formed their opinion (the healthcare reform is bad, obama is a muslim, etc) and they will jump at anything that goes along with their opinions and reject, ignore anything that contradicts it.

@ABoyNamedBoobs03 I don’t see the evolutionary benefit in that. What if the thing you’re afraid of is beneficial to you? Case in point: people who distrust modern medicine because they have been taught to believe in faith-healing do not live longer.

Life is much more interesting if you believe folks are out to get you. It gives you more to talk about if you think there are a lot of conspiracies going on.

Besides, the scare stories are generally communicated in simple words and simple concepts, so they are much easier to understand than the truth.

@Marina- Because they aren’t interested in facts unless they support their beliefs. These are minds built a million years ago. If they believe the Earth is square because their god or hero said so, even when facing proof otherwise, they’ll cover their eyes and ears and continue to defend their position. I see no rational thought behind this. In fact I would go as far to say there is no original thought whatsoever. It’s simply intellectual laziness.

better pull up a chair. dalepetrie’s writing.

ignorance and/or distrust

@peyton_farquhar Read this link

Excerpt: “At issue is a 10-page section of a 1,000-page House health care reform bill on “advanced care planning consultations.”

These consultations would reimburse a doctor for talking with a patient once every five years about what kind of care they want near the end of life.

Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska, called this “downright evil,” and asserted the elderly would have to stand in front of a “death panel so [President Obama’s] bureaucrats can decide… whether they are worthy of health care.”

@peyton_farquhar – the “Death Panel” is an idea floated by everyone from Sarah Palin, to Newt Gingrich to Michele Bachmann (right there any thinking person should realize it’s bullshit, but I digress). Basically their argument is that our government can’t be allowed to take over health care because what will happen is the elderly and sick/developmentally disabled kids (like Trig Palin) will be considered to be too much of a burdon to pay for with our system and they will be denied care, so it’s effectively like a “death squad” killing all the old, infirm, retarded, sick, etc.

So now imagine you have a kid with Down’s Syndrome and you hear a mother of a kid with Down’s Syndrome say that this plan will deny care to YOUR kid…you get an emotional response, not a rational one, and that makes it far easier for you to buy into the fear while remaining ignorant of the facts. Now someone calm and collected says, “that simply isn’t true”, your emotions have been fucked with and you’re thinking, “this asshole is just saying move it along, nothing left to see here, show’s over” and trying to sweep the whole thing under the carpet. And thus the irrational lies triumph over the rational logic.

This is what politics is all about (and why I’d never be a politician). This is why every Presidential campaign is about scaring voters into thinking your opponent is going to harm you or someone you love, rather than trying to make a convincing argument about why their plans are the best. You hear, “I know this will work,” that statement can come with pages of facts that if you were so inclined you could look through, think about and say, “yep, seems logical to me that this is what we need to do.” But your opponent accuses you of eating puppies, and all of a sudden every dog lover in the world is appalled and offended by your very existence, and thus even though your opponent has evil plans to say, I don’t know, give away the fortunes of the US to the wealthy benefactors while destabilizing the middle east so we can some day control their oil and take over the world, he still wins the election.

There is actually one provision in the House bill right now that says people on Medicare will be provided with services once every five years for end of life planning, which means wills and living wills…if you slip into a coma do you want your kids to pull the plug or use heroic measures, that sort of thing…how are you going to achieve continuity from one generation to the next. But some anti-reform opponents have referenced this provision saying that every five years, the government is going to try to force you into euthanasia once you get old so they don’t have to pay for your care! This was the genesis of the “Obama death squads”. And everyone who has an elderly relative, all it takes is to hear that this bill says that people will be encouraged to euthanize every 5 years once they get old will be more than ready to think, well that’s not right. People just don’t think by and large that their leaders would lie to their faces like that. They think yes, they play politics, they misconstrue certain things, they accentuate the positive in themselves and the negative in their opponents, but they wouldn’t make up something like THAT.

Dishonest politicians though they decry what the Nazi’s did, learned well from Goebbels, who said, “when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.” That has been the game plan of those who wish to keep up the status quo.

So, to dissect what is going on here, first of all, what Obama is trying to get passed is health care reform that works WITHIN our current for profit structure, but which provides as an OPTION the ability for an uninsured person to obtain publicly financed health insurance (like Medicare) or publicly financed health CARE (like we give to our Veterans). First off, they start off with the assumption, an incorrect one, that what they are arguing against and what Obama is arguing for is a Public Health Care System. What Obama is arguing for is a Private Health Care System with both Private and Public insurance options…BIG DIFFERENCE. So once they know they’re speaking to the uninformed (who if they were informed would already KNOW that Obama wasn’t trying to nationalize our entire medical system), they can start telling all sorts of lies about it. They can point to the worst case examples that have ever happened in any country which has either a Public Health Care System (UK, France) or Publicly financed health INSURANCE (Canada), and they know people who aren’t smart enough to realize we’re not even debating this, SURE as hell aren’t smart enough to realize the differences between Publicly Financed Care and Publicly Financed Insurance. So they get people all whipped up (because their goal is to kill ANY reform…it would really mess up the profit margins of the people financing their rhetoric), thinking that the US is going to nationalize care, and then they take the worst things that have ever happened in any system (just saying long lines gets a lot of peoples’ ire up, but you really have to go for the emotions and tell them that their retarded kids and elderly parents are going to be euthanized…lie big, lie often and they will believe).

So what you get is the people who have the LEAST understanding of what’s at stake and what’s really happening, having the most visceral emotional reactions, not to what’s happening, but to what they’ve been led to believe is happening, and they tend to then look at the purveyors of this “evil” system with suspicion…they’ve already been convinced Obama is a liar, are they going to take HIS word for it when he says he’s not?

