Why is politics so volatile?

Post Reply New Topic

Today, I was talking to my mom about the heath insurance reform Obama passed. I said it wasn't socialism because we aren't being forced to take their version of health insurance. My mom said, "Well, the companies could drop their health insurance"--which of course (for the time being) is not based on fact. In fact, not knowing what is going to happen and conjecturing them out to the future is stupid IMHO. I mean, in theory, yes she could be right. But in theory I could be right as well. We simply don't know. This is coming form someone who though that Obama was not socialist and now all of a sudden thinks he is, which leads me to call her a fox-news nut (in my head). That being said, if she thought it was the best thing in the world and Obama can do no wrong, I would call her an MSNBC-news nut. My opinion is that the healthcare reform is a "social reform," for better or for worse--and as such, stated that.

My mom said, "Let's not talk about this any more."

My question is: A) Why do people try to use a magical 8-ball and assume that the worst is going to happen, especially when this provision that I mentioned above doesn't take place for 10 years (I think),and B) Why is it such a "horrible" thing to disagree with someone on politics? I just don't get it.

NOTE: This is not meant to be a discussion of Obama's health care reform. What it is is what it is. My question is why was it a "bad" thing to disagree with my mom on this, and why is politics such a bad thing? I love talking politics but it seems like whenever I talk politics with my mom, this leads to her pretty much basically telling me to shut up. *growls* And I don't think that is very fair of her to do.

You have to learn to live with people that have different views from your own. That may be a hard thing but in the end it really pays off. Most of my family and friends have political views very different from my own and I still enjoy beeing around them. You can disagree and have a little quarrel (as I sometimes did) but then latter on you can be friends again. Politics seems to be a important thing but in my opinion it never undermines true friendship. I guess that is an extra problem to aspies because they tend to be rather inflexible in their views.

I think it comes down to the fact virtually everybody who holds political views are convinced that their views are right and everybody else's are wrong. Same thing with religion.

Politics are so volatile because the issues that make up political discussion are the ones that define our philosophy and morals. Of course we think we're right, we always do, but some some people go the extra mile to say, either implicitly or explicitly, "I disagree with everything you stand for because everything you believe is stupid." My girlfriend thinks I do this when we talk politics, even though I try really hard not to. Mutanatia, I have a feeling your mom would say the same about you.

I think it's situation-specific. Our society has become so polarized by the actions of two parties in power that there no longer seems to be any middle ground.

This all started back during Reagan's time as president. He had a way of rallying conservatives and getting those people behind him on a number of economic and moral issues during an extremely excessive and decadent time (DAMN I loved the 80's!). Bush failed to keep that momentum going, and I think a lot of growing resentment from the Reagan era and a split in GOP voters led to Clinton's election. Meanwhile, there was a growing number of Republicans in the Congress in opposition to Clinton which forced Clinton to change a lot of his policies, not to mention increasing media attention drawn to immorality in the White House.

Part of the problem is that Clinton's party has often been cool towards the actions of its candidates. Think about it. How often did you ever hear about ethics violations pertaining to Democrats during this time period? Hardly ever. Republicans? Seems like they were rife with scandal. It's not that Democrats weren't causing problems. You can't get in trouble if there aren't any standards in place! So another reason for why politics has become so explosive is all the hypocrisy coming from the left wing.

Along the lines of polarization, much of "Dubya" Bush's support was drawn from the religious right and the family values platform. There was a brief period of new patriotism after 9/11 that kept the heat of the Bush administration for a while, but it wasn't long before the media attacks resumed. But Republicans were firmly established in the Congress by the end of the Clinton era, so anything fitting in the right wing agenda passed. It didn't help that as the GOP started losing ground in Congress near the end of Bush's second term, they resorted to reconciliation to get measures passed much to the ire of Democrats.

