The glaring evidence that Obamacare is a catastrophic FAILURE continues to mount

[P@triot]

How's your private insurance plan working for you? Why aren't you choosing the "public option?"

I shop on Medicare.gov and take the best deal. I would think everyone would.

I also don't believe for a second that private insurance would voluntarily offer what Medicare requires them to.

I don't think that I've run into any dissatisfaction with Medicare except for young people who've fallen for Republican propaganda that it won't be there for them.

I did however have to fend off a private company who signed me up without my permission. It's a good thing that Medicare has rules against such shenanigans as people who aren't able to keep track of things could really get screwed by such crooks.

[ame=http://youtu.be/5XyK5dYNI_s]FLASHBACK 2010: President Obama Agrees with Rep Paul Ryan on Medicare Reform. - YouTube[/ame]

Barack Obama: "Medicare - massive problem down the road - that's what our children need to worry about" (0:49 into the video).

Indisputable proof that @PMZ is the biggest bitch and dumbest fuck'n moron on USMB!!!!!

It's tough to go full on Tourette's mode and scream "Fox! Fox! Fox!" when the president (whose ass you can't lick enough) is on national television telling young people that Medicare won't be there for them.

How does it feel realizing you're an ignorant parasite who completely swallowed the Dumbocrat propaganda? How does it feel to realize "Fox! Fox! Fox!" has been telling the truth all along?

 

[asterism]

The cost of health care has changed as it does every year.

The insurance to cover those costs has changed for many reasons.

I don't see how it's possible, when things stabilize, for there not to be a reduction in two significant costs.

Medical bankruptcies because ACA requires coverage for the main causes of them.

And emergency room care for non emergencies.

The only cost increase possibility is from subsidies which I agree with as I believe that health is as close to a right as one can get.

Others are welcome to other opinions but I feel if we are going to pay full time workers inadequate wages we have to make it up somehow.

If you look at the economic mechanisms in place, you should be asking yourself why wouldn't prices go up? Not whether they'll go down. There are two fundamental aspects of the law that drive the cost of premiums up? The new coverage mandates telling insurance companies what they must cover. With added value comes added cost. Simple as that. The second part is the mandate on how insurance companies must perform their community ratings. No longer can they formulate this based on risk. The law requires them to take all of the people with the same plan in a given area and average out the cost of the premium for that plan. Obviously when averaged against the cost of sick people the premium costs of healthy people are going to go up. Next the pre-existing condition and no cancellation mandate. Insurance companies can't deny on that basis nor can they drop you if you get sick. While that might seem the right and compassionate thing to do, the reality is inescapable that it means now insurance companies have to actually pay for sick people. An expense for them that will go up meaning premium rates have to go up to cover it.

So you all of these drivers in the law that make costs go up. With none that make them come down. Obama needs young, healthy people to sign up before he has a mutiny on his hands and gets exposed for lie number two. Not only did he tell is if you liked your plan you could keep your plan, we were told the whoel point was to make health care cost less. When you have all of these drivers that cause prices to go up what exactly is going to counteract that enough to make them come down? Forget about premium prices coming down. He needs enough young healthy people to sign up just to back to break even from the damage all of those other mandates have caused.

Keep in mind that ACA effects only two aspects of health care.

It moves poor people from expensive, ineffective emergency room care to mainstream PCPs.

It reduces medical bankruptcies by requiring that insurance cover the conditions that typically cause them.

So health care insurance may go up from that coverage but it's offset by the cost of the bankruptcies. Different accounts, perhaps accrued to different people, but savings nonetheless.

Insurance is designed to cover those costs plus some administration fees.

So where do health insurance premium increases come from?

No more health care is being practiced. The only change is that it's being done more cost effectively by mainstream PCPs. And there are fewer medical bankruptcies causing uncollectable medical bills.

You are assuming that insurance companies charge whatever they want to, not what they anticipate paying out, plus administration.

You have no evidence demonstrating that the ACA is reducing bankruptcies. That's just another campaign promise.