It’s standard playground mentality….accuse another kid of being a cry baby, he’ll demand he isn’t then use the fact that he’s “crying” that he’s not a crybaby to prove he’s a cry baby. It’s bullying, and bullying works. And these lying fucks are going all in, because if reform succeeds, they’re screwed…if however it fails, no one will ever know that the lies they told were lies and their easy marks will live to be lied to another day.

God, I wish my doctor would talk to me about end-of-life planning! But to answer your question, I too find it appalling how easily the mob is swayed by fear-mongering. The health care plan is going to so watered down, even if it passes, that no-one who doesn’t want to change to “socialized” medicine will have to. I find it scary that the same people who are screaming about fiscal responsibility are unwilling to look at the fact that our present system is bankrupting us.

@dalepetrie – Man I am glad your hear. Serious lurve!

I ask my mom this all the time, since I was child even. What I’ve discovered is that there is no such thing as facts. People believe what they want to believe; usually whatever it is that they already believe.

Herd mentality just waiting for a loud noise to start a stampede.

The nonsense that I don’t get is the euthenasia thing. A bunch of people, mostly now over 60 are going to vote for euthenasia? And we are all going to be old someday and we support it? Do these folks have the ability to connect thoughts in any kind of logical sequence.?

And what’s with the lady flashing the Bible? Doesn’t it make a pretty big deal about helping the sick, poor and children? I may not be a religious scholar but I don’t remember Blessed are the Corporations. The closest is the moneylenders defiling the temple and making even Jesus lose his cool.

I do feel like religion plays a role. According to the bible, things are only supposed to get worse; we are supposed to be heading for apocalypse, right? People can’t possibly fix their own problems, only Jesus can come back and do that. People that are trying to fix things must be in cahoots with the Devil, right?

So people aren’t going to trust God to end the worid in his own sweet time? If they really believe in God and that Obama is going to destroy the world, why they don’t sit back and let it happen?

@galileogirl because they are thinking “please don’t change my world, i want to sit back and watch it rot, if you try and help humanity I may not get to watch the unrighteous burn in eternal hellfire within my lifetime”.

note: i know this because i can, in fact, read thoughts.

@peyton_farquhar the conscious and the unconscious operate very differently.

thousands of years of evolution aren’t changed in 15. when you see a really angry looking snake that you’ve never seen before do you step over it? no, you go the other way. People who are against things that are obviously beneficial lack what ever intellectual experience that would allow them to realize it in the first place, so if a human, or any animal really, sees something that would most likely drastically change their current existence in a manner they are not aware of, they fear it.

Conflict.

When conflict emerges upon the horizon, human beings erupt into a flurry of activity. Some positive and some negative, but all in all, it appears that ultimately the issue at the heart of it all gets lost in the rhetoric, and the posturing, and then the emotions take hold of the behavior, and we’re all on fire. And fear, yes fear, becomes the most potent ingredient in the entire mix. Because if it is spun with great flair and perfect aim, deep into the hear of the fray, nothing erects the walls of defense faster or brings on the waves of aggression more immediately, than impending disaster and certain doom – fear.

Action – Reaction, and so on…

to answer about the death comitties and health care, because change is scary and its nicer to believe a corporate lie than to believe that something like (oh noes!!) socialism might be in our best interests in regards to health insurance.

well put @FB

A herd mentality, cattle are not that bright.

Hey, look at all the scary email you get about horrible viruses and food scares, and all the stuff they could check out at snopes, but they would rather forward that shit to everyone on their address list, as if it were true.

people, like sheep, follow the herd and are afraid to think for themselves. Why do you think religion is so damned popular?

@dalepetrie I hope you don’t mind, but I copied your well-thought out answer up there, and I am going to share it with a few Republican friends to show them that they are being misinformed. If I could give you more than one lurve for that GA, I would.

Don’t mind at all. Did you get the email from David Axelrod today outlining the facts vs the myths and why we need reform? It’s pretty hard hitting and definitely worth forwarding.

It is not that they want to believe.
But, fear promotes control.

If I cant make a point (MY POINT) I can get crazy and threaten you. Eventually you will back down to avoid a confrontation.

Here’s the data I got from the White House mailing list this morning, I think it really helps further the argument quite well:

8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage

1. Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.

2. Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.

3. Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.

4. Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.

5. Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.

6. Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.

7. Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.

8. Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won’t be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

Learn more and get details

8 common myths about health insurance reform

1. Reform will stop “rationing” – not increase it: It’s a myth that reform will mean a “government takeover” of health care or lead to “rationing.” To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.

2. We can’t afford reform: It’s the status quo we can’t afford. It’s a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.

3. Reform would encourage “euthanasia”: It does not. It’s a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.

4. Vets’ health care is safe and sound: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans’ access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President’s budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans.

5. Reform will benefit small business – not burden it: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.

6. Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform: It’s myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare “doughnut” hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.

7. You can keep your own insurance: It’s myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.

8. No, government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you – and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.

