Skip to main content

 

Last year before the elections, two conservative women were watching my daughter and me prepare a CNN iReport on policies affecting students and Americans in general. The two women above were interested in what we were doing and when asked said they had something to say.

This morning MSNBC Chuck Todd assessed that the Obama Presidency using the Republican moniker of Obamacare for the Affordable Care Act while cute was stupid. Todd vastly underestimates the success of the Republicans in promoting that name so much so that most Americans immediately identify with the Obamacare as opposed to the Affordable Care Act.

When asked about the Affordable Care Act the women above were completely oblivious to it. When told it was Obamacare they immediately knew what I was talking about and said they did not know it by that name. The two women interviewed are probative.

If these women understood that Obamacare forced insurance companies to use at least 80 percent of their premiums to pay for health care cost, prevent insurance companies from rescinding their policies when they most needed it most, provide breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and other health screenings as part of every policy, prevent lifetime caps that likely prevent most medical bankruptcies, and ensure that everybody have skin in the health care domain who can afford it, would they think differently? Would they think differently when they realize that pre-Obamacare the wild wild west of medical insurance was more about profits than health outcomes? When the morality of America’s health care system pre and post Obamacare is examined, many of those opposing will be ashamed of their opposing stance.

The interview went well and just talking to them gives me hope that when the truth is spoken and respect is acquired, people can agree on real truths.

Listen to the interview and tell me what you think.

Originally posted to ProgressiveLiberal on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 09:23 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  epitome of "False Consciousness" (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kharma, poliwrangler, Lujane, Gemina13
    ....people are unable to see things, especially exploitation, oppression, and social relations, as they really are; the hypothesized inability of the human mind to develop a sophisticated awareness of how it is developed and shaped by circumstances.

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013

    by annieli on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 09:33:39 AM PDT

  •  One thing... (8+ / 0-)

    what kind of person wants our Social Security to be done by charities?  How would that work, you show up at a line once a month and beg for a handout?  I like the thing where you pay into it and it is there for you, not just beg for something.  Unfortunately, there are at least 30% of our country that listen to right-wing nut jobz explain in very reasonable voices that up is down.

    •  Conservatives often come across (5+ / 0-)

      as normal, even nice, people when you talk to them individually - I even have a few of those among my relatives - but they always give away their ignorance, and basic unkindness, when they say stupid things like social assistance should be handled by charities - by charities they mean by their churches and other mean-spirited, quaisi caring groups.

      •  Who Is This Guy And What The Hell Was He Doing (0+ / 0-)

        First, you're on the mark about Conservatives. It's often surprising because they have such misinformed off-the-wall views. Then they turn out to be – outside the political realm – pretty normal.

        I think it comes back to the bubble. They live in a bubble when it comes to their political thinking, so they can be normal most of the time and then switch instantly to babbling nonsense. An odd sight. They repeat the "smaller government" mantra without a clue as to what that would mean.

        BUT what's the story with the diarist? Activist? Fine. But unless he's working for a show that is tasked with presenting the Liberal point of view on an opinion show he was way off base. News is objective. News people do not inject their views. If the subjects of the interview are factually wrong, as these women were, it's completely correct to ask questions that, in a sort of Socratic way, expose their errors. But if the interviewer (with whom I agree) expresses a viewpoint that's wrong.

        Of course, I may be way off base. I haven't watched TV in over ten years (aside from clips I see on the web) and the diarist's job may be to do interviews for an Liberal opinion program (do they have those on CNN?).

        The whole thing struck me as odd and I figure there's got to be more to it somehow.

        A Southerner In Yankeeland

        To save your life read "Pity The Billionaire" by Thomas Frank, and "Winner-Take-All-Politics" by Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson. Then read more books.

        by A Southerner in Yankeeland on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 02:09:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "This Guy" (8+ / 0-)

          is a Daily Kos front pager...
          amongst other things.

          "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

          by Sybil Liberty on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 06:13:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And? (0+ / 0-)

            That, in itself, doesn't sound to me like a response. His position is unimportant; I'm discussing his actions and statements.