You are also ignorant about what the ACA does - it's way more than just those two "key aspects." It creates an arbitrary minimum for basic care (that is far from basic) and then forces everyone to be covered for those services even if they will never use it. It removes risk based on health conditions from the actuarial metrics and instead only uses age. It actually disincentivizes PCP usage by those less well off because in subsidized plans there is co-payment to see a Physician but no co-payment for ER care.

Many people and I have been saying for years that the problem with the ACA isn't the goals as stated, it's the corrupt and unworkable implementation.

The ACA is likely to increase medical bankruptcies because only those with significant assets to protect would file for bankruptcy in the first place and that's not the poor, it's the middle class - the same middle class that now has much higher premiums, deductibles, and co-insurance.

 

[asterism]

It depends completely on the county and the experience with regular Medicare covered recipients in that County. Just like all private insurance does.

Florida and California counties are the most advantageous for Advantage plans. Many counties offer no advantage.

It's a complicated formula but one that all parties, the insured, Medicare, and private insurers benefit from. Otherwise it wouldn't exist.

Correct.

It's a private alternative to the federal program and the average payment is around $830 per month per beneficiary.

I'd link to my federal exams on Medicare for you but that's not allowed.

Why would Medicare allow Advantage programs if they were not saving money by allowing that alternative?

Because they do save money by removing the administrative burden for claims from Medicare and shouldering the risk. Instead of a single entity bearing the entire risk for the country, individual companies operate thousands of plans in smaller areas and compete with each other. Plans have to start out with adequate reserves to cover any unforeseen costs and if the finances don't work that one plan is phased out. Reserves are used to pay for the overage the other plans in the area absorb the beneficiaries.

 

[asterism]

I don't know what original Medicare is.

I do know that many more people choose Medicare over Medicare Advantage. Some use private Medicare Supplemental Insurance and Medicare.

Well at least you admit that you're ignorant and uneducated on this topic so that's a start.

Perhaps you should argue from a position of informed knowledge instead of just making things up.

You conclude this because you make up a term and others don't know what you mean?

Very bizarre.

I didn't make up that term, it's a whole section in your Medicare & You handbook. Start at Page 61:

http://www.medicare.gov/Pubs/pdf/10050.pdf

Here's the web version of that book:

Medicare & You | Medicare.gov

and here is the section of Medicare's site that explains Original Medicare:

How Original Medicare works | Medicare.gov

 

[PMZ]

I shop on Medicare.gov and take the best deal. I would think everyone would.

I also don't believe for a second that private insurance would voluntarily offer what Medicare requires them to.

I don't think that I've run into any dissatisfaction with Medicare except for young people who've fallen for Republican propaganda that it won't be there for them.

I did however have to fend off a private company who signed me up without my permission. It's a good thing that Medicare has rules against such shenanigans as people who aren't able to keep track of things could really get screwed by such crooks.

[ame=http://youtu.be/5XyK5dYNI_s]FLASHBACK 2010: President Obama Agrees with Rep Paul Ryan on Medicare Reform. - YouTube[/ame]

Barack Obama: "Medicare - massive problem down the road - that's what our children need to worry about" (0:49 into the video).

Indisputable proof that @PMZ is the biggest bitch and dumbest fuck'n moron on USMB!!!!!

It's tough to go full on Tourette's mode and scream "Fox! Fox! Fox!" when the president (whose ass you can't lick enough) is on national television telling young people that Medicare won't be there for them.

How does it feel realizing you're an ignorant parasite who completely swallowed the Dumbocrat propaganda? How does it feel to realize "Fox! Fox! Fox!" has been telling the truth all along?

Your disconnect with reality blinds you to the obvious point of that video. Obama eviscerated Ryan in public for his purely political Medicare fraud that was based on when Democrats say X, it's blasphemy, when Republicans say the same, it's manna from heaven.

Conservatives just can't imagine fixing problems. They have two approaches for every one.

Do nothing.

Create richer rich and poorer poor.