Learn more and get details

8 Reasons We Need Health Insurance Reform Now

1. Coverage Denied to Millions: A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults – 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market – were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years or dropped from coverage when they became seriously ill. Learn more

2. Less Care for More Costs: With each passing year, Americans are paying more for health care coverage. Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have nearly doubled since 2000, a rate three times faster than wages. In 2008, the average premium for a family plan purchased through an employer was $12,680, nearly the annual earnings of a full-time minimum wage job. Americans pay more than ever for health insurance, but get less coverage. Learn more

3. Roadblocks to Care for Women: Women’s reproductive health requires more regular contact with health care providers, including yearly pap smears, mammograms, and obstetric care. Women are also more likely to report fair or poor health than men (9.5% versus 9.0%). While rates of chronic conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure are similar to men, women are twice as likely to suffer from headaches and are more likely to experience joint, back or neck pain. These chronic conditions often require regular and frequent treatment and follow-up care. Learn more

4. Hard Times in the Heartland: Throughout rural America, there are nearly 50 million people who face challenges in accessing health care. The past several decades have consistently shown higher rates of poverty, mortality, uninsurance, and limited access to a primary health care provider in rural areas. With the recent economic downturn, there is potential for an increase in many of the health disparities and access concerns that are already elevated in rural communities. Learn more

5. Small Businesses Struggle to Provide Health Coverage: Nearly one-third of the uninsured – 13 million people – are employees of firms with less than 100 workers. From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. Much of this decline stems from small business. The percentage of small businesses offering coverage dropped from 68% to 59%, while large firms held stable at 99%. About a third of such workers in firms with fewer than 50 employees obtain insurance through a spouse. Learn more

6. The Tragedies are Personal: Half of all personal bankruptcies are at least partly the result of medical expenses. The typical elderly couple may have to save nearly $300,000 to pay for health costs not covered by Medicare alone. Learn more

7. Diminishing Access to Care: From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. An estimated 87 million people – one in every three Americans under the age of 65 – were uninsured at some point in 2007 and 2008. More than 80% of the uninsured are in working families. Learn more

8. The Trends are Troubling: Without reform, health care costs will continue to skyrocket unabated, putting unbearable strain on families, businesses, and state and federal government budgets. Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for health care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance – projections suggest that this number will rise to about 72 million in 2040 in the absence of reform. Learn more

@dalepetrie – that’s what I call back’n it up!

You are only asking this question to see if we are softened up enough for invasion!
Don’t think I can’t tell!
(pointing) Stranger! Stranger!

Self-delusion, in other words, felt really good,” says Lehrer.

@kevbo Thanks. That was a very interesting article, especially the information on the study.

Here’s an article on National Review Online with what is, for me, an important factor to consider:

There is a trajectory of socialism, regardless of the good intentions of many socialists. As [Rush Limbaugh] framed it, you take things such as health care, things that are traditionally understood as within the ambit of individual liberty and free choice; you move such things into the ambit of state responsibility as the welfare state emerges and grows, on the theory that it is government’s responsibility to provide for everyone’s needs (by redistributing resources); as more things are moved from private to public control, the state by definition becomes totalitarian; and, inexorably, the totalitarian state gets bad leaders and the society comes to reflect the policy choices of those leaders.

Now, we can argue until the end of time about whether that trajectory really exists and whether it is inevitable. But however you come out, it is an argument very much worth having. It goes to what kind of society we are going to be, to what the proper relationship between the citizen and the state is.

—

Realize here folks, one day the presidential and congressional leadership will change. Consider what would happen if folks you vehemently despise, like W. and Cheney and McCain and Palin, were to be put in charge of this government-run healthcare system. Do you trust those types of people with your health, your welfare, your lives?

Should we change the current way of doing healthcare? Sure we should. Are you really certain you want politicians who you do not favor, even to the point of wishing impeachment and treason upon them, in charge of it?

I know that I do not.

@robmandu I do not see the progression you discuss in France, Canada, Scandinavia, and other countries. It certainly does not seem to be supported by evidence.

As for your point about the government changing, of course it will. Iremember the last eight years quite sharply.

No matter who is doing it, what is being spread about health care are absolute falsehoods. That seems to me to be beyond politics as usual.

I am happy to talk with people who disagree on the issues. I think people of reason and goodwill can disagree.

Point is, it did happen in Germany once upon a time. Might it ever happen again? Who knows? Are we sure we want to risk it?

Regardless, I agree with your last point. Falsehoods abound on both sides though.

I sure wish everyone could step back from the name-calling and special interest lobbying and just discuss their concerns, real or not, founded or not, and then everyone would learn a thing or two.

Now it’s devolving into who said what first, and what did they mean by that exactly, yadda yadda yadda. Instead of trying to always undermine the opposition’s character, let’s just shoot it out with facts.

—

While I’m wishing for things, I might as well wish for a million dollars, too. (crosses fingers)

@robmandu Exactly what do you think happened in 1920–1930’s Germany that is comparable to anything that is going on in the United States. Oh yes, I remember, a minority of racists continuously used violence to break up legitimate meetings, made death threats against elected officials and spread lies to frighten credulous people.

That’s how the Nazi Party came to power but an understanding of history will allow us to avoid that from happening again.

@galileogirl, I don’t think that’s how the Nazi’s rose to power. It was a populist movement. Many Germans were surprised and horrified to find out what had been happening after the war’s end. Many of those that found out about what was happening to the Jews tried to help.

Try reading the article I posted. The point of it is that Germany of the 30’s and 40’s was a socialist state. Leave the Nazi aspect out of the discussion. It’s merely a distraction to the debate other than to show a possible example of unwanted direction that could be a consequence of embarking on what many people think is a slippery slope when considering allowing our government to nationalize healthcare.

It boils down to whether you trust government to wield this power for all time. Government certainly will not relinquish the power once it has it. If anything, history shows government will expand on it. With that real possibility in mind, and the other real possibility that politicians you absolutely despise and disagree with on every matter of substance might one day hold the reins to that power, many folks are, I think, understandably worried.

I’d even go so far as to say that the most ardent of Obamacare supporters should be wary of this potential… and approach it cautiously.

Legislators purposely not reading the 1,000+ page House bill on this are specifically what should have us all in a fit.