            Maybe I can illustrate this by exaggeration: George W. Bush was President of the United States, but that did not make his words or actions correct.

            A Southerner in Yankeeland

            To save your life read "Pity The Billionaire" by Thomas Frank, and "Winner-Take-All-Politics" by Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson. Then read more books.

            by A Southerner in Yankeeland on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 09:51:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  News people don't inject their views? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bryduck

          Might need to time travel and tell the people reporting on the destruction of the USS Maine, resulting in the start of the Spanish American War.

          http://callatimeout.blogspot.com/ Jesus Loves You.

          by DAISHI on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 06:42:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Along with every other newspaper written (0+ / 0-)

            and reporter ever hired.

            "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

            by bryduck on Sat Jul 27, 2013 at 09:53:13 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  News People Do Not Inject Their Views (0+ / 0-)

              I was saying that is the way it is supposed to be. The sentence is a directive.

              I was not saying, of course, that that's the way it is. Every second of every day news people are ignoring the directive to be impartial. The takeover of news departments by corporate puppets is killing news.

              In this case the diarist was far from presenting the facade of impartiality. The interviewees, I have no doubt, will repeat the anecdote of their "Liberal biased newsman" from the "Liberal biased media" to friends and family until the end of time.

              And, in this instance, they'll be right. The fact that the vast majority of news is slanted toward corporate talking points will never pass through their brains.

              The only other points are that reality does, truly, have a Liberal bias, and that if a person is an activist the goal should be persuasion to our side rather than confirming the biases about the media that the other side already holds.

              A Southerner in Yankeeland

              To save your life read "Pity The Billionaire" by Thomas Frank, and "Winner-Take-All-Politics" by Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson. Then read more books.

              by A Southerner in Yankeeland on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 10:06:07 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  You mean news people (4+ / 0-)

          like Chuck Todd, maybe? Busy doing what he does best, being wrong about pretty much everything.

          I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
          but I fear we will remain Democrats.

          Who is twigg?

          by twigg on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 09:54:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I suspect if he had asked, they would self (0+ / 0-)

        identify as christians, perhaps even evangelical christians.

        "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

        by LilithGardener on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 07:00:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I have begun to realize that conservatives seem to (4+ / 0-)

        be unable to put themselves in someone else's shoes which basically means they are incapable of empathy.

        48forEastAfrica - Donate to Oxfam> "It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness." Edna St.V. Millay

        by slouching on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 11:40:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Typical conservative response (16+ / 0-)

      In that Churches should take care of people.  The reality is that unless all the church members donate most (if not all) of their monies, this is impossible.  

      However, it serves another purpose to say that "government is evil" and should never have gotten involved with helping those in need (which is anti-Christian thought).  It totally disregards governments helping feed/save populations in the Bible starting with Joseph in the Old Testament.

      And it serves at least one last purpose, it makes conservatives feel that they have done their "Christian duty" when they donate canned goods or a package of diapers and that, in effect, takes care of "all the social problems" and there is no need for government involvement.  

      It is a rather self-centered and delusional take on the reality of churches cannot sustain taking care of the vast majority of the population.  Only a well functioning government can do that.

      •  I Suggest That Someone That Has Lost Their Job (11+ / 0-)

        and have struggled to find another one should take a hidden camera along with them and visit several local churches and explain their situation and ask for a job, ask for some food, ask for some money.

        And see just what kind of response they would get from the church.

        Any guesses as to what their response would be?

        Some might actually give them a job, give them money, give them food.

        For the first few showing up.

        If many showed up, they would either begin refusing or have to establish some rules.  Oh mercy, a "government" bureaucracy.

        At what point would the churches give up?

        Would they be nasty right from the beginning or eventually become the "government' bureaucracy that they claim to abhor?

        "I think that gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman.” - Arnold Schwarzenegger 2003

        by kerplunk on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 07:00:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  That's because they want to have control over (9+ / 0-)

        people, and be in a position to judge the poor and needy, and to guilt their own children into certain compliance by pointing to the poor and needy in their church as "a cautionary tale."

