Debate Now Liberalism and Conservatism

[Foxfyre]

That is possible I suppose. But looking at it as objectively as possible, I don't see the 'group think' on the right like it exists on the left.

On abortion: almost 100% in favor of mostly unrestricted abortion laws on the left. Most approve of forcing insurance companies and businesses to provide for it and contraceptives on heathcare policies.

The right is all over the map on abortion though most don't believe government should force private businesses or insurance companies to do anything regarding it or contraceptives.

On gay marriage, the left is 100% unified in supporting it and in punishing all those who oppose it or who even say they oppose it.

The right is all over the map on that one too.

On immigration, the left is pretty well unified that Obama is addressing that appropriately.

On the right, there is much more diversity in the conversations about that.

On government spending, the left is pretty unified that the runaway national debt and huge deficits are not a problem.

On the right, there is much more diversity in what government spending is appropriate.

We can go right down the line issue by issue and see mostly the same phenomena.

I see it on both sides and have commented on it extensively.

What people fail to understand is that when people view politics as identity, they become part of a tribe, and when they become part of a tribe, their ego acts in such a way as to extend their protection of self to include the tribe in a generalized way. The double standards thus created are enormous, as when we engage the world with an "us vs them" mentality, we become so focused on the them that we forget the us.

People on the right too often use the term "liberal" as a simple pejorative. People on the left likewise with the term "right wing". They don't actually understand what liberalism or conservatism actually entail, as they lack the ability to understand politics in terms of principles and ideas. They see it only as identity.

Once a person falls for the notion that it isn't an idea that is liberal or conservative, but a person, they lose whatever objectivity they might claim by way of understanding. They are too invested in the process of polarization to have that objectivity. .

I agree to a point. But again I do think conservatives tend to be more issue oriented--more likely to see the short term and long term consequences of what government does--than are those on the left. Those on the left are much less likely to even be willing to talk about the unintended negative consequences of leftist laws and policies and will more often vote for the title that sounds righteous and noble.

Those on the right--at least those who aren't in the permanent political class in Washington--are much more likely to consider how various legislation will create slippery slopes and unintended consequences. And even the permanent political class does have to at least consider the opinions of those of us who they rerpesent.

And it is thus legitimate to observe the the person votes consistently with the left or right in determining who is the best person for the job.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

That is possible I suppose. But looking at it as objectively as possible, I don't see the 'group think' on the right like it exists on the left.

On abortion: almost 100% in favor of mostly unrestricted abortion laws on the left. Most approve of forcing insurance companies and businesses to provide for it and contraceptives on heathcare policies.

The right is all over the map on abortion though most don't believe government should force private businesses or insurance companies to do anything regarding it or contraceptives.

On gay marriage, the left is 100% unified in supporting it and in punishing all those who oppose it or who even say they oppose it.

The right is all over the map on that one too.

On immigration, the left is pretty well unified that Obama is addressing that appropriately.

On the right, there is much more diversity in the conversations about that.

On government spending, the left is pretty unified that the runaway national debt and huge deficits are not a problem.

On the right, there is much more diversity in what government spending is appropriate.

We can go right down the line issue by issue and see mostly the same phenomena.

I see it on both sides and have commented on it extensively.

What people fail to understand is that when people view politics as identity, they become part of a tribe, and when they become part of a tribe, their ego acts in such a way as to extend their protection of self to include the tribe in a generalized way. The double standards thus created are enormous, as when we engage the world with an "us vs them" mentality, we become so focused on the them that we forget the us.

People on the right too often use the term "liberal" as a simple pejorative. People on the left likewise with the term "right wing". They don't actually understand what liberalism or conservatism actually entail, as they lack the ability to understand politics in terms of principles and ideas. They see it only as identity.

Once a person falls for the notion that it isn't an idea that is liberal or conservative, but a person, they lose whatever objectivity they might claim by way of understanding. They are too invested in the process of polarization to have that objectivity. .

Thank you for posting it for me.

This one's for you (that's Root Beer BTW).

 

[Sun Devil 92]

That is possible I suppose. But looking at it as objectively as possible, I don't see the 'group think' on the right like it exists on the left.

On abortion: almost 100% in favor of mostly unrestricted abortion laws on the left. Most approve of forcing insurance companies and businesses to provide for it and contraceptives on heathcare policies.

The right is all over the map on abortion though most don't believe government should force private businesses or insurance companies to do anything regarding it or contraceptives.

On gay marriage, the left is 100% unified in supporting it and in punishing all those who oppose it or who even say they oppose it.

The right is all over the map on that one too.

On immigration, the left is pretty well unified that Obama is addressing that appropriately.

On the right, there is much more diversity in the conversations about that.

On government spending, the left is pretty unified that the runaway national debt and huge deficits are not a problem.

On the right, there is much more diversity in what government spending is appropriate.

We can go right down the line issue by issue and see mostly the same phenomena.

I see it on both sides and have commented on it extensively.

What people fail to understand is that when people view politics as identity, they become part of a tribe, and when they become part of a tribe, their ego acts in such a way as to extend their protection of self to include the tribe in a generalized way. The double standards thus created are enormous, as when we engage the world with an "us vs them" mentality, we become so focused on the them that we forget the us.

People on the right too often use the term "liberal" as a simple pejorative. People on the left likewise with the term "right wing". They don't actually understand what liberalism or conservatism actually entail, as they lack the ability to understand politics in terms of principles and ideas. They see it only as identity.

Once a person falls for the notion that it isn't an idea that is liberal or conservative, but a person, they lose whatever objectivity they might claim by way of understanding. They are too invested in the process of polarization to have that objectivity. .

I agree to a point. But again I do think conservatives tend to be more issue oriented--more likely to see the short term and long term consequences of what government does--than are those on the left. Those on the left are much less likely to even be willing to talk about the unintended negative consequences of leftist laws and policies and will more often vote for the title that sounds righteous and noble.

Those on the right--at least those who aren't in the permanent political class in Washington--are much more likely to consider how various legislation will create slippery slopes and unintended consequences. And even the permanent political class does have to at least consider the opinions of those of us who they rerpesent.

And it is thus legitimate to observe the the person votes consistently with the left or right in determining who is the best person for the job.

I don't like the generalizations.

I know thinking conservatives...

I know non-thinking conservatives.....

I know thinking liberals....

I know non-thinking liberals....

I know flexible liberals.....

I know flexible conservatives....

Etc.

Etc.

There is a continuum along several different parameters.

You are correct that Conservatives tend to be concerned about possible consequences.

While liberals tend to be excited about possible consequences.

To each his own.....