@robmandu I guess it comes down to your article vs my 20 years of teaching World History.

Basic information and facts available to secondary school students

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/

In April, 1920, Hitler advocated that the party should change its name to the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP). Hitler had always been hostile to socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War. This was reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in Germany.

Hitler, therefore redefined socialism by placing the word ‘National’ before it. He claimed he was only in favour of equality for those who had “German blood”. Jews and other “aliens” would lose their rights of citizenship, and immigration of non-Germans should be brought to an end.

In February 1920, the NSDAP published its first programme which became known as the “Twenty-Five Points”. In the programme the party refused to accept the terms of the Versailles Treaty and called for the reunification of all German people. To reinforce their ideas on nationalism, equal rights were only to be given to German citizens. “Foreigners” and “aliens” would be denied these rights.

To appeal to the working class and socialists, the programme included several measures that would redistribute income and war profits, profit-sharing in large industries, nationalization of trusts, increases in old-age pensions and free education.

On 24th February, 1920, the NSDAP (later nicknamed the Nazi Party) held a mass rally where it announced its new programme. The rally was attended by over 2,000 people, a great improvement on the 25 people who were at Hitler’s first party meeting.
_____________________________________

In 1921 Adolf Hitler formed his own private army called Sturm Abteilung (Storm Section). The SA (also known as stormtroopers or brownshirts) were instructed to disrupt the meetings of political opponents and to protect Hitler from revenge attacks. Captain Ernst Roehm of the Bavarian Army played an important role in recruiting these men, and became the SA’s first leader.
_____________________________________

On 8th November, 1923, the Bavarian government held a meeting of about 3,000 officials. While Gustav von Kahr, the prime minister of Bavaria was making a speech, Adolf Hitler and armed stormtroopers entering the building. Hitler jumped onto a table, fired two shots in the air and told the audience that the Munich Putsch was taking place and the National Revolution had began.
Leaving Hermann Goering and the SA to guard the 3,000 officials, Hitler took Gustav von Kahr, Otto von Lossow, the commander of the Bavarian Army and Hans von Lossow, the commandant of the Bavarian State Police into an adjoining room. Hitler told the men that he was to be the new leader of Germany and offered them posts in his new government. Aware that this would be an act of high treason, the three men were initially reluctant to agree to this offer. Adolf Hitler was furious and threatened to shoot them and then commit suicide: “I have three bullets for you, gentlemen, and one for me!” After this the three men agreed.
_____________________________
Hitler admired Goebbels’ abilities as a writer and speaker. They shared an interest in propaganda and together they planned how the NSDAP would win the support of the German people. He edited Der Angriff (The Attack) and used the daily newspaper to promote the idea of German nationalism.

In 1928 Goebbels, Hermann Goering and ten other members of the Nazi Party were elected to the Reichstag. Soon afterwards Goebbels became the party’s Propaganda Leader.

When Adolf Hitler became chancellor in January, 1933, he appointed Goebbels as Minister for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda
________________________________

Your statement “Germany of the 30’s and 40’s was a socialist state” is plain and simply wrong as explained above. To make such an erroneous assertion shows a lack of knowledge or scholarship. I don’t know what denier propaganda you are plugged into but you might want to read some researched, academic history

The Third Reich in Power, 1933–1939: How the Nazis Won Over the Hearts and Minds of a Nation (Paperback)
by Richard J. Evans

Or the eyewitness account

Inside the Third Reich
By Albert Speer

Medicare and the VA are government run healthcare programs that with some problems, run pretty well. In fact, the VA healthcare program is now very effective. I think also we are a long way to go to the government controlling all healthcare in the U.S. anyway. And you are happier with for-profit insurance companies in charge?

I love the guy at a meeitng who told a representative: “I don’t want the government involved in my Medicare.”

There is a discussion to be had of course, but the fear-mongering and ignorance is appalling.

For those who can’t afford private insurance, but don’t meet the guidelines for Medicaid, the Public Option could be a Godsend.

Our medical care comes from the US government (Tricare Prime, Medicare, and the VA) and most of the time we are quite happy with it.

I would imagine all those folks lining up by the hundreds for the free dental and medical clinics would be delighted to get any sort of access to medical care, whether governmental or not.

@galileogirl, thanks for the history lesson.

Look, I’ll stipulate your point which, I think, is that Nazi Germany was not a socialist state by common definition. Indeed a major point of the NRO article is that this argument about how socialism emerged in the Nazi government and what similarity that bears on our situation today of are up for debate either way. So I appreciate your scholarly perspective on this.

I ask in return that you acknowledge that it has little bearing on my original point – which is that ceding control of more and more power to the federal government is a slippery slope. One the authors of the Constitution were wary of and I think wisely so.

—

I leave as a topic for another day how the concept of women’s suffrage (and racism and intolerance in general) played out on the world stage in 1920’s era politics and equanimity under socialist rule.

I will say that ceding more and more power to the govt is a dangerous thing and I did my best to fight it for most of this decade, but I do not agree that the govt “providing for the general welfare”, as stated in the Preamble to the Constitution. is a bad thing. The founding fathers believed in using the Consitution to keep the govt in check.

Also the concepts you pointed out that were beginning to be “played out on the world stage” were being ruthlessly quashed in Germany.

Should I believe any of this:

Canada’s government run healthcare system is “imploding” and is “more precarious than most Canadians realize”. source

—

Or how about:

In the metro area of Vancouver, British Columbia, a paper currently under evaluation proposes cutting over 6,000 surgeries in order to help curtail a possible C$200M budgetary shortfall.