Obama's election as well as the former Democratic "supermajority" in the Senate is obviously a reaction to Bush policies (speaking as a Republican, I never thought McCain would have been our strongest leader. Come on, guys, is this really the best we can do?). Conservatives want to hold on the the spirit of the Reagan era, while liberal Democrats appear to simply be supporting policies that are the extreme opposite just for the sake of separating themselves as much as possible from the GOP. I really do think that using reconciliation to pass such sweeping legislation (which has never been used to this degree before) is a revenge tactic meant as a slap in the face to the minority party. Because of the extreme stances of both parties, and because so many voters buy into it, massive fallout is inevitable.

But the main point of contention (and why politics is so explosive right now) is that our Congressional leaders are voting strictly along a party agenda. Their job is to vote according to the will of their constituency. There is obviously such a public outrage over what is happening with health care, and I for one can't understand why Democrats are ignoring this fact. I think this failure will cost many their seats in the upcoming mid-terms (don't forget about the unprecedented results of the Massachusetts special election!).

So you have polarization, reactionary politics, revenge tactics, and a Congress that refuses to vote the will of the people. Even worse is that much of what is being proposed is unconstitutional. Congress CANNOT require the people to buy health insurance! They can't require us to buy ANY commodity, for that matter. The states, however, can require certain things--car insurance, for example. But keep in mind that auto licensing and registration are privileges, not rights, and your use of highways by motor vehicles carries with it a responsibility to your passengers and other motorists. If you want to legally get out of paying car insurance, the answer is simple: Stop driving (just because I could, I actually took my bike to work for a few months one year. Saved much fuel). With health insurance, it's not quite so simple.

To get out of legally paying for health insurance, what can you do? Stop living? Well, that's actually an option in some states now. I read about a cancer patient who was denied coverage for an expensive life-saving treatment option but was offered euthanasia! There are many people who are patently against paying for abortions through taxpayer funds, and there will soon be an executive order against such funding. The next president, however, has the authority to lift the order. This means that people will be forced to support something that many feel would violate their religious beliefs; and last time I checked freedom of religion was protected in the Constitution.

So when you weigh the issues against popular sentiment, religion, and protections guaranteed us in the Constitution, it should be easy to see how explosive politics can become in a highly polarized society.

Becasue Human politics is basically ape politics is basically primate politics

just dress up a monkey in a nice suit and put him in office. the world would be better off.

so-called conservatives would certainly deny you the right of euthanasia on the public dime, but while smirking up their sleeves wouldn't hesitate to suggest that one could always have the decency to discreetly off themselves away from public view so as not to be a spectacle. and if one cannot afford health insurance or is barred for pre-existing conditions, well then the only option outside of winning big in the lotto versus financial ruin, IS simply to suffer and die when some major disease comes along. the emergency treatment and active labor act of 1985 [EMTALA] allows a "back-door" into ruinously expensive tertiary care for the indigent/homeless, but for the struggling working class/lower middle class it is a recipe for bankrupcy. what a choice - bankrupcy or death - a choice no humane society would condone. but we are not a humane society so i guess this is all a moot-court thing.

My point was simply to expose why it is politics rattles so many cages these days, not to get into an argument for one side or another. But since auntblabby brought it up...

To be perfectly honest, I do have more conservative leanings, and that has more to do with certain moral issues. But it would be foolish for any decent liberal or conservative to deny that there's some dirty stuff going on with both sides. I'm also not going to say that the system is fine the way it is, either, because I know first-hand how awful it is.

Before I got married, I took a job working for a school. Pay was good for a teaching job. Public-school benefits were good, also--health insurance, dental, etc. I had a nice public employee retirement fund. A year later I got married after she finished college. I started having problems at work. Basically my boss was telling me how to do my job, and I couldn't handle that. So I took a job at a private school. Lost benefits, took a pay cut, but still doing OK. Even had a baby.