What I detest is the "Go f#$@ yourself" attitude of the extremist on both sides.

Conservatives are accused of wanting to preserve the Status Quo, but I don't agree. What I think conservatives are more interested in is the idea of small scale changes...with a review of the results. This is the value of having states do things and not the federal government.

But in today's world, it's all about the federal.

And changes (like Obamacare....something I blame conservatives for) come hard because there is an absence of good dialogue and the stopped up frustrations on both sides are like water sitting behind a dam. When the barriers are overcome....i.e. the dam breaks.....things come hard.

So called conservatives at the federal level are worthless. They don't have a message and their spokespeople should never be allowed in front of a microphone.

 

[Foxfyre]

That is possible I suppose. But looking at it as objectively as possible, I don't see the 'group think' on the right like it exists on the left.

On abortion: almost 100% in favor of mostly unrestricted abortion laws on the left. Most approve of forcing insurance companies and businesses to provide for it and contraceptives on heathcare policies.

The right is all over the map on abortion though most don't believe government should force private businesses or insurance companies to do anything regarding it or contraceptives.

On gay marriage, the left is 100% unified in supporting it and in punishing all those who oppose it or who even say they oppose it.

The right is all over the map on that one too.

On immigration, the left is pretty well unified that Obama is addressing that appropriately.

On the right, there is much more diversity in the conversations about that.

On government spending, the left is pretty unified that the runaway national debt and huge deficits are not a problem.

On the right, there is much more diversity in what government spending is appropriate.

We can go right down the line issue by issue and see mostly the same phenomena.

I see it on both sides and have commented on it extensively.

What people fail to understand is that when people view politics as identity, they become part of a tribe, and when they become part of a tribe, their ego acts in such a way as to extend their protection of self to include the tribe in a generalized way. The double standards thus created are enormous, as when we engage the world with an "us vs them" mentality, we become so focused on the them that we forget the us.

People on the right too often use the term "liberal" as a simple pejorative. People on the left likewise with the term "right wing". They don't actually understand what liberalism or conservatism actually entail, as they lack the ability to understand politics in terms of principles and ideas. They see it only as identity.

Once a person falls for the notion that it isn't an idea that is liberal or conservative, but a person, they lose whatever objectivity they might claim by way of understanding. They are too invested in the process of polarization to have that objectivity. .

I agree to a point. But again I do think conservatives tend to be more issue oriented--more likely to see the short term and long term consequences of what government does--than are those on the left. Those on the left are much less likely to even be willing to talk about the unintended negative consequences of leftist laws and policies and will more often vote for the title that sounds righteous and noble.

Those on the right--at least those who aren't in the permanent political class in Washington--are much more likely to consider how various legislation will create slippery slopes and unintended consequences. And even the permanent political class does have to at least consider the opinions of those of us who they rerpesent.

And it is thus legitimate to observe the the person votes consistently with the left or right in determining who is the best person for the job.

I don't like the generalizations.

I know thinking conservatives...

I know non-thinking conservatives.....

I know thinking liberals....

I know non-thinking liberals....

I know flexible liberals.....

I know flexible conservatives....

Etc.

Etc.

There is a continuum along several different parameters.

You are correct that Conservatives tend to be concerned about possible consequences.

While liberals tend to be excited about possible consequences.

To each his own.....

What I detest is the "Go f#$@ yourself" attitude of the extremist on both sides.

Conservatives are accused of wanting to preserve the Status Quo, but I don't agree. What I think conservatives are more interested in is the idea of small scale changes...with a review of the results. This is the value of having states do things and not the federal government.

But in today's world, it's all about the federal.

And changes (like Obamacare....something I blame conservatives for) come hard because there is an absence of good dialogue and the stopped up frustrations on both sides are like water sitting behind a dam. When the barriers are overcome....i.e. the dam breaks.....things come hard.

So called conservatives at the federal level are worthless. They don't have a message and their spokespeople should never be allowed in front of a microphone.

How do you blame conservatives for Obamacare when not a single conservative voted for it? Not a single Republican--conservative or liberal or somewhere in between--voted for it? And at least most continue to oppose it. And because I believe there are reasonable Democrats, I believe most of the damage would have been reversed by now if Harry Reid and the liberal Democrats had allowed the corrective legislation to be debated and voted on in the Senate.

And while I agree that all those of the permanent political class in Washington--both Republicans and Democrats--are entirely self serving, at least the conservatives have to give lip service and some accommodation to the conservatives they represent in order to keep themselves in office.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

That is possible I suppose. But looking at it as objectively as possible, I don't see the 'group think' on the right like it exists on the left.

On abortion: almost 100% in favor of mostly unrestricted abortion laws on the left. Most approve of forcing insurance companies and businesses to provide for it and contraceptives on heathcare policies.

The right is all over the map on abortion though most don't believe government should force private businesses or insurance companies to do anything regarding it or contraceptives.

On gay marriage, the left is 100% unified in supporting it and in punishing all those who oppose it or who even say they oppose it.

The right is all over the map on that one too.

On immigration, the left is pretty well unified that Obama is addressing that appropriately.

On the right, there is much more diversity in the conversations about that.

On government spending, the left is pretty unified that the runaway national debt and huge deficits are not a problem.

On the right, there is much more diversity in what government spending is appropriate.

We can go right down the line issue by issue and see mostly the same phenomena.

I see it on both sides and have commented on it extensively.

What people fail to understand is that when people view politics as identity, they become part of a tribe, and when they become part of a tribe, their ego acts in such a way as to extend their protection of self to include the tribe in a generalized way. The double standards thus created are enormous, as when we engage the world with an "us vs them" mentality, we become so focused on the them that we forget the us.

People on the right too often use the term "liberal" as a simple pejorative. People on the left likewise with the term "right wing". They don't actually understand what liberalism or conservatism actually entail, as they lack the ability to understand politics in terms of principles and ideas. They see it only as identity.

Once a person falls for the notion that it isn't an idea that is liberal or conservative, but a person, they lose whatever objectivity they might claim by way of understanding. They are too invested in the process of polarization to have that objectivity. .

I agree to a point. But again I do think conservatives tend to be more issue oriented--more likely to see the short term and long term consequences of what government does--than are those on the left. Those on the left are much less likely to even be willing to talk about the unintended negative consequences of leftist laws and policies and will more often vote for the title that sounds righteous and noble.

Those on the right--at least those who aren't in the permanent political class in Washington--are much more likely to consider how various legislation will create slippery slopes and unintended consequences. And even the permanent political class does have to at least consider the opinions of those of us who they rerpesent.