—

Yes, I know Obama’s plan is not a mirror of the current Canadian system. And further I know that there’s no way such a problem is expected to occur. But it could. It might. And we all better be afraid what happens when government is involved… because there’s likely no appeal or if there is, expect it to be slo-o-o-o-o-ow.

—

Or should I shelve my fear? And join those taking comfort in hope alone for a better tomorrow. Trusting in politicians who don’t care to do their job properly to look out and care for me?

“In the metro area of Vancouver, British Columbia, a paper currently under evaluation proposes cutting over 6,000 surgeries in order to help curtail a possible C$200M budgetary shortfall.”
And the difference to the private option is? Private insurance companies would deny coverage for such procedures as well to minimise costs and increase profit, moreso than the public run system. Furthermore, no one would force you into the public option. It is a choice you make. You can have private insurance instead of, or additional to, public insurance.

“Trusting in politicians who don’t care to do their job properly to look out and care for me?”
Why should you trust them any less than insurance companies who are only out for your money?

I have a choice when it comes to private insurance.

I’m not against healthcare reform, per se… just against putting it into a government trust. At least with private sector, there are market forces at play. No one can compete with the government if it so chooses. They make the rules. The rest of us play by them.

But I thought the plan didn’t eliminate your option for private health insurance or the options there in.

It just created opportunities for those who don’t have any let alone a choice.

Harumph!

it is the market forces that make the insurance companies deny you coverage or deny you paying for treatments.
it is apparent that the market forces have not lead to affordable quality healthcare for everyone.
in the new system they would have to compete with the publicly offered insurance to make theirs more attractive.

@ragingloli – That would seem logical to me!

@Bri_L… you’re right. Obama’s current plan does not. That could change on a legislative/executive whim, though. And that’s my main concern.

The government can stop any form of competition whenever it decides to do so. If having a “public option” doesn’t work out, and someone thinks it’s better to legislate/executive order the “private option” out of business, then this plan makes that possibly a huge, giant step closer.

@robmandu – But don’t you think that there is a little to much power in the industry and, even still, the people for that to happen?

@ragingloli, the insurance companies are currently saddled with a lot of government regulation that forces them to offer coverage that many of us don’t need. There are many examples of this, but one is marriage counseling. There are millions of single people with employer-based health care that are paying for marriage counseling insurance because the federal government requires insurance companies to include it.

There’s a plethora of other factors, too. Trivial medical malpractice lawsuits… anyone wanting to be an OB/GYN has to seriously consider the cost of business. The malpractice insurance alone can sink an office. It varies by state to a degree. Some kind of tort reform (carefully done) needs to be examined, too.

And then there’s doctors who are incentivized by government regulation to bill in a certain way so they can ensure they cover their costs (and in some cases maximize their profits).

One could very much make the case that a large component of the current increasing cost of healthcare has been the government intervention to date.

—

The arguments are all those you’ve heard before. And several more besides.

—

I guess my goal here in this particular discussion is to explain that just because people are opposed to Obama’s healthcare plan does not mean they’re necessarily a) ignorant, b) fearful, c) racist, d) stupid, e) uneducated, f) mean.

But that seems to be what I hear a lot from people who cannot understand why folks are worried.

The thing is, I don’t think I’ve heard from any side where people say “No reform at all”. It’s just that folks – like me – would like to see it done another way. A way that does not involve trillion dollar deficits, taxing everyone to death, and relying on an untouchable government bureaucracy to “help me”.

I’m dealing with Medicaid right now. It is awful trying to get anything done. Even a simple phone call is a pain in the ass.

I so don’t want more of that.

then why don’t you just get private insurance?

@ragingloli, not sure I understand which point you’re asking. Will try to answer all ways I interpret your question:

1. I personally do have private insurance.

2. I have elderly family members who also have private insurance and have also paid their own way every day for over 94 years now. It’s those that I’m having to work through Medicaid to help. While they’ve avoided it as long as possible, they have paid their taxes for the benefits and should avail themselves of it.

3. I’m worried that one day, if Obamacare or something like it passes, that the private insurance option will be pushed aside. Then we’re all stuck in something like the Medicaid bureaucracy hell I find myself in now. I don’t wish that on anyone.

consider yourself one of the lucky ones then until you get seriously ill and the insurance company refuses to pay for the treatment.

the private option will only be pushed aside if they, like chrysler and gm, fail to read the signs on the wall and start offering better service to compete with the public option.

@ragingloli, if Obamacare passes, consider yourself one of the lucky ones if you can get anything resembling the level of care most of us enjoy today – even on today’s current public option.

@robmandu – but if it passes wont most of us who have health care just have what we have but possibly at a cheaper price?

@robmandu I honestly don’t get why you are blaming the govt per your examples.

The govt does not require any private insurance company to provide marriage counseling, there may have been some question in the past about whether psychiatric illness was a medical condition or not and generally only limited emergency care is covered by private insurers.

You can’t blame the govt for the high cost of medical insurance. That has to do with the AMA, the ABA, insurance companies and private citizens who fight to keep sensible legislation from being passed because of their agendas.

The govt tries to minimize costs for the most efficient use of resources and that might lead some Drs to play the system-that is on the Dr, not the govt,

If your 94 yo relative has been on private insurance all their lives, why do you have to go to Medicare/Medicaid just now. Did they get dumped by their insurance company? More likely they have been receiving the govt benefit for almost 30 years, taking many more times money out of the system than they contributed to it.

And even though dealing with govt paperwork is a hassle, what if there was not a govt benefit? It would be up to you and other family members would have to provide the home and intensive medical care on your own dime, at a rate of $5,000—$20,000/mo. Thank the govt it is merely a hassle and not a financial disaster for you.