The fact that the electorate understands is evident in their voting.

Tell you what. If Democrats keep doing what they're doing, and Republicans keep doing what they're doing, the electorate will keep the middle class free, and solving problems.

 

[Listening]

FLASHBACK 2010: President Obama Agrees with Rep Paul Ryan on Medicare Reform. - YouTube

Barack Obama: "Medicare - massive problem down the road - that's what our children need to worry about" (0:49 into the video).

Indisputable proof that @PMZ is the biggest bitch and dumbest fuck'n moron on USMB!!!!!

It's tough to go full on Tourette's mode and scream "Fox! Fox! Fox!" when the president (whose ass you can't lick enough) is on national television telling young people that Medicare won't be there for them.

How does it feel realizing you're an ignorant parasite who completely swallowed the Dumbocrat propaganda? How does it feel to realize "Fox! Fox! Fox!" has been telling the truth all along?

Your disconnect with reality blinds you to the obvious point of that video. Obama eviscerated Ryan in public for his purely political Medicare fraud that was based on when Democrats say X, it's blasphemy, when Republicans say the same, it's manna from heaven.

Conservatives just can't imagine fixing problems. They have two approaches for every one.

Do nothing.

Create richer rich and poorer poor.

The fact that the electorate understands is evident in their voting.

Tell you what. If Democrats keep doing what they're doing, and Republicans keep doing what they're doing, the electorate will keep the middle class free, and solving problems.

Democrats have a hard time figuring out there is a problem and when it does finally crawlu up their asses....their first response is to try and legislate it or regulate it.

It's a sad tale of a group of morons who don't understand the first thing about markets and economics.

And in their efforts they are the ones who create the barriers to entry that allow big businesses to flourish.

Obama, Ried, Pelosi, Biden and Co. were in one large daisy-chain with the insurance companies. And yet somehow conservatives get blamed for want to stop them from transmitting AIDS to each other.

In your case, you stick your head up your ass because you are to lazy to find a sand pit. Then all you do is "Fox Fox Fox...Do Nothing Do Nothing Do Nothing....Conservatives Conservatives Conservatives...my reality my reality my reality.

If your day job is being a clown, I am sure you are in high demand.

 

[PMZ]

Correct.

It's a private alternative to the federal program and the average payment is around $830 per month per beneficiary.

I'd link to my federal exams on Medicare for you but that's not allowed.

Why would Medicare allow Advantage programs if they were not saving money by allowing that alternative?

Because they do save money by removing the administrative burden for claims from Medicare and shouldering the risk. Instead of a single entity bearing the entire risk for the country, individual companies operate thousands of plans in smaller areas and compete with each other. Plans have to start out with adequate reserves to cover any unforeseen costs and if the finances don't work that one plan is phased out. Reserves are used to pay for the overage the other plans in the area absorb the beneficiaries.

Insurance companies handle risk like gambling establishments do. They avoid it altogether. That’s called actuarial science.

 

[PMZ]

If you look at the economic mechanisms in place, you should be asking yourself why wouldn't prices go up? Not whether they'll go down. There are two fundamental aspects of the law that drive the cost of premiums up? The new coverage mandates telling insurance companies what they must cover. With added value comes added cost. Simple as that. The second part is the mandate on how insurance companies must perform their community ratings. No longer can they formulate this based on risk. The law requires them to take all of the people with the same plan in a given area and average out the cost of the premium for that plan. Obviously when averaged against the cost of sick people the premium costs of healthy people are going to go up. Next the pre-existing condition and no cancellation mandate. Insurance companies can't deny on that basis nor can they drop you if you get sick. While that might seem the right and compassionate thing to do, the reality is inescapable that it means now insurance companies have to actually pay for sick people. An expense for them that will go up meaning premium rates have to go up to cover it.