Two years later, all of a sudden I'm "not the right fit" for that school, so I start teaching private one-on-one piano lessons. The pay sucks, but I figure business will pick up if I stick with it. Within a few months, I get an offer to expand to a college campus extension. My wife has a good job with benefits, so we CAN still afford the 5-bedroom. Another baby on the way.

Wife has complications with pregnancy. All of a sudden, things aren't working out at her job. Boss tells her "go home, we'll work it out later." Wife has premature baby, which insurance covers (having the baby), but baby has to spend the next three weeks in NICU. We give insurance a call. "Oh, you had to sign these papers within 72 hours to cover the baby." WHAT??? 72 hours later we were still recovering from a section! The baby comes home. Within a week, wife's final paycheck comes in the mail with a pink post-it note indicating such. Insurance is dropped with the job.

So here we are, two people without work, no way to get work, two babies to take care of, and a mortgage we can't pay.

And then we have social workers knocking on our door because someone who doesn't like us reported us to CPS! We were lucky, by the way, because we could clearly show that our house was safe and that we took good care of our kids in spite of circumstances. There are many parents out there in the same situation that have their children taken away--and can't do anything about it!

Anyway... We put our home up for sale and determine to hold out as long as we can. The house sold in May, but we didn't have anywhere to go. The four of us were homeless for 10 weeks living off what was left. We finally bought a trailer and a lot, paid in cash, just outside the city limits and we've been there ever since. But at least we don't have a $1,000 mortgage! Wife finds a job. Things are a LITTLE better.

Meanwhile, we're over $30,000 in debt. Wife is talking bankruptcy. We argue about it a few times, but I convince her not to. We're just holding out, paying what we can, and celebrating small victories. For example, car note will be paid off by December, as will some minor surgery for our son. Student loans never got interrupted. As far as collection agencies go, well, we're scared to death. But I think most of them know they are powerless to do anything about it. You can't squeeze blood from a turnip. And anything they CAN do would only interfere with our ability to pay those bills.

So yeah... The system is a joke. You can get insurance, but you have to wait at least a year before you get pregnant. When you have the baby, it's not automatically covered. We also have to worry about the fact that many OB's don't allow VBACs, which these days is antiquated backwards thinking. Medical expenses are entirely too high. Period. I do agree if doctors and insurance companies aren't doing something about it, it's only fair that government regulation step in. Did you know that insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust laws? And those of us, like myself, who rarely even need to go to the doctor will never spend enough on medicine and doctor's visits to exceed the deductible. So if we aren't getting any benefits, why pay the premiums?

Fix the system. But do it the right way. We can barely afford food, much less doctor visits. Heck, we learned enough about childhood diseases and problems with our first child that it's been smooth sailing with our second--and it's our second child that's been bringing home the exotic stuff! We don't worry about it, we just deal with it. So why make people like us bear an even greater tax burden? Why force us to buy insurance when it will create a hardship (supposedly there will be subsidies and exemptions, but as often as we've been denied assistance when we asked for it, we know better)? More importantly, why impose those things on everyone else when certain liberties have always been granted to us by the Constitution? These are the kinds of things the Fox News nuts are worried about because it echoes the same kinds of situations that led to some of the most horrible, tyrannical governments in the 20th century.

To my knowledge, a lot of the other issues with health care have been worked out. The abortion language ought to be eliminated (my opinion, of course, not trying to start a fight), and the insurance mandate should be thrown out. The student loan thing... Well, I hate dealing with those people. But I also feel that if the federal government can take over those kinds of things, they can take over anything they want. Am I the only one that finds that a little frightening?