@galileogirl, besides other esteemed flutherites who are doctors here, I know several others IRL and am only relaying what they’ve told me first-hand. They blame the government – in part (there’s a lot of blame to go around) – for some of the high cost.

I don’t know what governments you’ve worked with in the past but “minimized cost” and “most efficient use” are two terms I would say are antithetical to most government that I’ve seen in action.

And now you’re going to attempt to school me on what my relatives’ personal finances and insurance situation is? Please don’t even try. You don’t have the first clue. They lived through the Great Depression. The real one. They have forgotten more about self-reliance than many of us will ever learn. We owe them. A lot.

And finally, I agree to a point… while I don’t know if it would be a financial disaster for me (or my relatives) not to have the option of Medicaid… I do think it certainly would be more hassle that dealing with paperwork and seemingly endless phone trees.

Just want to say that this a better discussion of some of the real issues than anything else I’ve read about. Yay Fluther! (Even when we disagree, most of us do so reasonably and thoughtfully.)

@Robmandu – I honestly appreciate you articulating some actual substantive reasons for being opposed to a public option, and that you can understand that a pubic option is a) not public care and b) is an option, not a mandate, and the fact that you have real world first hand examples is a good thing. And I would never try to tell you what your or your relatives finances are. What I’m really upset about is the fact that you are alone in a sea of loud voices which essentially are saying we can’t have the option of publicly financed insurance to compete with for profit insurance companies. I’d LOVE to see a public debate on the actual issues.

That said, I think there are certainly ways to ensure that a private option never goes away, if the for-profit industry does its job in controlling costs and providing essential services in a way that is more open. Bottom line is, we can’t continue on a path where health insurance costs go up by double digit percentages year on year, where nearly 50 million people have no insurance and 14,000 more a week lose their coverage, where nearly a million people a year file bankruptcy for unpaid medical expenses (making it the biggest source of personal bankruptcy in our country), where over 20,000 people a year die because they have no access to health care, and where countless others are being denied coverage they paid for, subjected to low lifetime limits, are losing their coverage when they become sick or disabled, and essentially are suffering. Millions of people are suffering every day because our health management is in the hands of people who can make money by commercializing health care to the point where it is essentially a luxury item. I believe our health care maintenance should be a right, not a privilege and you seem to agree that we need to do SOMETHING.

But the problem I STILL have with your logic is you are worried about what ifs. And I think the what ifs are valid, and they CAN be addressed without killing a public option. I believe a public option is exactly what it says it is…it is an OPTION. You can still keep your private insurance or you can go on public insurance, but the idea is, it’s there. And here’s the breakdown in logic that troubles me with your what ifs. On one hand, you’re concerned that publicly funded health care would not be as good…it would require more administration (even though the stated goal of the reform is to have less of this), it would be more of a hassle to get care, and perhaps the care would not be as high quality. Now, two things occur to me about this argument. The first is, well, it’s a damn sight better than no insurance at all for the millions who go without it now. The second is, if the public option is not as high quality as private insurance, harder to navigate, etc., then how the HELL is it going to replace the private option, which is your second big what if. Basically it seems to me that if publicly funded health care is both cheaper AND better than private insurance, then yes, we might end up with single payer. But short of it being a better, cheaper option, how is it going to put private industry out of business? Answer is, of course it WON’T. And if it DOES, it will be because it’s a superior product.

So therein lies the problem with these kinds of slippery slope arguments for me, is that one what if always competes with the other, and to achieve the big, bad, scary thing we’re hoping to avoid, you’d essentially need all logic and reason to break down completely so that two contradictory things could happen at the same time. And the other problem I have is that the worst case scenario that people put forth for if, GASP, we had a publicly insurance option, that worst case scenario never seems to be worse or even anywhere near as bad as what is going on every single day in this country right now as we speak. You go ahead and ask any person currently receiving Medicaid/Medicare, who DOESN’T have private insurance whether or not they’d rather have no public option and you will find close to 0% support for that idea. You ask military veterans if they’d like to get rid of the VA and you’ll find close to 0% support for THAT idea. Yet, you’re also not going to find anyone who says that either option is “perfect”. Every plan has a downside, and if you’re going to roadblock ANY reform because maybe there could be a downside, well buddy, your what if better be far worse than current reality, and should have a snowball’s chance in hell of coming to fruition.

P.S. My elderly relatives have literally funded their entire way through life. They currently do have private insurance even at their advanced age and after surviving multiple bouts with cancer and other illnesses.

Don’t fall into the trap of thinking there’s no private insurance option for someone who got sick once.

@dalepetrie, I’m not trying to block ANY reform. I’ve said several times I think the system needs to change. I just don’t think the government plan happens to be the end-all, be-all of possible reform options.

Even if the government plan is the most perfect idea with no downside, I still think we’d need a Constitutional amendment to even seriously consider it. Obviously, that’s not holding any of our legislators back, though.

Oh, and it’s because I’m the “lone voice” here that I keep responding. There’s no discussion if everyone agrees. And I feel there’s a lot of hate/mistrust/lies/fear being spread about anyone who happens to oppose the government’s plan for a public option.