So you all of these drivers in the law that make costs go up. With none that make them come down. Obama needs young, healthy people to sign up before he has a mutiny on his hands and gets exposed for lie number two. Not only did he tell is if you liked your plan you could keep your plan, we were told the whoel point was to make health care cost less. When you have all of these drivers that cause prices to go up what exactly is going to counteract that enough to make them come down? Forget about premium prices coming down. He needs enough young healthy people to sign up just to back to break even from the damage all of those other mandates have caused.

Keep in mind that ACA effects only two aspects of health care.

It moves poor people from expensive, ineffective emergency room care to mainstream PCPs.

It reduces medical bankruptcies by requiring that insurance cover the conditions that typically cause them.

So health care insurance may go up from that coverage but it's offset by the cost of the bankruptcies. Different accounts, perhaps accrued to different people, but savings nonetheless.

Insurance is designed to cover those costs plus some administration fees.

So where do health insurance premium increases come from?

No more health care is being practiced. The only change is that it's being done more cost effectively by mainstream PCPs. And there are fewer medical bankruptcies causing uncollectable medical bills.

You are assuming that insurance companies charge whatever they want to, not what they anticipate paying out, plus administration.

You have no evidence demonstrating that the ACA is reducing bankruptcies. That's just another campaign promise.

You are also ignorant about what the ACA does - it's way more than just those two "key aspects." It creates an arbitrary minimum for basic care (that is far from basic) and then forces everyone to be covered for those services even if they will never use it. It removes risk based on health conditions from the actuarial metrics and instead only uses age. It actually disincentivizes PCP usage by those less well off because in subsidized plans there is co-payment to see a Physician but no co-payment for ER care.

Many people and I have been saying for years that the problem with the ACA isn't the goals as stated, it's the corrupt and unworkable implementation.

The ACA is likely to increase medical bankruptcies because only those with significant assets to protect would file for bankruptcy in the first place and that's not the poor, it's the middle class - the same middle class that now has much higher premiums, deductibles, and co-insurance.

" You have no evidence demonstrating that the ACA is reducing bankruptcies. That's just another campaign promise."

It requires insurers to cover the main causes of medical bankruptcies. How can that not reduce them?

 

[Listening]

Why would Medicare allow Advantage programs if they were not saving money by allowing that alternative?

Because they do save money by removing the administrative burden for claims from Medicare and shouldering the risk. Instead of a single entity bearing the entire risk for the country, individual companies operate thousands of plans in smaller areas and compete with each other. Plans have to start out with adequate reserves to cover any unforeseen costs and if the finances don't work that one plan is phased out. Reserves are used to pay for the overage the other plans in the area absorb the beneficiaries.

Insurance companies handle risk like gambling establishments do. They avoid it altogether. That’s called actuarial science.

They can't avoid it altogether. That's just stupid.

 

[PMZ]

Because they do save money by removing the administrative burden for claims from Medicare and shouldering the risk. Instead of a single entity bearing the entire risk for the country, individual companies operate thousands of plans in smaller areas and compete with each other. Plans have to start out with adequate reserves to cover any unforeseen costs and if the finances don't work that one plan is phased out. Reserves are used to pay for the overage the other plans in the area absorb the beneficiaries.

Insurance companies handle risk like gambling establishments do. They avoid it altogether. That’s called actuarial science.

They can't avoid it altogether. That's just stupid.

Ask Donald Trump and Sheldon Adleson.

 

[Listening]

Keep in mind that ACA effects only two aspects of health care.

It moves poor people from expensive, ineffective emergency room care to mainstream PCPs.

It reduces medical bankruptcies by requiring that insurance cover the conditions that typically cause them.

So health care insurance may go up from that coverage but it's offset by the cost of the bankruptcies. Different accounts, perhaps accrued to different people, but savings nonetheless.

Insurance is designed to cover those costs plus some administration fees.

So where do health insurance premium increases come from?

No more health care is being practiced. The only change is that it's being done more cost effectively by mainstream PCPs. And there are fewer medical bankruptcies causing uncollectable medical bills.

You are assuming that insurance companies charge whatever they want to, not what they anticipate paying out, plus administration.