And it is thus legitimate to observe the the person votes consistently with the left or right in determining who is the best person for the job.

I don't like the generalizations.

I know thinking conservatives...

I know non-thinking conservatives.....

I know thinking liberals....

I know non-thinking liberals....

I know flexible liberals.....

I know flexible conservatives....

Etc.

Etc.

There is a continuum along several different parameters.

You are correct that Conservatives tend to be concerned about possible consequences.

While liberals tend to be excited about possible consequences.

To each his own.....

What I detest is the "Go f#$@ yourself" attitude of the extremist on both sides.

Conservatives are accused of wanting to preserve the Status Quo, but I don't agree. What I think conservatives are more interested in is the idea of small scale changes...with a review of the results. This is the value of having states do things and not the federal government.

But in today's world, it's all about the federal.

And changes (like Obamacare....something I blame conservatives for) come hard because there is an absence of good dialogue and the stopped up frustrations on both sides are like water sitting behind a dam. When the barriers are overcome....i.e. the dam breaks.....things come hard.

So called conservatives at the federal level are worthless. They don't have a message and their spokespeople should never be allowed in front of a microphone.

How do you blame conservatives for Obamacare when not a single conservative voted for it? Not a single Republican--conservative or liberal or somewhere in between--voted for it? And at least most continue to oppose it. And because I believe there are reasonable Democrats, I believe most of the damage would have been reversed by now if Harry Reid and the liberal Democrats had allowed the corrective legislation to be debated and voted on in the Senate.

And while I agree that all those of the permanent political class in Washington--both Republicans and Democrats--are entirely self serving, at least the conservatives have to give lip service and some accommodation to the conservatives they represent in order to keep themselves in office.

In 1993, we survived Hillarycare. But that didn't take away the fact that we had an issue with delivering Health Insurance. A lot of it had to do with regulations that protected the Insurance Industry.

I had friends whose lives were significantly changed because of changing health insurance (in one case, a stay at home mom had to go back to work at a corporation just to get health insurance for her family because her husbands (where he worked) small business kept cutting back and cutting back and eventually eliminated their insurance. The open market would only provide a plan that was stupidly expensive (in part becasue it had to provide a bunch of beneifits they didn't want).

I told people that this problem wasn't going away.

I advocated that if an insurance company wanted to cancel a person, they should add up the premiums that person has paid.....calculate interest...subtract claims and refund the difference. This practice defies the very definition of insurance.

Where were the GOP and conservatives when they had a chance to take control of the discussion ? NOWHERE.

In the Vaccum we got Obamacare.......

In the vacuum of ignorance, stupidity, or indifference to a real issue, the GOP got what it asked for.....

 

[Foxfyre]

That is possible I suppose. But looking at it as objectively as possible, I don't see the 'group think' on the right like it exists on the left.

On abortion: almost 100% in favor of mostly unrestricted abortion laws on the left. Most approve of forcing insurance companies and businesses to provide for it and contraceptives on heathcare policies.

The right is all over the map on abortion though most don't believe government should force private businesses or insurance companies to do anything regarding it or contraceptives.

On gay marriage, the left is 100% unified in supporting it and in punishing all those who oppose it or who even say they oppose it.

The right is all over the map on that one too.

On immigration, the left is pretty well unified that Obama is addressing that appropriately.

On the right, there is much more diversity in the conversations about that.

On government spending, the left is pretty unified that the runaway national debt and huge deficits are not a problem.

On the right, there is much more diversity in what government spending is appropriate.

We can go right down the line issue by issue and see mostly the same phenomena.

I see it on both sides and have commented on it extensively.

What people fail to understand is that when people view politics as identity, they become part of a tribe, and when they become part of a tribe, their ego acts in such a way as to extend their protection of self to include the tribe in a generalized way. The double standards thus created are enormous, as when we engage the world with an "us vs them" mentality, we become so focused on the them that we forget the us.

People on the right too often use the term "liberal" as a simple pejorative. People on the left likewise with the term "right wing". They don't actually understand what liberalism or conservatism actually entail, as they lack the ability to understand politics in terms of principles and ideas. They see it only as identity.

Once a person falls for the notion that it isn't an idea that is liberal or conservative, but a person, they lose whatever objectivity they might claim by way of understanding. They are too invested in the process of polarization to have that objectivity. .

I agree to a point. But again I do think conservatives tend to be more issue oriented--more likely to see the short term and long term consequences of what government does--than are those on the left. Those on the left are much less likely to even be willing to talk about the unintended negative consequences of leftist laws and policies and will more often vote for the title that sounds righteous and noble.

Those on the right--at least those who aren't in the permanent political class in Washington--are much more likely to consider how various legislation will create slippery slopes and unintended consequences. And even the permanent political class does have to at least consider the opinions of those of us who they rerpesent.

And it is thus legitimate to observe the the person votes consistently with the left or right in determining who is the best person for the job.

I don't like the generalizations.

I know thinking conservatives...

I know non-thinking conservatives.....

I know thinking liberals....

I know non-thinking liberals....

I know flexible liberals.....

I know flexible conservatives....

Etc.

Etc.

There is a continuum along several different parameters.

You are correct that Conservatives tend to be concerned about possible consequences.

While liberals tend to be excited about possible consequences.

To each his own.....

What I detest is the "Go f#$@ yourself" attitude of the extremist on both sides.

Conservatives are accused of wanting to preserve the Status Quo, but I don't agree. What I think conservatives are more interested in is the idea of small scale changes...with a review of the results. This is the value of having states do things and not the federal government.

But in today's world, it's all about the federal.

And changes (like Obamacare....something I blame conservatives for) come hard because there is an absence of good dialogue and the stopped up frustrations on both sides are like water sitting behind a dam. When the barriers are overcome....i.e. the dam breaks.....things come hard.

So called conservatives at the federal level are worthless. They don't have a message and their spokespeople should never be allowed in front of a microphone.

How do you blame conservatives for Obamacare when not a single conservative voted for it? Not a single Republican--conservative or liberal or somewhere in between--voted for it? And at least most continue to oppose it. And because I believe there are reasonable Democrats, I believe most of the damage would have been reversed by now if Harry Reid and the liberal Democrats had allowed the corrective legislation to be debated and voted on in the Senate.

And while I agree that all those of the permanent political class in Washington--both Republicans and Democrats--are entirely self serving, at least the conservatives have to give lip service and some accommodation to the conservatives they represent in order to keep themselves in office.

In 1993, we survived Hillarycare. But that didn't take away the fact that we had an issue with delivering Health Insurance. A lot of it had to do with regulations that protected the Insurance Industry.