        "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

        by LilithGardener on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 07:01:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  exactly right (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LilithGardener, gdunn

          That's why the temple in the Old Testament had a mechanism so that people could give to charity and receive from charity with no knowledge of each other. Anonymity was important to avoid judgement. Maimonides pointed this out in the twelfth century, saying anonymous charity is the second highest form, just after helping out an individual personally to get them self sustaining and their life on a good track. (The good track metaphor came 600 years later.)

          Unfortunately, most conservatives don't take the Bible seriously as a moral guide.

          •  If Churches followed OT teachings (0+ / 0-)

            There would be little hunger or debt.  Every 7 years, there would be a Sabbath Year where debts were forgiven and every 50 years, everything--land you may have sold, your services (labor) that has been rented out (and you may have included all of your family) would be over.  You would get back your land and you wouldn't be owned by another for your labor.

            And the nation had a big party to celebrate!  Unfortunately, here in the USA, too many churches are connected to a political party, which in turn is connected to big money.

      •  Plus, what is the price of church charity? (0+ / 0-)

        Conversion?  Someone out of a job would have to walk away from there Catholic roots, for example, and become Jewish?

        And who are the churches accountable to?  Not the voters.

        The most violent element in society is ignorance.

        by Mr MadAsHell on Sat Jul 27, 2013 at 11:17:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, yea (0+ / 0-)

        The one who has no time to educate herself about politics has five kids.  So if she were hearing a lower income woman say what she is saying, her response would no doubt be to keep your legs shut.  Incredible.  This buffoon is procreating.  Just what we need.

        Please save a child's life. www.signon.org/sign/sarasota-sheriffs-office

        by kmfmstar on Sun Jul 28, 2013 at 04:48:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  That is someone who doesn't know that (10+ / 0-)

      if not for Medicare and SS, they would have been supporting either his parents or her parents or both, at the same time that they were sending their kids to college.

      The one with 5 kids, would have been relying one or both grandmas for childcare, because grandma lived with them, and mom had to go out and get a job.

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 06:58:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Seems to me I remember (0+ / 0-)

      seeing about the beggars  in India sitting by the side of the road with a bowl in their hand, begging for a bit of food, is that what we want in this country?

      old, tired, poor, unemployed, sick of republicans screwing us over.

      by MDhome on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 06:26:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I wonder how long the "Obamacare"name will last (11+ / 0-)

    I'm a Canadian and it's really hard to to convey how much Canadians really love our health care system.  Oh sure there are the usual complaints and gripes you'll get with anything, but it's one of the most popular institutions in this country.  You'll see similar sentiments in other countries with public/national health care systems.

    Tommy Douglas is still one of the best known and popular Candians in our history because he is seen as "the father of Medicare".

    Some day the US will get there too, and Obamacare will likely be seen as the first step down that path.  This will really help cement his legacy long term (as if being the first non-white President wasn't enough).  I wonder how long his name will be attached to it though.  I'm guessing that at some point Republicans will get tired of having to call something so popular after a Democrat they reviled, and will try to pass a new act mostly just so that they can try to change the name they popularized themselves.

    The irony: it's delicious.

    •  So the GOP's "cavalier" days are numbered? (0+ / 0-)

      Figure you'd say something like that. But that doesn't mean you are wrong. He who laughs last over Obamacare laughs best.

      •  ? I have no idea what you are getting at (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Quicklund

        Not sure what you mean by "cavalier" days or referencing me specifically as saying that.

        •  Sorry (0+ / 0-)

          I thought you'd get treference to the English Civil War.

          The English Civil War (1642–1651) was a series of armed conflicts and political problems between Parliamentarians (Roundheads) and Royalists (Cavaliers).
          What with the GOP being lovers of hierarchy and 'cavalier' coming to mean being too willing to ignore a threat... well it on't work if you have to explain it. :)
          •  OOOH! Gotcha (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Quicklund

            I use the handle "Roundhead" as an inside joke with a friend.

            You see, I have a head, and it is round.  I also keep it shaved which I guess accents the shape.  Anyway, when my friend was in the maternity ward with her first child she was standing next to another new mother, and they were looking at the babies in the, uh, I don't know what the room is called but behind the glass.