@robmandu – and I gave you credit for not trying to block any reform, some of that was clearly rhetorical. But I’m not sure a Constitutional Amendment should be necessary to create more options for people. I think you can give people a choice in how to manage the way their health care is paid for without restructuring the fabric of our government. I would say that the government plan may not be the be all end all best case scenario, but we need a jumping off point, and I believe that jumping off point needs some sort of option that anyone can get for which no one can be denied, which covers anything medically necessary. Without that, there will be no incentive for private industry to step up and match that level of service/price, which I believe they can do, they’ll just have to get a little less greedy (or maybe a LOT less greedy as the case may be). I simply think that the ONLY way to create a guaranteed insurance plan is if the profit motive is removed, and that likely the BEST way to do that is to have the government oversee it, but from a payment standpoint only, not from a services standpoint. Like I said, I think your concerns are valid and my greatest wish is that the debate that is going on right now would include THIS discussion of the issues which you’re concerned about, and would NOT be about imaginary death panels and forced euthanasia for old people.

@dalepetrie
“But I’m not sure a Constitutional Amendment should be necessary to create more options for people. ”

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

indeed there needs to be no amendment.

Exclusive powers reserved to state governments:
– Establish local governments
– Issue licenses (driver, hunting, marriage, etc.)
– Regulate intrastate (within the state) commerce
– Conduct elections
– Ratify amendments to the U.S. Constitution
– Provide for public health and safety
– Exercise powers neither delegated to the national government or prohibited from the states by the U.S.
– Constitution (For example, setting legal drinking and smoking ages.)

—

I reject the idea that Constitutional amendments are just “too hard”. They’re supposed to be difficult. But if it’s worth doing, let’s do it right all the way.

Neat chart: http://www.donkeylicious.com/2009/08/flowchart.html

@robmandu – what may be the “ideal” way is not possible in today’s political landscape. You would need ⅔ support in BOTH houses of Congress just to get an amendment written, and we live in a world where one party, regardless of the specific beliefs of the individual, particularly in the Senate almost 100% of the time votes lock step with party orthodoxy. At this point in American history, we’d have a better chance of getting ⅔ of the states to ratify an amendment than we would of ever getting the amendment written. If we can’t even have an honest debate where both sides come to the table and come together to make something ⅔ of the Senators can agree on (which will never happen when we’re as divided along ideological lines as we are), you’re not going to get this.

My point is, this is a pressing human rights issue, people are suffering, people are losing everything they’ve worked for their whole lives, people are dying, and it’s happening multiple times every single day. Now if it were a matter of completely ripping out the system we have now and replacing it with something else, that would be a different argument. But what we are talking about is an incremental change to an existing system, which provides additional options that aren’t there. Now if providing these options ends up resulting in the possibility of a fundamental change in our health care system, then yes, we SHOULD create an amendment.

@ragingloli, I’m curious your opinion of the following:

”...Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action: consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money.”

—Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Pennsylvania Representative Albert Gallatin, June 16, 1817

———

@dalepetrie, trying to fast track “important” issues around the necessary pathways specifically laid down to that purpose is folly. It is reckless. By pursuing such a course, your “pressing human rights issue” is one administration away from changing into something unrecognizable and unintended today.

Mark my words, even should Obamacare pass, you will rue the day it was done in such hasty and slipshod manner. It will not work out in the long run.

now that is just mere speculation, and does not deserve the kind of certainty you formulated it with

Okay. Just responding to your positive declarative statement saying, ”...there needs to be no amendment.” That is also speculative… even if it appears to be the prevailing mood of the current legislation.

Indeed, that’s why we have a Supreme Court.

Point is, I have cited a clear source as a foundation for my speculation. Besides legislators that don’t read the bills they vote on, what’s yours?

i referred to the last sentence, that we will dread the day when “obamacare” passes

also:
”– Provide for public health and safety”
obama’s plan would not provide public health. it would provide public insurance. big difference.
the basis for my stance that such a system can work is that most western countries have such systems, and they work. the US could learn from them, their advantages and their flaws, and make an even better one.

Well, duh.

And not to be a stickler, but dread and rue are not interchangeable terms.

Indeed, as with any estimation of future events – which I lay out with the common colloqialism “mark my words” – it’s known to be speculative.

@ragingloli, I disagree. The Obama plan is to provide health care. Not insurance.

Insurance is a tool with which one manages financial risk. There is no financial risk for anyone participating in the public option (not directly at least… taxation is different.)

@robmandu – the problem I have with your argument here is twofold. First, I don’t think a Congressional action which consumes 3 months of public debate is exactly “rushing something through”, nor am I trying to circumvent any laws or Constitutional mandates by so doing. I am saying it is a pressing issue and pressing issues need to be dealt with as quickly as practicable, without compromising quality or efficacy, which is what I believe is happening. The second thing that I take issue with is the “states’ rights” argument. I agree, the states are (wow, @ragingloli beat me to my point just now) given the rights to provide for public health, but providing insurance is providing a tool to pay for health care, it is not providing health. So, I reject your assumption that there is anything hasty or slipshod about it, many very intelligent people have put a great deal of time and effort into getting it right, and I reject the assertion you JUST made that the Obama plan is to provide health CARE and not insurance. That is the fundamental LIE that people are arguing about. Single payer means that the government collects the premiums and pays the bills, but we retain a network of independent doctors, clinics and hospitals where people chose which providers to go to and they work out with their doctors what decisions to make for their personal health care. If you can’t see that distinction, then you are debating something that is not even real, and therefore your rhetoric is as easy to discount as is Billy Bob Jo Jim’s when he screams his head off in a town meeting decrying Obama death panels. Get back to me when you have learned the differnece between the care provided and who pays for it. I’ll give you an example of what we have now to help you make this important distinction. Medicare is insurance, people on Medicare still go to their doctors of choice, the government pays the bills out of the premiums people paid over a lifetime of work. That’s INSURANCE. The Veterean’s Administration is publicly provided care, when vets get sick, they go to their nearest VA clinic (or they go to their own clinics using their Tricare or other publicly financed INSURANCE). And since the public option being discussed is NOT in any way shape or form a set of publicly financed doctors, but an insurance plan that is publicly financed, even IF this resulted in a slippery slope whereby ALL private insurance was replaced by publicly financed insurance, it STILL would not be a Constitutional issue, because the government STILL would not be providing the care.