I had friends whose lives were significantly changed because of changing health insurance (in one case, a stay at home mom had to go back to work at a corporation just to get health insurance for her family because her husbands (where he worked) small business kept cutting back and cutting back and eventually eliminated their insurance. The open market would only provide a plan that was stupidly expensive (in part becasue it had to provide a bunch of beneifits they didn't want).

I told people that this problem wasn't going away.

I advocated that if an insurance company wanted to cancel a person, they should add up the premiums that person has paid.....calculate interest...subtract claims and refund the difference. This practice defies the very definition of insurance.

Where were the GOP and conservatives when they had a chance to take control of the discussion ? NOWHERE.

In the Vaccum we got Obamacare.......

In the vacuum of ignorance, stupidity, or indifference to a real issue, the GOP got what it asked for.....

I disagree that the GOP was nowhere in the national conversation. They had pushed long and hard for real reform--tort reform, more competition across state lines, etc.--but the self-serving trial lawyers who make up most of Congress these days wouldn't allow such reforms. Also the conservatives in Congress knew that most of the problems would need to be fixed in the private sector because turning it over to big government would make things worse. Turns out they were right.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The next issue is income inequalit

I see it on both sides and have commented on it extensively.

What people fail to understand is that when people view politics as identity, they become part of a tribe, and when they become part of a tribe, their ego acts in such a way as to extend their protection of self to include the tribe in a generalized way. The double standards thus created are enormous, as when we engage the world with an "us vs them" mentality, we become so focused on the them that we forget the us.

People on the right too often use the term "liberal" as a simple pejorative. People on the left likewise with the term "right wing". They don't actually understand what liberalism or conservatism actually entail, as they lack the ability to understand politics in terms of principles and ideas. They see it only as identity.

Once a person falls for the notion that it isn't an idea that is liberal or conservative, but a person, they lose whatever objectivity they might claim by way of understanding. They are too invested in the process of polarization to have that objectivity. .

I agree to a point. But again I do think conservatives tend to be more issue oriented--more likely to see the short term and long term consequences of what government does--than are those on the left. Those on the left are much less likely to even be willing to talk about the unintended negative consequences of leftist laws and policies and will more often vote for the title that sounds righteous and noble.

Those on the right--at least those who aren't in the permanent political class in Washington--are much more likely to consider how various legislation will create slippery slopes and unintended consequences. And even the permanent political class does have to at least consider the opinions of those of us who they rerpesent.

And it is thus legitimate to observe the the person votes consistently with the left or right in determining who is the best person for the job.

I don't like the generalizations.

I know thinking conservatives...

I know non-thinking conservatives.....

I know thinking liberals....

I know non-thinking liberals....

I know flexible liberals.....

I know flexible conservatives....

Etc.

Etc.

There is a continuum along several different parameters.

You are correct that Conservatives tend to be concerned about possible consequences.

While liberals tend to be excited about possible consequences.

To each his own.....

What I detest is the "Go f#$@ yourself" attitude of the extremist on both sides.

Conservatives are accused of wanting to preserve the Status Quo, but I don't agree. What I think conservatives are more interested in is the idea of small scale changes...with a review of the results. This is the value of having states do things and not the federal government.

But in today's world, it's all about the federal.

And changes (like Obamacare....something I blame conservatives for) come hard because there is an absence of good dialogue and the stopped up frustrations on both sides are like water sitting behind a dam. When the barriers are overcome....i.e. the dam breaks.....things come hard.

So called conservatives at the federal level are worthless. They don't have a message and their spokespeople should never be allowed in front of a microphone.

How do you blame conservatives for Obamacare when not a single conservative voted for it? Not a single Republican--conservative or liberal or somewhere in between--voted for it? And at least most continue to oppose it. And because I believe there are reasonable Democrats, I believe most of the damage would have been reversed by now if Harry Reid and the liberal Democrats had allowed the corrective legislation to be debated and voted on in the Senate.

And while I agree that all those of the permanent political class in Washington--both Republicans and Democrats--are entirely self serving, at least the conservatives have to give lip service and some accommodation to the conservatives they represent in order to keep themselves in office.

In 1993, we survived Hillarycare. But that didn't take away the fact that we had an issue with delivering Health Insurance. A lot of it had to do with regulations that protected the Insurance Industry.

I had friends whose lives were significantly changed because of changing health insurance (in one case, a stay at home mom had to go back to work at a corporation just to get health insurance for her family because her husbands (where he worked) small business kept cutting back and cutting back and eventually eliminated their insurance. The open market would only provide a plan that was stupidly expensive (in part becasue it had to provide a bunch of beneifits they didn't want).

I told people that this problem wasn't going away.

I advocated that if an insurance company wanted to cancel a person, they should add up the premiums that person has paid.....calculate interest...subtract claims and refund the difference. This practice defies the very definition of insurance.

Where were the GOP and conservatives when they had a chance to take control of the discussion ? NOWHERE.

In the Vaccum we got Obamacare.......

In the vacuum of ignorance, stupidity, or indifference to a real issue, the GOP got what it asked for.....

I disagree that the GOP was nowhere in the national conversation. They had pushed long and hard for real reform--tort reform, more competition across state lines, etc.--but the self-serving trial lawyers who make up most of Congress these days wouldn't allow such reforms. Also the conservatives in Congress knew that most of the problems would need to be fixed in the private sector because turning it over to big government would make things worse. Turns out they were right.

Right or wrong, they blew the opportunity.

The things they pushed for were almost invisible.

They conducted no national conversation on the topic.

Disagree all you want.....the GOP/Conservatives blew it and I have thanked more than one for their poor performance and the pathetic abortion we call Obamacare.

 

[Foxfyre]

The next issue is income inequalit

I agree to a point. But again I do think conservatives tend to be more issue oriented--more likely to see the short term and long term consequences of what government does--than are those on the left. Those on the left are much less likely to even be willing to talk about the unintended negative consequences of leftist laws and policies and will more often vote for the title that sounds righteous and noble.

Those on the right--at least those who aren't in the permanent political class in Washington--are much more likely to consider how various legislation will create slippery slopes and unintended consequences. And even the permanent political class does have to at least consider the opinions of those of us who they rerpesent.

And it is thus legitimate to observe the the person votes consistently with the left or right in determining who is the best person for the job.

I don't like the generalizations.

I know thinking conservatives...

I know non-thinking conservatives.....

I know thinking liberals....

I know non-thinking liberals....

I know flexible liberals.....

I know flexible conservatives....

Etc.

Etc.

There is a continuum along several different parameters.