You have no evidence demonstrating that the ACA is reducing bankruptcies. That's just another campaign promise.

You are also ignorant about what the ACA does - it's way more than just those two "key aspects." It creates an arbitrary minimum for basic care (that is far from basic) and then forces everyone to be covered for those services even if they will never use it. It removes risk based on health conditions from the actuarial metrics and instead only uses age. It actually disincentivizes PCP usage by those less well off because in subsidized plans there is co-payment to see a Physician but no co-payment for ER care.

Many people and I have been saying for years that the problem with the ACA isn't the goals as stated, it's the corrupt and unworkable implementation.

The ACA is likely to increase medical bankruptcies because only those with significant assets to protect would file for bankruptcy in the first place and that's not the poor, it's the middle class - the same middle class that now has much higher premiums, deductibles, and co-insurance.

" You have no evidence demonstrating that the ACA is reducing bankruptcies. That's just another campaign promise."

It requires insurers to cover the main causes of medical bankruptcies. How can that not reduce them?

Because the plans being offered under the ACA have deductables that could easly push someone into medical bankruptcy (as it has been defined). Additionally, there is nothing preventing people from reducing the threshold of filing. Most people file for amounts that are less than the cost of a good used mid-sized sedan.

You have no proof and your alternate reality isn't what the 3D world experiences. You are the reason morons like Ted Kennedy get elected.

 

[Listening]

Insurance companies handle risk like gambling establishments do. They avoid it altogether. That’s called actuarial science.

They can't avoid it altogether. That's just stupid.

Ask Donald Trump and Sheldon Adleson.

Non-answer from the board moron.

 

[PMZ]

They can't avoid it altogether. That's just stupid.

Ask Donald Trump and Sheldon Adleson.

Non-answer from the board moron.

The next time that you have nothing to say, try saying nothing.

 

[Listening]

The fact that the electorate understands is evident in their voting.

http://www.econ.brown.edu/econ/events/mogstad.pdf

An interesting effort which seems to have established the actual existence of intergenerational welfare dependency.

And as a significant portion of the electorate is now dependent upon the government...you can bet they are interested in voting to keep the goodies coming.

 

[Listening]

Ask Donald Trump and Sheldon Adleson.

Non-answer from the board moron.

The next time that you have nothing to say, try saying nothing.

Followed by another non-answer from the board moron (well, one of the board morons).

 

[Listening]

Ask Donald Trump and Sheldon Adleson.

Non-answer from the board moron.

The next time that you have nothing to say, try saying nothing.

If you followed your own council, you'd ask them to cancel your account.

 

[PMZ]

The best thing about the end of conservative extremism in America is watching you all stew in your own juices. Self inflicted irrelevance. The end of the politics of hate.

You and the Taliban.

 

[P@triot]

The best thing about the end of conservative extremism in America is watching you all stew in your own juices. Self inflicted irrelevance. The end of the politics of hate.

You and the Taliban.

Considering conservative "extremism" never started, I don't think you have to worry about its "end".

Now tell us again how Medicare's complete and total insolvency is "Republican propaganda" as Barack Obama stands before a mic in front of the world pitching Obamacare as an urgent need due to Medicare's complete and total insolvency. And I added the video to prove what a laying, propaganda-spreading, parasite, asshole that you are.

There's a reason you're all alone here with only one idiot asshole troll (Dante) coming to your aid. Because we've stuffed this thread so full of undeniable facts regarding the failure of Obamacare, even the Dumbocrats on USMB realize it is credibility suicide to attempt to deny it.

 

[PMZ]

The best thing about the end of conservative extremism in America is watching you all stew in your own juices. Self inflicted irrelevance. The end of the politics of hate.

You and the Taliban.

Considering conservative "extremism" never started, I don't think you have to worry about its "end".

Now tell us again how Medicare's complete and total insolvency is "Republican propaganda" as Barack Obama stands before a mic in front of the world pitching Obamacare as an urgent need due to Medicare's complete and total insolvency. And I added the video to prove what a laying, propaganda-spreading, parasite, asshole that you are.