Sorry for the soapbox. But this issue and the way it's being handled is scary. I also don't mean to sound like an ignorant fanatic. But I'm speaking as one who has actually stood in line at the health department and picked up baby formula from the WIC office. Anyone out there with small children, take them to the health department on day for their shots. It's not a friendly place! And make sure you take the day off, too. You'll be there a while. I've also been in the emergency room where people are lining up to get Tylenol for a headache or their little girl's tummy hurts. My wife is bleeding out from placenta previa, she and the baby could die without immediate surgery, and I'm getting yelled at because I got someone else's place in line! I can't imagine what would happen if the emergency rooms started to look like the health department, and the health department is a result of direct government involvement. I say speak and vote your conscience. You don't have to agree with everything I say, obviously. But I would encourage anyone and everyone who can to get out there and see for yourself what's going on. These people who want a lot of these reforms clearly don't have a good picture of what life is like for the "little people" like us.

OK... I'll shut up now.

don't go away, you were really in the middle of a steamin' stemwinder there you have an overflowing plate. you are dealing with it stoicly and with resourcefulness. but there are lots of folk in similar situations who for whatever reasons lack your resources [internal and otherwise] for coping in the strong manner you described. i myself am even more of a "little people" than you are, you are rich compared to me. it is for THESE folk that social services such as expanded health care/enhanced health care financing exist. unfortunately, people like you who manage to cope effectively are often forgotten. however, the newly enacted health reforms are also supposed to help folk like yourself [families who make up to $88,000 per annum], but you have to wait at least 4 years for this to take effect, a bummer. it is a "chevy" plan but that is better than "going on foot", IOW better 2014 than NEVER.
i am not sure which of the basic reforms you object to- is it the ban on pre-existing conditions clause? if it weren't for that, nobody would insure me. is it the part about everybody having to contribute? sure, the insurance companies behave like beelzebums incarnate [some would say they ARE satanic], but since everybody and their brother said "NOOOO!! !" to adopting anything resembling the canadian system [which shuts the mercenary insurance companies out], mr. insurance man is the only game left in town which is in a position to handle the medical financing. pick your poison- either uncle $am$ dime or mr. in$urance's dime [from our pocketbooks] pay for our healthcare - which do you consider the lesser of two evils? either way your money is going to one or the other. and if you don't want insurance how then are you going to be able to handle the 5 or 6-digit financial ruin which results when something medically bad happens? you can say you are not your "brother's" keeper but what happens when your "brother" happens to be indigent and runs up a $200,000 hospital bill that he will never be able to pay and so instead it gets added incrementally to your [and my own] medical bill anyway? what if EMTALA is choked to death [on the conservative wish list] and the diseased indigent are dumped out of ERs onto the street where everybody could catch TB or some other awful comunicable disease from them, how would you like that? it is penny-wise and pound-foolish to scrimp on universal healthcare in which public health is an integral part. there is just no avoiding the fact that we are all in this together. some kind of reform had to happen eventually, as the system could not keep going on its current path and not eventually fall down due to not enough people able to pay enough money into it to keep it going. we kicked this can down the road until the pavement ended in gravel and rocks. now was the time to "get her done." do you seriously believe the repubs claims of wanting to "start over"? what they really want is to STOP over! former repub senator bob packwood, upon defeat of the 1994 clinton plan, was quoted as saying, "now that we've [GOP] killed healthcare reform, we must insure that our fingerprints aren't found on the corpse!" what is ironic is that the obama plan is functionally similar to nixon's [YES, NIXON!] own plan that his own short-sighted party shot down from under him in his first term. just think of all the unnecessary 40 years' worth of pain which could have been avoided if folk's better natures prevailed back then and nixon's plan was passed.

I don't think it was so much a revenge tactic as it was just about the only politically feasible way to get the bill on the President's desk. The Republicans were united in their opposition to the healthcare-reform bill, and Congressional Democrats do not have the same party discipline as Republicans, so many (fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats, anti-abortion Democrats, et al.) wavered. The Democratic Party has made gains over the past few election cycles by reaching out to a more conservative demographic, where they may have simply ceded to the Republicans before: Nascar Dads, Security Moms, et al. This means the Democratic Party is ideologically diverse.