You are correct that Conservatives tend to be concerned about possible consequences.

While liberals tend to be excited about possible consequences.

To each his own.....

What I detest is the "Go f#$@ yourself" attitude of the extremist on both sides.

Conservatives are accused of wanting to preserve the Status Quo, but I don't agree. What I think conservatives are more interested in is the idea of small scale changes...with a review of the results. This is the value of having states do things and not the federal government.

But in today's world, it's all about the federal.

And changes (like Obamacare....something I blame conservatives for) come hard because there is an absence of good dialogue and the stopped up frustrations on both sides are like water sitting behind a dam. When the barriers are overcome....i.e. the dam breaks.....things come hard.

So called conservatives at the federal level are worthless. They don't have a message and their spokespeople should never be allowed in front of a microphone.

How do you blame conservatives for Obamacare when not a single conservative voted for it? Not a single Republican--conservative or liberal or somewhere in between--voted for it? And at least most continue to oppose it. And because I believe there are reasonable Democrats, I believe most of the damage would have been reversed by now if Harry Reid and the liberal Democrats had allowed the corrective legislation to be debated and voted on in the Senate.

And while I agree that all those of the permanent political class in Washington--both Republicans and Democrats--are entirely self serving, at least the conservatives have to give lip service and some accommodation to the conservatives they represent in order to keep themselves in office.

In 1993, we survived Hillarycare. But that didn't take away the fact that we had an issue with delivering Health Insurance. A lot of it had to do with regulations that protected the Insurance Industry.

I had friends whose lives were significantly changed because of changing health insurance (in one case, a stay at home mom had to go back to work at a corporation just to get health insurance for her family because her husbands (where he worked) small business kept cutting back and cutting back and eventually eliminated their insurance. The open market would only provide a plan that was stupidly expensive (in part becasue it had to provide a bunch of beneifits they didn't want).

I told people that this problem wasn't going away.

I advocated that if an insurance company wanted to cancel a person, they should add up the premiums that person has paid.....calculate interest...subtract claims and refund the difference. This practice defies the very definition of insurance.

Where were the GOP and conservatives when they had a chance to take control of the discussion ? NOWHERE.

In the Vaccum we got Obamacare.......

In the vacuum of ignorance, stupidity, or indifference to a real issue, the GOP got what it asked for.....

I disagree that the GOP was nowhere in the national conversation. They had pushed long and hard for real reform--tort reform, more competition across state lines, etc.--but the self-serving trial lawyers who make up most of Congress these days wouldn't allow such reforms. Also the conservatives in Congress knew that most of the problems would need to be fixed in the private sector because turning it over to big government would make things worse. Turns out they were right.

Right or wrong, they blew the opportunity.

The things they pushed for were almost invisible.

They conducted no national conversation on the topic.

Disagree all you want.....the GOP/Conservatives blew it and I have thanked more than one for their poor performance and the pathetic abortion we call Obamacare.

I won't agree that anyone 'blew it' when they were not allowed a voice in the process--and they weren't--and because they chose not to put big government in more power of what they believe does far better left to the private sector.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The next issue is income inequalit

I don't like the generalizations.

I know thinking conservatives...

I know non-thinking conservatives.....

I know thinking liberals....

I know non-thinking liberals....

I know flexible liberals.....

I know flexible conservatives....

Etc.

Etc.

There is a continuum along several different parameters.

You are correct that Conservatives tend to be concerned about possible consequences.

While liberals tend to be excited about possible consequences.

To each his own.....

What I detest is the "Go f#$@ yourself" attitude of the extremist on both sides.

Conservatives are accused of wanting to preserve the Status Quo, but I don't agree. What I think conservatives are more interested in is the idea of small scale changes...with a review of the results. This is the value of having states do things and not the federal government.

But in today's world, it's all about the federal.

And changes (like Obamacare....something I blame conservatives for) come hard because there is an absence of good dialogue and the stopped up frustrations on both sides are like water sitting behind a dam. When the barriers are overcome....i.e. the dam breaks.....things come hard.

So called conservatives at the federal level are worthless. They don't have a message and their spokespeople should never be allowed in front of a microphone.

How do you blame conservatives for Obamacare when not a single conservative voted for it? Not a single Republican--conservative or liberal or somewhere in between--voted for it? And at least most continue to oppose it. And because I believe there are reasonable Democrats, I believe most of the damage would have been reversed by now if Harry Reid and the liberal Democrats had allowed the corrective legislation to be debated and voted on in the Senate.

And while I agree that all those of the permanent political class in Washington--both Republicans and Democrats--are entirely self serving, at least the conservatives have to give lip service and some accommodation to the conservatives they represent in order to keep themselves in office.

In 1993, we survived Hillarycare. But that didn't take away the fact that we had an issue with delivering Health Insurance. A lot of it had to do with regulations that protected the Insurance Industry.

I had friends whose lives were significantly changed because of changing health insurance (in one case, a stay at home mom had to go back to work at a corporation just to get health insurance for her family because her husbands (where he worked) small business kept cutting back and cutting back and eventually eliminated their insurance. The open market would only provide a plan that was stupidly expensive (in part becasue it had to provide a bunch of beneifits they didn't want).

I told people that this problem wasn't going away.

I advocated that if an insurance company wanted to cancel a person, they should add up the premiums that person has paid.....calculate interest...subtract claims and refund the difference. This practice defies the very definition of insurance.

Where were the GOP and conservatives when they had a chance to take control of the discussion ? NOWHERE.

In the Vaccum we got Obamacare.......

In the vacuum of ignorance, stupidity, or indifference to a real issue, the GOP got what it asked for.....

I disagree that the GOP was nowhere in the national conversation. They had pushed long and hard for real reform--tort reform, more competition across state lines, etc.--but the self-serving trial lawyers who make up most of Congress these days wouldn't allow such reforms. Also the conservatives in Congress knew that most of the problems would need to be fixed in the private sector because turning it over to big government would make things worse. Turns out they were right.

Right or wrong, they blew the opportunity.

The things they pushed for were almost invisible.

They conducted no national conversation on the topic.

Disagree all you want.....the GOP/Conservatives blew it and I have thanked more than one for their poor performance and the pathetic abortion we call Obamacare.

I won't agree that anyone 'blew it' when they were not allowed a voice in the process--and they weren't--and because they chose not to put big government in more power of what they believe does far better left to the private sector.

The GOP had congress and the WH for six years. Instead of highliting these kinds of issues, they chose to engage in foolish and unnecessary wars.

No voice...that is nowhere near a reasonable claim.