There's a reason you're all alone here with only one idiot asshole troll (Dante) coming to your aid. Because we've stuffed this thread so full of undeniable facts regarding the failure of Obamacare, even the Dumbocrats on USMB realize it is credibility suicide to attempt to deny it.

"Considering conservative "extremism" never started, I don't think you have to worry about its "end"."

How would you define extremism?

The Medicare trust fund has a surplus invested in US Treasuries for now, but it's spending more now than taking in. Something has to be done.

There are several variables that could be put into play in addressing the problem. Some are revenue solutions some are expense solutions.

The root causes of all of the problems are our population growth, our relatively poor health habits and the success of medical technology.

Despite our relatively poor health habits we are living, and living well, longer, due to more and more expensive diagnostic and treatment alternatives, and our below world standard health care delivery and insurance cost effectiveness. We are way behind the rest of the developed world in cost and benefit effectiveness for health care as evidenced by our 2X costs and 1/2Y results compared to our global business competition.

What don't you agree with so far?

 

[PMZ]

Some help defining extremism from http://voluntaryist.com/articles/027a.html#.UrXeGzJ5mK0


What Is Political "Extremism"?

by Laird Wilcox
From Issue 27 - Aug. 1987

Roger Scruton, in the Dictionary Of Political Thought (Hill & Wang, New York, 1982) defines "extremism" as:

"A vague term, which can mean: 1. Taking a political idea to its limits, regardless of 'unfortunate' repercussions, impracticalities, arguments and feelings to the contrary, and with the intention not only to confront, but also to eliminate opposition. 2. Intolerance towards all views other than one's own. 3. Adoption of means to political ends which show disregard for the life, liberty, and human rights of others."
This is a very fair definition and it reflects my experience that "extremism" is essentially more an issue of style than of content. In the twenty-five years that I have been investigating political groups of the left and right, I have found that many people can hold very radical or unorthodox political views and still present them in a reasonable, rational and non-dogmatic manner. On the other hand, I have met people whose views were shrill, uncompromising and distinctly authoritarian. The latter demonstrated a starkly extremist mentality while the former demonstrated only ideological unorthodoxy, which is hardly to be feared in a free society such as our own.

I don't mean to imply that content is entirely irrelevant. People who tend to adopt the extremist style most often champion causes and adopt ideologies that are essentially "fringe" positions on the political spectrum. Advocacy of "fringe" positions, however, gives our society the variety and vitality it needs to function as an open democracy, to discuss and debate all aspects of an issue and to deal with problems we may otherwise have a tendency to ignore. I think this is the proper role of radical movements, left and right, in our system. The extremist style is another issue altogether, however, in that it seriously hampers our understanding of important issues, it muddies the waters of discourse with invective, fanaticism and hatred, and it impairs our ability to make intelligent, well-informed choices.

Another, perhaps more popular, definition of "extremism" is that it represents points of view we strongly disagree with, advocated by someone we dislike whose interests are contrary to our own!

Political ideologues often attempt definitions of extremism which specifically condemn the views of their opponents and critics while leaving their own relatively untouched, or which are otherwise biased toward certain views but not others. To be fair, a definition must be equally applicable across the entire political spectrum.

In point of fact, the terms "extremist" and "extremism" are often used thoughtlessly an epithets, "devilwords" to curse or condemn opponents and critics with! I find, however, that the extremist style is not the monopoly of any sector of the political spectrum. It is just as common on the "left" as it is on the "right," and sometimes it shows up in the political "center" as well!

In analyzing the rhetoric and literature of several hundred "fringe" and militant "special interest" groups I have identified several specific traits that tend to represent the extremist style. I would like to caution you with the admonition, however, that we are all fallible and anyone, without bad intentions, may resort to some of these devices from time to time. But with bonafide extremists these lapses are not occasional and the following traits are an habitual and established part of their repertoire. The late Robert Kennedy, in The Pursuit Of Justice (1964), said; "What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents."

