Obama's Health Care Plan.

[Sovereign]

Unil_mi_tokx, "Freeper" isn't just one person, FYI. It's a whole collection of internet-libertarians who think they're the Next Coming of the Founding Fathers. Their stuff is mostly contained to their website, FreeRepublic, but they've been known to strike out into other areas.

Example: "Freeping" a poll means a flood of people from FR mass-vote in a poll to make it appear comically tilted in one direction. Such mass-voting is one reason why internet polls hardly meet statistical muster most times (a full-fledged intro to stats course would explain all there is to know about statistical validity).

Freeper ideology is something I don't care to get into, but I will warn you that if you do bring these things to some kind of Tea Party meeting, be aware that many will have convinced themselves of the truth of lists like this. Not because someone actually went and checked, but because the lists arouse anger, fear and even hatred. These emotions tend to blunt any tendency to check into the correctness of such a list, as if sheer anger justifies the "facts" on the piece of paper. "This is so outrageous it must be true" is an outgrowth of "The people in 'the other party' do so many horrible things that everything I can find negative about them must be true since they're out to 'get me' and 'destroy America.'"

I'm convinced this whole list was completely made up (save four parts which are partially true) just to get people angry.

Of course, such cognitive dissonance is hardly unique to the Right, the Left does it too. "When we do X, it's good and The People Want It, but when They do it, The People Are Screaming Stop And X Is Satan."

Also, another commonly-repeated one (that my father fell for) is "Page 122 has an exemption that says the President and his family aren't subject to any of this law." The actual content on page 122 deals with the Small Business Tax Credits established under the law.

Unil_mi_tokx, I'm glad you took the time to actually check into this before letting emotions run away with your thoughts on the bill. There are so many people who, as I said before, take anything Bad About The Other Side as some kind of gospel. As if we need more negativity and distortion in US politics...

[Unil_mi_tokx]

I know Freeper isn't one person. I was speaking in somewhat of a metaphor.. or is that a collective adjective....? At any rate, what I meant was - I'll watch out for these people.

Here's the interesting part...

I will warn you that if you do bring these things to some kind of Tea Party meeting, be aware that many will have convinced themselves of the truth of lists like this. Not because someone actually went and checked, but because the lists arouse anger, fear and even hatred.

This list actually came to me via email FROM THE TEA PARTY. You know, I've been raised as republican. Not that I've ever been heavily involved with politics - it's not my cup of tea (heh, that was a pun), but I know the ideologies that I agree with.

I was invited to go to this republican governmental group where they discuss important issues about the government and educate you on who to vote for based on certain things (not telling you who to vote for but to really 'break down the candidates'). So anyway, I attended those meetings for a long while. However, recently, they have become exactly what you said. The chain emails seem like their main purpose is to get everybody upset so you think it is wrong when really it is completely false - which you proved.

And that is why I posted that list because I really don't know. My own party is feeding me things that I'm not sure is truth or lie. Hence why I am almost 19 years old and have not registered to vote. If/when I register - I'm definitely not joining any party. I see that both are out for blood. Since when has leading a nation turned into a blood war between differing ideologies? That's not government. Just as a house divided against itself cannot stand, a self opposing government is not a true republic. It's a democracy, of sorts - the loudest mouth wins - but that's about it.

So again, I would gladly be proved wrong in debate, than become a brainwashed sheep from my own party.

[Huurraaa]

Does anyone know how this reform will hurt the republican party and its interest groups?
To me, both parties are more concerned about money/power than anything else, and I want to know what exactly these two are fighting for this time.

[Sovereign]

Huurraaa as I said before, the usual interest group lineup got scrambled.

Normally, the GOP can count on the insurance companies and medical industry, but not this time. The fight has become more over cost (GOP says it's too expensive, Dems say it will ultimately cut costs) and ideology (GOP says it intrudes too much on the private sector while Dems say such intrusion is necessary to correct market failure). It's not really about interest groups anymore (other than each party's respective faithful, or "base").

The screaming about "Armageddon" by John Boehner (Source, many more exist) arose mostly out of an ideological conflict which led to increasingly overheated rhetoric.

[Huurraaa]

Thanks Sovereign. This and your previous post have clarified things quite a lot.

[rapunzel77]

Thank you Sovereign for your insights into this Healthcare bill/law. I have been hearing all sorts of stuff (the sort of stuff that Unil was referring to) and I have been confused as well. I am very tired of the ideological battles going on right now. Its silly really. No one wants to actually talk to each other. All they want to do is demonize the other side and I'm not sure who to believe. So, I have registered as an independent. I am tired of this silly two-party system. Also, I think that the media has had a role to play in only keeping to two parties and stoking the conflicts on both sides.

[Sovereign]

The claims of "media bias" annoy the heck out of me because it's usually about how "the media hates my political party and is in the tank for the other side." The media is biased, but it's not anything political. It's just what will make the most money. Conflict (or the appearance of it) generates viewers, so regardless of how people actually feel on an issue, it is in the media's interest to create a conflict they can show on the tube.

The media showed all the clips of people lining up to see Barack Obama during the 2008 election because viewers lapped it up (even if these same viewers said it was too much, they still watched). Now, despite the fact that crowds still line up to see Barack Obama (for example, a health care rally in Iowa a few weeks ago), the media doesn't cover it anymore. Some liberals and Obama supporters attribute this to bias (in favor of the Tea Party, who the media tends to cover more nowadays). The reality, to me, is that the Tea Party makes a more compelling story right now and thus generates the revenue these old-school media orgs need to stay alive.

People viewing these clips then believe the "other" side is far more combative than its rank-and-file members actually are. I'm sure John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi have personal stakes in keeping this fight "hot" but most ordinary people don't.