Show me a website from a conservative group that was focused on addressing the issue. Show me a speech from CNPAC (or whatever it's called the Rush Limburger speaks at) that addresses the issue.

If you could produce a set of speeches that consistently address the issue, I might be swayed.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Now, you've hijacked your own thread.

Let's go back.....to.....

Who do you call Conservative that is in public service.

John Boehner.....NO.

Mitt Romney.....NO.

John McCain......NO.

Then take the list you produce and take out those that have not made stupid statements.

Pretty short.

Scott Walker......He's pretty good.

Ted Cruz.....Sorry.

 

[Foxfyre]

The next issue is income inequalit

How do you blame conservatives for Obamacare when not a single conservative voted for it? Not a single Republican--conservative or liberal or somewhere in between--voted for it? And at least most continue to oppose it. And because I believe there are reasonable Democrats, I believe most of the damage would have been reversed by now if Harry Reid and the liberal Democrats had allowed the corrective legislation to be debated and voted on in the Senate.

And while I agree that all those of the permanent political class in Washington--both Republicans and Democrats--are entirely self serving, at least the conservatives have to give lip service and some accommodation to the conservatives they represent in order to keep themselves in office.

In 1993, we survived Hillarycare. But that didn't take away the fact that we had an issue with delivering Health Insurance. A lot of it had to do with regulations that protected the Insurance Industry.

I had friends whose lives were significantly changed because of changing health insurance (in one case, a stay at home mom had to go back to work at a corporation just to get health insurance for her family because her husbands (where he worked) small business kept cutting back and cutting back and eventually eliminated their insurance. The open market would only provide a plan that was stupidly expensive (in part becasue it had to provide a bunch of beneifits they didn't want).

I told people that this problem wasn't going away.

I advocated that if an insurance company wanted to cancel a person, they should add up the premiums that person has paid.....calculate interest...subtract claims and refund the difference. This practice defies the very definition of insurance.

Where were the GOP and conservatives when they had a chance to take control of the discussion ? NOWHERE.

In the Vaccum we got Obamacare.......

In the vacuum of ignorance, stupidity, or indifference to a real issue, the GOP got what it asked for.....

I disagree that the GOP was nowhere in the national conversation. They had pushed long and hard for real reform--tort reform, more competition across state lines, etc.--but the self-serving trial lawyers who make up most of Congress these days wouldn't allow such reforms. Also the conservatives in Congress knew that most of the problems would need to be fixed in the private sector because turning it over to big government would make things worse. Turns out they were right.

Right or wrong, they blew the opportunity.

The things they pushed for were almost invisible.

They conducted no national conversation on the topic.

Disagree all you want.....the GOP/Conservatives blew it and I have thanked more than one for their poor performance and the pathetic abortion we call Obamacare.

I won't agree that anyone 'blew it' when they were not allowed a voice in the process--and they weren't--and because they chose not to put big government in more power of what they believe does far better left to the private sector.

The GOP had congress and the WH for six years. Instead of highliting these kinds of issues, they chose to engage in foolish and unnecessary wars.

No voice...that is nowhere near a reasonable claim.

Show me a website from a conservative group that was focused on addressing the issue. Show me a speech from CNPAC (or whatever it's called the Rush Limburger speaks at) that addresses the issue.

If you could produce a set of speeches that consistently address the issue, I might be swayed.

Perhaps conservatives don't concern themselves with wealth inequality as they see that as a consequence of bad economic policy rather than an issue of its own. I, as a conservative, certainly see it as a symptom of bad economic policy rather than an issue of its own.

And there was a LOT at CPAC offering aspects of and solutions for bad economic policy.

For sure conservatives don't see it as a good government's responsibility to make the rich less rich on some kind of liberalistic nonsense that this will somehow help the poor. They see government responsibility to get out of the way and encourage the private sector to generate jobs and prosperity; in other words raise the little boats, as the best way to address so-called wealth inequality.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The next issue is income inequalit

In 1993, we survived Hillarycare. But that didn't take away the fact that we had an issue with delivering Health Insurance. A lot of it had to do with regulations that protected the Insurance Industry.

I had friends whose lives were significantly changed because of changing health insurance (in one case, a stay at home mom had to go back to work at a corporation just to get health insurance for her family because her husbands (where he worked) small business kept cutting back and cutting back and eventually eliminated their insurance. The open market would only provide a plan that was stupidly expensive (in part becasue it had to provide a bunch of beneifits they didn't want).

I told people that this problem wasn't going away.

I advocated that if an insurance company wanted to cancel a person, they should add up the premiums that person has paid.....calculate interest...subtract claims and refund the difference. This practice defies the very definition of insurance.

Where were the GOP and conservatives when they had a chance to take control of the discussion ? NOWHERE.

In the Vaccum we got Obamacare.......

In the vacuum of ignorance, stupidity, or indifference to a real issue, the GOP got what it asked for.....

I disagree that the GOP was nowhere in the national conversation. They had pushed long and hard for real reform--tort reform, more competition across state lines, etc.--but the self-serving trial lawyers who make up most of Congress these days wouldn't allow such reforms. Also the conservatives in Congress knew that most of the problems would need to be fixed in the private sector because turning it over to big government would make things worse. Turns out they were right.

Right or wrong, they blew the opportunity.

The things they pushed for were almost invisible.

They conducted no national conversation on the topic.

Disagree all you want.....the GOP/Conservatives blew it and I have thanked more than one for their poor performance and the pathetic abortion we call Obamacare.

I won't agree that anyone 'blew it' when they were not allowed a voice in the process--and they weren't--and because they chose not to put big government in more power of what they believe does far better left to the private sector.

The GOP had congress and the WH for six years. Instead of highliting these kinds of issues, they chose to engage in foolish and unnecessary wars.

No voice...that is nowhere near a reasonable claim.

Show me a website from a conservative group that was focused on addressing the issue. Show me a speech from CNPAC (or whatever it's called the Rush Limburger speaks at) that addresses the issue.

If you could produce a set of speeches that consistently address the issue, I might be swayed.

Perhaps conservatives don't concern themselves with wealth equality as they see that as a consequence of bad economic policy rather than an issue of its own. I, as a conservative, certainly see it as a symptom of bad economic policy rather than an issue of its own.

And there was a LOT at CPAC offering aspects of and solutions for bad economic policy.

This was referencing Obamacare.

Even a speech that seriously addressed the issues associated with health insurance would be meaningful.

I've asked others and have been handed only a couple of weak examples.