1. Character Assassination.

Extremists often attack the character of an opponent or critic rather than deal with the facts and issues that he raises or debate the points of his arguments. They will question his motives, qualifications, past associations, values, personality, mental health and so on as a diversion from the issues under consideration.

2. Name Calling And Labeling.

Extremists are quick to resort to epithets (racist, subversive, pervert, hatemonger, nut, crackpot, degenerate, Un-American, Anti-Semite, Red, Commie, Nazi, Kook, etc.) to label and condemn an opponent in order to divert attention from his arguments and to discourage other from hearing him out.

3. Irresponsible Sweeping Generalizations.

Extremists tend to make sweeping claims or judgments on little or no evidence, and they have a tendency to confuse similarity with sameness. That is, they assume that because two (or more) things are alike in some respects they must be alike in all or most respects! Analogy is a treacherous form of logic and its potential for distortion and false conclusions even when the premises are basically correct is enormous.

4. Inadequate Proof For Assertions.

Extremists tend to be very fuzzy on what constitutes proof for their assertions. They also tend to get caught up in logical fallacies, such as post hoc ergo propter hoc (assuming that a prior event explains a subsequent occurrence simply because of their "before" and "after" relationship). They tend to project "wished for" conclusions and to exaggerate the significance of information which confirms their prejudices and to derogate or ignore information which contradicts them.

5. Advocacy Of Double Standards.

Extremists tend to judge themselves in terms of their intentions, which they tend to view generously, and others by their acts, which they tend to view very critically. They would like you to accept their assertions on faith but they demand proof for yours. They also tend to engage in "special pleading" on behalf of their group, because of some special status, past persecution or present disadvantage.

6. Extremists Tend To View Their Opponents And Critics As Essentially Evil.

Their enemies hold opposing views because they are bad people, immoral, dishonest, unscrupulous, mean-spirited, cruel, etc., and not merely because they simply disagree, see the matter differently, have competing interests of are perhaps even mistaken!

7. Extremists Tend To Have A Manichean Worldview.

That is, they tend to see the world in terms of absolutes of good and evil, for them or against them, with no middle ground or intermediate positions. All issues are ultimately moral issues of right and wrong. Their slogan tends to be "he who is not with me, is against me!"

8. Extremists Very Often Advocate Some Degree Of Censorship And Repression Of Their Opponents And Critics.

This may range from an active campaign to keep them from media access and a public hearing, as in the case of blacklisting, banning, or "quarantining" dissident spokesmen, or actually lobbying for repressive legislation against speaking, teaching or instructing the "forbidden" information. They may attempt to keep certain books out of stores or off of library shelves or card catalogs, discourage advertising with threats of reprisals, keep spokesmen for offending views off the airwaves, or certain columnists out of newspapers. In each instance the goal is some kind of information control. Extremists would prefer that you only listen to them.

9. Extremists Tend To Identify Themselves In Terms Of Who Their Enemies Are,

who they hate and who hates them! Accordingly, they often become emotionally bound to their enemies, who are often competing extremists on the opposite pole of the ideological spectrum. They tend to emulate their enemies in certain respects, adopting the same style and tactics to a certain degree. Even "anti-extremist" groups often exhibit extremist behavior in this regard!

10. Extremists Are Given To Arguments By Intimidation.

That is, they frame their arguments in such a way as to intimidate others into accepting their premises and conclusions. To disagree with them, they imply, is to ally oneself with the devil or give aid and comfort to the "bad guys." This ploy allows them to define the parameters of debate, cut off troublesome lines of argument, and keep their opponents on the defensive.

11. Wide Use Of Slogans, Buzzwords And Thought-Stopping Cliches.

For many extremists simple slogans substitute for more complex abstractions in spite of a high level of intelligence. Shortcuts in thinking and reasoning matters out seems to be necessary in order to appease their prejudices and to avoid troublesome facts and counter-arguments.