            "Is that your baby?" she asked the other mother.

            "What?  That's ain't my baby with the rooooooound head!'

            That exchange stuck with my friend, and after we became friends she would make jokes about me having a round head.  So eventually I wrote a short story for her where the main character was a hard boiled detective named "Roundhead", and the joke was on.

    •  I thought it was TimHortonCare (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vpilot

      The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy;the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness

      by CTMET on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 06:49:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Canada has good medical care (0+ / 0-)

      Amusingly, we were talking to a high priced Park Avenue (OK - not exactly - she was between Park & 5th, not far from Central Park) plastic surgeon about where she goes for elective cosmetic surgery, and she said Toronto, because it was a lot cheaper there and just as good. We're talking about elective, self pay, cosmetic surgery here, but it's no better for the other stuff. Maybe Canadians need to build a high security wall to keep out sick USA-ians.

  •  That's pretty fascinating. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    myboo, ichibon, hnichols, Quicklund

    (And you're friggin' awesome.)

    They managed to tell a really compelling story, connecting the dots of various right-wing memes--they didn't read the bill, a family budget is the same as a national budget, and so forth.

    Do you think they'd change their minds if they understood all that about 80 percent of their premiums, other health screenings, and lifetime caps?

    I don't.

    Slightly off-topic, why didn't we push for national instead of state-based insurance? I moved from Maine to California and my premiums went down substantially because (I suspect) of the larger population.

    "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

    by GussieFN on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 10:04:40 AM PDT

    •  Hard question, but here's a shot at explaining (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GussieFN, Quicklund
      why didn't we push for national instead of state-based insurance?
      Insurance is something that is typically regulated through the states.  Because each state has its own regulations, and each insurance company writes state-specific policies, there is a strong argument that Congress has no power to legislate in this area because it would not be regulating interstate commerce (Art. I sec. 8 of the Constitution).  The Supreme Court agreed with this when it held that Congress's power to legislate came under the taxing power and not interstate commerce.

      I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use -- Galileo Galilei

      by ccyd on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 10:49:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's a great explanation! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hnichols

        "Because the Supreme Court said no."

        (Not 100% accurate, but sort of gist-ish-ly ...)

        "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

        by GussieFN on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 11:00:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's the Court's perogative (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          GussieFN, hnichols

          The Consitution says what the Supreme Court says it says.  Four justices thought that the commerce clause applied and allowed the Congress to act.  Five did not.  That most of the lawyers and judges in America would back up the four is of no moment when the five control the outcome.

          I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use -- Galileo Galilei

          by ccyd on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 11:07:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Another reason: The race to the bottom sucks (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GussieFN

      This "national-based" insurance as suggested by our dead Libertarian friend would work this way.

      Any American could buy insurance from any company based in any state.

      Fifty states would write insurance regulations.

      The state which wrote the least-effective regulations with the fewest consumer protections would soon witness the arrival of every major insurance company's headquarters to their borders.

      These companies would sell insurance to Americans living in each state.

      The state laws which would regulate these policies would be the state laws in the state where the company HQ was located.

      That state would be the one with the least protection for you.

      Your insurance cost would go up and the quality of your policy would go down.

      That's the system this woman wants, though I am sure this is not how it works in here mind. but it's what the insurance companies were pressing up until the ACA passed in 2009. Boy howdy was it ever!

      •  Yeah. I'd thought the idea was (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Quicklund

        that there would be one set of federal insurance regulations. Make the whole country into a single pool playing by the same rules.

        But states rights! States rights!

        "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

        by GussieFN on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 03:05:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The old switcheroo (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          GussieFN

          That's what most people think who support the idea. But that's not what makes the idea so popular among GOP politicians.

          Just like most supporters who yell out FLAT TAX! have no idea they are supporting a PLEASE BEND ME OVER AGAIN tax.

          •  One of my pet daydreams (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Quicklund

            is a way to make 'flat tax' into something progressive that taxes, say, estates and financial transactions and hedge funds. Sadly, that's tough, given a) flat tax is inherently regressive and b) my complete ignorance of all matters financial.