 

[Foxfyre]

The next issue is income inequalit

I disagree that the GOP was nowhere in the national conversation. They had pushed long and hard for real reform--tort reform, more competition across state lines, etc.--but the self-serving trial lawyers who make up most of Congress these days wouldn't allow such reforms. Also the conservatives in Congress knew that most of the problems would need to be fixed in the private sector because turning it over to big government would make things worse. Turns out they were right.

Right or wrong, they blew the opportunity.

The things they pushed for were almost invisible.

They conducted no national conversation on the topic.

Disagree all you want.....the GOP/Conservatives blew it and I have thanked more than one for their poor performance and the pathetic abortion we call Obamacare.

I won't agree that anyone 'blew it' when they were not allowed a voice in the process--and they weren't--and because they chose not to put big government in more power of what they believe does far better left to the private sector.

The GOP had congress and the WH for six years. Instead of highliting these kinds of issues, they chose to engage in foolish and unnecessary wars.

No voice...that is nowhere near a reasonable claim.

Show me a website from a conservative group that was focused on addressing the issue. Show me a speech from CNPAC (or whatever it's called the Rush Limburger speaks at) that addresses the issue.

If you could produce a set of speeches that consistently address the issue, I might be swayed.

Perhaps conservatives don't concern themselves with wealth equality as they see that as a consequence of bad economic policy rather than an issue of its own. I, as a conservative, certainly see it as a symptom of bad economic policy rather than an issue of its own.

And there was a LOT at CPAC offering aspects of and solutions for bad economic policy.

This was referencing Obamacare.

Even a speech that seriously addressed the issues associated with health insurance would be meaningful.

I've asked others and have been handed only a couple of weak examples.

Conservatives do not see it as the federal government's role to provide healthcare to the citizens. They see that as best managed by the states and private sector to do. The only role for the federal government would be in the area of RICO and anti-trust laws to break up oppressive monopolies and prevent economic violence between states or entities.

True conservatives see a program like Obamacare as so offensive to the liberties of the people that they don't want it fixed. They want it gone and the excellent healthcare that we once all enjoyed restored by the private sector. And let the states deal with how best to find solutions for those who are underserved.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The next issue is income inequalit
Right or wrong, they blew the opportunity.

The things they pushed for were almost invisible.

They conducted no national conversation on the topic.

Disagree all you want.....the GOP/Conservatives blew it and I have thanked more than one for their poor performance and the pathetic abortion we call Obamacare.

I won't agree that anyone 'blew it' when they were not allowed a voice in the process--and they weren't--and because they chose not to put big government in more power of what they believe does far better left to the private sector.

The GOP had congress and the WH for six years. Instead of highliting these kinds of issues, they chose to engage in foolish and unnecessary wars.

No voice...that is nowhere near a reasonable claim.

Show me a website from a conservative group that was focused on addressing the issue. Show me a speech from CNPAC (or whatever it's called the Rush Limburger speaks at) that addresses the issue.

If you could produce a set of speeches that consistently address the issue, I might be swayed.

Perhaps conservatives don't concern themselves with wealth equality as they see that as a consequence of bad economic policy rather than an issue of its own. I, as a conservative, certainly see it as a symptom of bad economic policy rather than an issue of its own.

And there was a LOT at CPAC offering aspects of and solutions for bad economic policy.

This was referencing Obamacare.

Even a speech that seriously addressed the issues associated with health insurance would be meaningful.

I've asked others and have been handed only a couple of weak examples.

Conservatives do not see it as the federal government's role to provide healthcare to the citizens. They see that as best managed by the states and private sector to do. The only role for the federal government would be in the area of RICO and anti-trust laws to break up oppressive monopolies and prevent economic violence between states or entities.

True conservatives see a program like Obamacare as so offensive to the liberties of the people that they don't want it fixed. They want it gone and the excellent healthcare that we once all enjoyed restored by the private sector. And let the states deal with how best to find solutions for those who are underserved.

O.K.

Here is where you lost me.

I've already stated my concerns regarding our current system, based on personal experience.

If you don't think we have (had) a coddled and protected insurance oligopoly, then we can't talk about this....

But if you felt there was an issue (what crisis did Hillary utilize in 1993), I want to know where the GOP speeches were that defined the issue and the principles for a non-government solution....

Let's use the "across state lines" issue.

Where was the GOP on this issue when it mattered. I don't recall it really coming up until the Obamacare debate.

Newt & Co. along with Bush and Co should have been pushing this like crazy back in their day. I don't recall much, if anything being said.

So, let's get back to your social contract question.

What obligation do our leaders have to, at least, drive the conversation in these types of situations.

I don't like Obamacare.

But I blame the GOP for letting it happen.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Conservatives do not see it as the federal government's role to provide healthcare to the citizens. They see that as best managed by the states and private sector to do.

That is Libertarian dogma, not conservative.

The ACA is based on the conservative Heritage Foundation model that was enacted in Massachussetts by Romney.

Original document where Heritage created Obamacare individual mandate

Libertarian dogma is to eliminate all social welfare of any kind whatsoever.

 

[Foxfyre]

I won't agree that anyone 'blew it' when they were not allowed a voice in the process--and they weren't--and because they chose not to put big government in more power of what they believe does far better left to the private sector.

The GOP had congress and the WH for six years. Instead of highliting these kinds of issues, they chose to engage in foolish and unnecessary wars.

No voice...that is nowhere near a reasonable claim.

Show me a website from a conservative group that was focused on addressing the issue. Show me a speech from CNPAC (or whatever it's called the Rush Limburger speaks at) that addresses the issue.

If you could produce a set of speeches that consistently address the issue, I might be swayed.

Perhaps conservatives don't concern themselves with wealth equality as they see that as a consequence of bad economic policy rather than an issue of its own. I, as a conservative, certainly see it as a symptom of bad economic policy rather than an issue of its own.

And there was a LOT at CPAC offering aspects of and solutions for bad economic policy.

This was referencing Obamacare.

Even a speech that seriously addressed the issues associated with health insurance would be meaningful.

I've asked others and have been handed only a couple of weak examples.

Conservatives do not see it as the federal government's role to provide healthcare to the citizens. They see that as best managed by the states and private sector to do. The only role for the federal government would be in the area of RICO and anti-trust laws to break up oppressive monopolies and prevent economic violence between states or entities.

True conservatives see a program like Obamacare as so offensive to the liberties of the people that they don't want it fixed. They want it gone and the excellent healthcare that we once all enjoyed restored by the private sector. And let the states deal with how best to find solutions for those who are underserved.

O.K.

Here is where you lost me.

I've already stated my concerns regarding our current system, based on personal experience.

If you don't think we have (had) a coddled and protected insurance oligopoly, then we can't talk about this....