(sigh)

Thanks for the “Billy Bob Jo Jim” label. Really helps me want to see your point.

Funny how the histrionics, name-calling, and fear mongering seems to all aim in my direction.

I’m not an expert in most things. I’m here trying to explain my perspective and get an understanding of yours.

I believe you’re glossing over a number of salient points. And I do not believe our respective needs are being met at all by our House of Representatives that votes on (and passes!) bills that aren’t even completely written (like the recent Cap & Trade energy bill).

And no, I don’t think three months is near enough time to discuss the multitudinous ramifications of this unprecedented expansion of federal powers into the daily life and liberty of us all.

—

You guys see the insurance companies as The Problem. I agree that often times insurance companies have not upheld their altruistic goals. But moreover, I see government as The Problem historically and that this bill has the seeds of future problems which are difficult to formulate and explain, too.

@robmandu Although I don’t agree with your position, I appreciate the thoughtfulness you are putting into your arguments and your willingness to stick with it. You certainly raise valid concerns.

altruism is not the goal of the insurance companies. their goal is getting your money. altruism is a method employed to achieve the financial goal (to get you to sign the contract). and often they will not employ this method, but instead employ the method of denying payment for treatments, increase fees, force you to choose inferior treatments, while still collecting your money.
they only juggle between altruism and vampirism to maximise profits.

@ragingloli, and failure to uphold contracts or employing byzantine customer service practices will lead to customers taking their business elsewhere.

Employers (and individuals for that matter) change the insurance companies they work with based in large part on operating cost, but also in some measure based on employee feedback and satisfaction. Happens all the time.

An insurance company that consistently follows the practices you describe all the time will not find itself in profitable business for long. I draw an analogy with planned obsolescence employed by American auto manufacturers in the 70’s and 80’s. They’re still hurting significantly by that lingering perception.

@robmandu – my “label” was illustrative of the types of uneducated people who scream loud but say nothing at these town hall meetings, clearly there was nothing like that directed at you, I’ve gone out of my way to state that I respect your opinions, but I do think that you demonstrated a crucial and fundamental lack of understanding a very important difference, one which is also glossed over by the archetype which I invoked via that label.

As for your points about the so called altruism of insurance companies (no such thing), and the idea that a company which behaves in the manner which we describe will not stay in business, I could not disagree more. First off, the current insurance industry is a for profit system, and as such, that doesn’t make it “inherently evil”, nor does it make it in any way shape or form altruistic. Essentially, the profit motive does result in decisions being made to deny coverage, to deny care, to increase rates, to decrease coverage levels, to institute caps on payments, etc. all the time. The problems I and others describe are REAL problems that have been affecting REAL people going on 20 years now. They are not, as you describe your opposition, “difficult to formulate and explain.”

Your argument is essentially that because this bill has the potential (as would ANY reform bill when you get right down to it) the seeds of future problems which we can’t perceive at this time, we should not implement these forms. That’s like saying let’s not fix a system that kills and victimizes people because the fix could conceivably create problems at some future point which if no one addresses them could be bad in ways we can’t imagine at this time. It’s fear of the unknown, and it keeps us from making progress.

And as for your 3 months to put this together, I’d argue that this reform was 15 to 20 years in the making. People working on this have been very cognizant of the problems that exist in our current system and have developed many solutions which they have not had the legislative authority to implement until now. It’s not as if this is a half baked scheme that was just cooked up and pushed through….this is a persistent issue which has been bandied about for years. What has happened in 3 months’ time is that someone has taken the already enumerated list of problems and the already enumerated set of potential solutions and has begun to discuss these problems/solutions with others of like mind who have also been considering the problems and their root causes for years. It’s a matter of discussing the best solutions to the problems and to fully flush them out beginning to end, and it really should include input from the other side, but at this time, the other side is too busy arguing about what ifs that they can’t even describe or articulate, and non issues which have no grounding in reality than they are in even TRYING to quantify the risks.

Bottom line, when you make a comparitive cost/benefit analysis on an issue and various approaches to solving it, well we’ve come up something like this, and we’ve been able to quantify the costs of non-action or too weak of an action vs. the benefits of a public option…we have a list of the pros and cons and potential what ifs for each scenario, we have them quantified in terms of dollars, lives, and human suffering. The LEAST we can expect is a bit more than, “this bill has the seeds of future problems which are difficult to formulate and explain.” If you can’t formulate, explain or quantify the risks, then a) the risks are probably not there, b) if they are there and can be quantified then we honest debate in the place of the fear-mongering we are seeing now would be FAR more productive in allowing us to mitigate those risks at the outset, and c) even if there are risks that at this time can not be foreseen, the same can be said of ANY GOVERNMENT ACTION, and the proper course is to push ahead and deal with unforeseen circumstances as they arrive. Hindsight will always be 20/20, but we can’t let the potential that some other unknown course of action might be better in the long run, stop us from making progress that we have very strong reasons to believe will be effective at meeting our goals.

Most of the criticisms of the Canadian healthcare system are small in number and overall we absolutely love the great feeling it provides. There is equal treatment for all, as good as that can be in an imperfect world, which is fair. Only selfishness would deny that all may have good care, some may not as have good a care as before, but all are treated as equals under the law. I thought America stood for equality, not special status for those with money? Or is the American dream really dead. Obama is right on this one. Open up your eyes and stop listening to the fear mongers with agendas. They are simply wrong.