            "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

            by GussieFN on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 04:53:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yeah if I understood high finance I'd be richer (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              GussieFN

              I do know enough not to get snookered by the flat tax though. ;)

            •  The way to fight a flat taxer (0+ / 0-)

              is to ask them if they would allow any lower limit for who has to pay it. (I.e., is there any income below which a person wouldn't have to pay?) If so, tell them they just admitted to supporting a progressive tax system, albeit one with only 2 tax brackets. Then ask them why "2" is inherently better than "3", "4", "5", or "eleventy-billion" . . .
              If they say everybody has to pay it for it to be "fair", ask them why they want to raise taxes on whatever % they think doesn't pay tax, since raising taxes is supposed to be verboten?

              "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

              by bryduck on Sat Jul 27, 2013 at 10:03:14 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  a flat tax could work (0+ / 0-)

              A flat tax could be progressive if it let everyone deduct expenses like a corporation. If food, clothing, shelter and other costs of goods sold - in this case labor - were deductible as a business, most people would pay very little. The wealthy would either have to spend a LOT more money or pay higher taxes. Put in a 30-50% rate and stop treating capital gains or inheritances as special, and you'd have a fairly progressive tax system. (It might make sense to provide a standard deduction for people who don't itemize, perhaps based on income and their housing payments, as most people keep track of their housing payments, but not precise track of all the other stuff.)

              Maybe we liberals need a flat tax plan too.

              P.S. I don't mind the wealthy having more and spending more. It's when they bottle up the money and just put it into financial or fixed assets that is effectively removed from the economy.

        •  They would love to have New York's policies (0+ / 0-)

          with Texas prices.

          Sorry honey, it don't work that way.

          It's clear that neither one has yet had a major medical situation.

          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

          by LilithGardener on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 07:22:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly why else are Credit cards companies in (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Naniboujou

        South Dakota?

      •  Thank you for this. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LilithGardener

        I've always believed that the "national insurance" was a bad thing, but I've never seen it laid out so succinctly.

        The central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself." -- Wanda

        by the autonomist on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 06:43:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Shorter answer - see Delaware (0+ / 0-)

        for why Corporations have so many rights and so few regulations.

        "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

        by LilithGardener on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 07:20:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The ACA specifically allows for states to form (4+ / 0-)

      pacts  which allow for a common insurance market. BUT, unlike what the right wing proposes, the ACA requires all states involved to approve the pact in their legislatures.

      In other words, the ACA actually respects each state's rights, whereas the 'states' rights' trumpeting republicans want to override the state legislatures and ram a cross-border insurance scheme down their throats.

      •  Won't surprise me if, after it's all set up (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        OhioNatureMom

        that NY, NJ, VT, CT, and MA form a regional exchange. There are a lot of people who live in one of these states but work in another.

        "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

        by LilithGardener on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 07:24:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Excellent point (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        OhioNatureMom, bryduck

        I have some libertarian friends who I often debate with, and this gives me a new angle to take.

        For all of their talk about "states' rights" and abolishing the federal government, opening up health insurance to cross-border insurance would in effect take away state's rights.

        Any thoughts on how I can convince them that Thomas Jefferson was a Democrat and not a Libertarian?

        •  TJ not so libertarian (0+ / 0-)

          when he made the Louisiana Purchase, doubling the size of the country and therefore the land owned (and governed) by the federal government . . .

          "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

          by bryduck on Sat Jul 27, 2013 at 10:16:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Good Point. Straight From Fox News And Rush (4+ / 0-)

      Limbaugh.

      connecting the dots of various right-wing memes--they didn't read the bill, a family budget is the same as a national budget, and so forth.
      also smaller government, too much debt, need to shrink our government, against individual mandate, need to nationalize competition (they always forget about their state's rights mantra when convenient), struggling business owner (I've never heard of a conservative business owner that isn't struggling, makes you wonder if they're even capable) and health insurance is so much more for business owners, my congressman didn't read the act, have to contribute to schools (heavens!), government mismanagement, social security, medicare, and Obamacare all have same problems.