But if you felt there was an issue (what crisis did Hillary utilize in 1993), I want to know where the GOP speeches were that defined the issue and the principles for a non-government solution....

Let's use the "across state lines" issue.

Where was the GOP on this issue when it mattered. I don't recall it really coming up until the Obamacare debate.

Newt & Co. along with Bush and Co should have been pushing this like crazy back in their day. I don't recall much, if anything being said.

So, let's get back to your social contract question.

What obligation do our leaders have to, at least, drive the conversation in these types of situations.

I don't like Obamacare.

But I blame the GOP for letting it happen.

Well first, the OP rules don't allow discussion of political parties and provide the (correct) rationale that political parties are not useful in discussion of conservatism and liberalism because you will find various levels of both embodied in all political parties.

So let's don't derail the thread by veering off into what political party did or did not do its job or which party acts out of political expediency or partisanship rather than in the interest of the people..

I am focused on the principles involved in government action and why I believe conservatism produces better circumstances, results, and benefits to the people overall than liberalism ever can. And nowhere do I see that more evident than in the oppressive results of Obamacare. (I am defining the terms as I see they are most commonly understood and used in modern day America.)

Again I think most conservatives see Obamacare as so much of a liberal/progressive/leftist/totalitarian/statist mess that continued band aids and temporary fixes, tweaking, and manipulation will not avert further major disruption and detriment to our healthcare system. It may be too late and irrevocable damage has already been done, but I do believe most conservatives think the only possible way to fix it is just revoke it and start over. And this time let the private sector do it with the federal government getting involved only to the extent necessary for the private sector to be most effective.

Promoting more competition across state lines would be one of the positive things the federal government could have done and could still do once Obamacare was gone. Tort reform is another. Creating an assigned risk pool for the uninsured similar to national flood insurance would be another. But otherwise let the states and private citizens keep their money and work it out to their own advantage.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

There was an interesting program tonight on 20/20. It was about a company called Lumber Liquidators. Long story short, they are buying laminate wood floors from China that doesn't meet the standard requirements for formaldehyde and having the China company classify it as having met the standard. Too much formaldehyde in the wood floors causes respiratory illnesses for families having that type of wood floor installed. The execs at Lumber Liquidators act like they knew nothing about it, but ABC sent investigators posing as buyers to China and all three companies that Lumber Liquidators buys from admitted that the wood doesn't meet the standard but they mark the products as if they do.

Conservatives continue to believe that companies are honest and regulate themselves, but in this case and many other cases we have found out that companies are out to make money and they don't mind putting the screws to people. We the people, have to rely on government to make sure that companies don't screw us, but conservatives are happy to get screwed over and think it is okay because the companies provide jobs. They don't want government intruding, unless it is for something that they stand for, like abortion....then, they don't mind the government requiring all kinds of unnecessary procedures.

Uh...I don't believe that to be the case.

I don't know any conservatives who are against health and safety.

What they don't like is what they consider to be arbitrary rules made by the government.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Conservatives do not see it as the federal government's role to provide healthcare to the citizens. They see that as best managed by the states and private sector to do.

That is Libertarian dogma, not conservative.

The ACA is based on the conservative Heritage Foundation model that was enacted in Massachussetts by Romney.

Original document where Heritage created Obamacare individual mandate

Libertarian dogma is to eliminate all social welfare of any kind whatsoever.

It is a conservative position.

The Heritage Foundation model and Romneycare are two different discussions.

I know enough about conservatives to know that while they may not like Romneycare, they see it within the perview of the State to provide it. Not the federal government. Whether I agree or not does not matter. I know it is what they believe. The ACA was challenged on the basis of the Commerce Clause and the 10th amendment.

As to the Heritage Foundation....does Rachael Maddow speak for all liberals ?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Again I think most conservatives see Obamacare as so much of a liberal/progressive/leftist/totalitarian/statist mess that continued band aids and temporary fixes, tweaking, and manipulation will not avert further major disruption and detriment to our healthcare system. It may be too late and irrevocable damage has already been done, but I do believe most conservatives think the only possible way to fix it is just revoke it and start over. And this time let the private sector do it with the federal government getting involved only to the extent necessary for the private sector to be most effective.

Promoting more competition across state lines would be one of the positive things the federal government could have done and could still do once Obamacare was gone. Tort reform is another. Creating an assigned risk pool for the uninsured similar to national flood insurance would be another. But otherwise let the states and private citizens keep their money and work it out to their own advantage.

Your final line is the essence of the conservative argument.

It is also the reason I don't see myself as a conservative.

Taking it from the top. I don't care what conservatives think of Obamacare. The National Conversation that should have been had could still be had. Obamacare did not fix much of anything. An interesting side effect has been described by Greenbeard. And while you don't like it, that does not change anything. He's got some information that backs up his claims. What galls me is that somehow we needed Obamacare to unconstipate health care markets. That is completely a mind blower and only shows the follishness (again) of a self regulating industries (which you should not take to mean I think we need "government" regulation).

As I said, we should still be having it. Health insurance and health care delivery is still a mess. Where are conservatives ?

Start over....to do what ? You've got to define the problem before you fix it. And I've seen nothing from conservatives that shows they have much comprehension of the issue.

Your fixes might be a great start. But I still don't hear any report cards being defined. That is what I expect conservatives to do. That they don't do it means they are no more principled than the puppet masters who order them around.

As to your last sentence....eyewash. It means nothing. If quality of life is measured in how much money you keep, then you should state as much. If you think keeping your money will get you the most value for it...guess again.

I don't like Obamacare and I am not for single payer. I am for a good conversation that says if someone makes the claim....everyone deserves health care....they should be able to tell me what it looks like when that happened according to their models.

 

[Mertex]

Uh...I don't believe that to be the case.

I don't know any conservatives who are against health and safety.

What they don't like is what they consider to be arbitrary rules made by the government.

You can "not" believe it all you want. All the opposition to Obamacare, when what we had before was leaving a lot of people unable to have health insurance because they couldn't afford the premiums and now they can, sure doesn't seem to me that conservatives are all for health and safety. Maybe just for themselves....I can believe that.

Well, before Obamacare, the US's health care system was one of the worst, and most conservatives seem to be okay with it, in fact, many want to go back to it. So, how does such an awful health care system that is not interfered with by the government better than what we have now?

As for safety. I made reference to a company that doesn't mind screwing customers and providing flooring that can cause them sickness and death. If, companies are able to work around the government regulations that are in place now to keep them from screwing with people, can you imagine what it would be like if we didn't have any government interference at all? I can, and it's not very pretty.