Many Democrats and other progressively minded folks passionately believe in the need for sweeping healthcare reform (much more systematic than the bill that got passed); Republicans, as part of their free-market ideology, do not see how the government could play a role in improving people's lives here.

Again, Congressional Republicans have voted as a bloc on healthcare reform; Democrats have dithered. Much of the outrage is being stirred up by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin. They have really spread the fear about reform. Politically and monetarily, there's a lot at stake, and the industries most impacted were fighting for their lives (or at least a guaranteed supply of fresh customers).

Many people feel the mere teaching of evolution, the Big Bang, or other scientific theories violates their religion. I've heard that pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions for things like birth-control pills, morning-after pills, and erectile-dysfunction pills if they feel it is against their religion. That's pretty much nonsense if you ask me. I don't want to be rushed to an emergency room if I'm injured and unconscious and given ineffective treatments because the doctor on staff believes in homeopathic remedies, for example!

My psychiatrist once told me that brain studies have shown that people use the same reasoning systems when they talk and think about politics that they use when they are in an angry mob. Effectively what he said was that people suspend normal reasoning for heated passion when it comes to politics, and it's pretty easy to see that from there you have people like the Tea party folks making & believing very illogical claims about 'death panals.' Or if you want an inverse example look at how people on the left refer to those folks as 'tea-baggers.' Despite being hilarious, it is a good example of passionate reactionary behavior, and not logical thinking. In short, when people are discussing political matters, there is a good chance they're not playing with a full hand.

Auntblabby:

I think you and I are likely on the same page AND on the same sinking boat!! ! Thanks for the encouragement.

And yeah, we're a family of 4 living on less than $30k. We've lost trust in a lot of people, not the least of which include government leaders, insurance companies, and banks.

I'm not going to say that healthcare reform doesn't need to happen. I'm with you on the whole "blank page" issue. I think the GOP idea of starting over is the best plan IF they're sincere about it, and I get the idea few people except the Sarah Palin fans out there really believe that they are sincere.

I'd really like to know how many in Congress have ever truly experienced what we have and have lived homeless, no job, and no idea how they'll make it through the next day. How many of them can say they've been pushed to the brink of ruin because of one emergency surgery? How many of them are walking on water with little left than their faith and a dollar or two in their pockets? That's both sides, now. Sure, they might "talk" to these people, or they might have committees and task forces that take some polls. But they don't "know." They are out of touch with their constituents.

So no, I'm CERTAINLY not making a case for stopping health care reform dead in its tracks. I'm just saying that certain conditions of it do more harm than good and, even worse, set VERY bad precedents.

As to what offends me about it: While health care certainly should be made more accessible, nothing like that should be IMPOSED on us. As I mentioned before, it's not like auto insurance, which is typically (universally?) state mandated. Well, that's fine. If you don't like it, get a bicycle or take public transportation (if you're in a big city and you have that option). What the states DON'T do is require every citizen to own a vehicle. How awful would that be! In metropolitan areas, for example, owning a car is not always necessary or even practical (finding parking, for example). Not everyone can afford a car. So what sense does it make to require citizens to buy a car so that everyone will have to buy insurance?

Health insurance is different because there's nothing standing in the way of it (as a car would for auto insurance). My personal medical expenses over the last 10 years has been less than $300, and that includes what I've spent on OTC meds for cold medicine and the occasional pain reliever--and there was that staph infection on my armpits I had a doctor look at. I took antibiotics until they were gone and had a couple flare-ups of it since then which I self-treated with a hot bathcloth. Scary. Anyway, by contrast, I must have spent into the thousands during the 3 years I was a public employee on insurance that I never used. How fair is it, then, that I have to pay so much for something I don't use and receive no benefits from when I do need it (by not exceeding the deductible, which is always too high anyway)?