12. Doomsday Thinking.

Extremists often predict dire or catastrophic consequences from a situation or from failure to follow a specific course, and they exhibit a kind of "crisis-mindedness." It can be a Communist takeover, a Nazi revival, nuclear war, currency collapse, worldwide famine, drought, earthquakes, floods or the wrath of God. Whatever it is, it's just around the corner unless we follow their program and listen to their special insights or the wisdom that only the enlightened have access to!

13. Extremists Often Claim Some Kind Of Moral Or Other Superiority Over Others.

Most obvious are claims of general racial superiority -- a master race, for example. Less obvious are claims of ennoblement because of alleged victimhood, a special relationship with God, membership in a special "elite" or revolutionary vanguard. They also take great offense when one is "insensitive" enough to dispute these claims or challenge their authority.

14. Extremists Tend To Believe That It's OK To Do Bad Things In The Service Of A "Good" Cause.

They may deliberately lie, distort, misquote, slander or libel their opponents and critics, or advocate censorship or repression in "special cases" involving their enemies. This is done with no remorse as long as it's useful in defeating the Commies or Fascists (or whoever). Defeating an "enemy" becomes an all-encompassing goal to which other values are subordinate. With extremists, the ends often justify the means.

15. Extremists Tend To Place Great Value On Emotional Responses.

They have a reverence for propaganda, which they may call education or consciousness-raising. Consequently, they tend to drape themselves and their cause in a flag of patriotism, a banner of righteousness or a shroud of victimhood. Their crusades against "enemies" may invoke images of the swastika, the hammer and sickle or some other symbol, as the case may be. In each instance the symbol represents an extremely odious concept in terms of their ideological premises. This ploy attempts to invoke an uncritical gut-level sympathy and acceptance of their position which discourages examination of their premises or the conclusions which they claim necessarily derive from them.

16. Some Extremists, Particularly Those Involved In "Cults" Or

religious movements such as fundamental evangelical Christians, Zionists, members of the numerous new age groups and followers of certain "gurus," claim some kind of supernatural, mystical or divinely-inspired rationale for their beliefs and actions. Their willingness to force their will on others, censor and silence opponents and critics, and in some cases actively persecute certain groups, is ordained by God! This is surprisingly effective because many people, when confronted by this kind of claim, are reluctant to challenge it because it represents "religious belief" or because of the sacred cow status of some religions. Extremists traits tend to have three things in common:

The represent some attempt to distort reality for themselves and others.
They try to discourage critical examination of their beliefs, either by false logic, rhetorical trickery or some kind of intimidation.
They represent an attempt to act out private, personal grudges or rationalize the pursuit of special interests in the name of public welfare.
Remember, human beings are imperfect and fallible. Even a rational, honest, well-intentioned person may resort to some of these traits from time to time. Everyone has strong feelings about some issues and anyone can get excited and "blow off" once in awhile. We still retain our basic common sense, respect for facts and good will toward others. The difference between most of us and the bonafide extremist is that these traits are an habitual and established part of their repertoire. Extremists believe they're doing the right thing when they act this way in the service of their cause.

The truth of a proposition cannot be inferred merely from the manner in which arguments in its behalf are presented, from the fact that its advocates censor and harass their opponents, or because they commit any other act or combination of acts suggested in this essay. Ultimately, the truth of any proposition rests on the evidence for it. To impeach a proposition merely because it is advocated by obvious "extremists" is to dismiss it ad hominem, that is, because of who proposes it. The fact is that extremists are sometimes right -- sometimes very right -- because they often deal with the gut issues, the controversial issues many people choose to avoid. So, before you perfunctorily write off somebody as an "extremist" and close your eyes and ears to his message, take a look at his evidence. It just might be that he's on to something!


[Laird Wilcox is editor of The Wilcox Report Newsletter , Box 2047, Olathe, Kansas 66061. He is founder of the Wilcox Collection on Contemporary Political Movements in the Kenneth Spencer Research Library at the University of Kansas]