Jobs evaporate so quickly these days, and insurance coverage disappears with them. What happens to people who lose their jobs (and income) and can't buy insurance? They get fined? OK, supposedly there are provisions/exemptions. But even when the situation improves, you'll still have that hanging over you, and you might just find that it's still a hardship even when the government tells you it's not. Government agencies and government-funded agencies are very adept at throwing paper at you to either make you give up or find a loophole through which to deny benefits. My favorite one is when they say "We need your proof of income." "Um, I don't have any income, that's why I'm here." "Well, we're sorry, but we can't help you without proof of income." WHAT???

I've already said too much. The main point is the unfairness of the MANDATE that all Americans possess insurance. I can't speak for the small business owners (who will be HEAVILY penalized for not providing insurance) as I now work independently--a company of 1. Right now the insurance people are complaining because it will change how benefits get paid out and who will get coverage, i.e. no one can be denied. I think they had that coming. But they do end up the winners here because they have a guarantee of a customer base.

Government take-over of student loans... I'm ambivalent about that one. I hate the banks, and I think what's about to happen has been a long time a' comin'. But I also don't want to see too much government takeover in the private sector. That's another discussion I don't really want to get into.

There's also something else that bothers me about this whole thing. As I'm sure you know, the states are already taking the new laws to the courts. The only way that the laws might be considered constitutional is that the fines imposed on the uninsured and on business owners are cleverly disguised as "taxes" and it's up to the IRS to enforce it. This is a dishonest way to push a party agenda that doesn't reflect the will of most Americans. It also means that we are being taxed by a government body that doesn't truly represent us, reminiscent of the "No taxation without representation" pretext for the American Revolution.

As far as religious reasons go, I don't think that's the main issue here. But there's a big difference in sending a child to school and hearing about evolution theory and forcing that child to actually believe it and forcing parents to concur with what is taught in school. It is possible to disagree respectfully (my teachers always said that what they were teaching was in the curriculum and in the scientific establishment, not necessarily what we had to believe and not necessarily true--another topic). As far as what goes on in schools, the courts more often have found that a student's first amendment rights do NOT stop at the front door of the public school. Public funding of abortion, however, whether directly or indirectly, steps WAY over the freedom of religion line. It means people have to violate their principles. Whether you agree with religious ideals or not isn't the issue. Many re-interpret the "freedom of religion" statement as including "freedom FROM religion." Assuming you're non-Christian, you probably wouldn't like it much if I tried and successfully started a new Inquisition in America. But that's what's happening. We feel that something which clearly violates Christian principles is being IMPOSED on us by using our tax money to support it. I know, I know, executive order. Christians are encouraged to pay their taxes. But at issue are beliefs in the sanctity of life and, with perhaps lesser emphasis, avoidance of idolatrous practices (abortion eerily resembles the ancient Canaanite practice of child sacrifice, something that in ancient times might be a convenient excuse for getting rid of an unwanted child). It's bad enough that abortion is legal, but at least we have the choice NOT to have an abortion or support it's practice. Taxpayer funding of abortion bypasses this choice would hinder a Christian's ability in good conscience to "render unto Caesar..."

I'm not saying Republicans and Christians are all clean, pure, and perfect, either, any more than anyone else with differing viewpoints. There are hypocrites on both sides. But in understanding all the turmoil that has happened and will continue to happen, these points of contention need to be understood and appreciated. Otherwise, there will never be any good solutions that truly work (and are right) for the most people.

Neurotypical people get defensive and even hostile when they adhere to certain beliefs for emotional (irrational) reasons and these beliefs are questioned or attacked because the cognitive dissonance created by actually pondering ideas contradictory to their frame of reference makes them feel lost. Aspies are used to adopting new belief systems when old ones are proven to be wrong, but many neurotypicals are frightened by losing even the most irrational beliefs instead of replacing them by more rational ones, especially if those irrational beliefs help them advance in life or have no effect on their quality of life.

If you want all hell to break lose, just start a conversation about politics.

or religion, for that matter. that is why in polite mixed company, those 2 topics are traditionally off-limits.