      Then go on to explain I'm all about taking care of people.

      I think these two ladies were juror B92 and B93 on the Zimmerman Trial jury.

      "I think that gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman.” - Arnold Schwarzenegger 2003

      by kerplunk on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 07:13:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm all for shirinking the government (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kerplunk, Mathazar, missississy

        but the difference is that I'd rather see those cuts go to things like corporate welfare or oil subsidies, and not meals on wheels or food stamps.

        It really comes down to priorities. Republicans have shown they have no problem spending $1T on their favorite industries, but they cannot father spending $1T on the poor and needy.

      •  I was thinking the same thing. (0+ / 0-)

        Plus, why are they so stupid?  And they appeared to be happy to let the world know just how small minded and stupid they are.  Cause they don't even realize it.  

        Sounded like sisters of Palin.  

        Please save a child's life. www.signon.org/sign/sarasota-sheriffs-office

        by kmfmstar on Sun Jul 28, 2013 at 04:20:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Not too well informed, eh? Better ask hubby! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    otto, weneedahero, hnichols, Quicklund

    Shouldn't an adult who is as opinionated as Kerry have a definite answer about where she gets her health care?

  •  Cool (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hnichols

    Thanks.

    Streichholzschächtelchen

    by otto on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 10:42:20 AM PDT

  •  Unlimited praise for your patience and poise (0+ / 0-)

    But no, I don't think anything will change the minds of these women. Well, perhaps the non-Libertarian one might be convinced years from now by the experiences of her children. The Libertarian sees only the imaginary world Libertaron so nothing that happens on, y'know, Earth, will affect her.

  •  What jumped out at me was that both of them (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    weneedahero

    really really really wanted smaller government...and yet when they were talking about having to cut back they both complained about having to pay more fees for schools and education. Well duh!!! The more you cut back government, the more you have to pay out of your own pocket for basic government provided services!

    "When life kicks you, let it kick you forward." Kay Yow

    by vernonbc on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 04:29:50 PM PDT

    •  Yeah, they haven't done the math (0+ / 0-)

      They seem like reasonable intelligent women, until they start to explain.

      The one whose husband owns a business? I'll bet they have been socking money away in tax sheltered vehicles for years, without a thought.

      But $1000 a month for a family insurance policy? That was a pretty good deal.

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 07:27:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm writing this before I listen to the interview. (10+ / 0-)

    I wanted to post a comment about lifetime caps. In my opinion, eliminating lifetime caps is not so much about preventing medical bankruptcies as it is about sustaining life instead of mandating that someone die for the sake of an insurance company's profit margin. I am a prime example. My husband's employer's current employee health insurance company had a lifetime cap of $250,000 for any sort of transplant and transplant care. My transplant alone was billed at $188,000 (most of which was covered by Medicare, but if Medicare had been out of the picture...), and there have been 2 1/2 years worth of aftercare so far. This would easily have exceeded the insurance company's lifetime cap, and I would not have been able to get another transplant because they wouldn't pay for it. The ACA has eliminated those lifetime caps, which means that when, not if, I need another kidney transplant, I ought to be able to get one and have it covered once my waiting list time is up, instead of choosing between death when the transplant fails or death from the complications of hemodialysis. (The reason I say when, not if, is that the immunosuppresant drugs I am on are toxic to the kidney I received, and there's no way out of that. There aren't any other drugs to substitute.)

    Lifetime cap elimination means life rather than death for a lot of people. You can't get a transplant unless you have coverage that authorizes it (only Medicare requires no preauthorization) or cash in pocket to pay for it and at least a year of aftercare and prescriptions.  You can't just get one and then declare medical bankruptcy. Other expensive procedures and care fall under the same prepay/preauth guidelines and are things you can't qualify for unless your insurance or your pocketbook says so. They check. They keep checking, and they check at the very last minute. I've been through it. I know firsthand.

    Life or death. President Obama and Congress chose life for many people who would otherwise die. Never forget that.

    •  You are far from alone (0+ / 0-)

      We have a friend whose daughter has long since gone over her lifetime cap. She's 11. He works as a sea cook in the merchant marine. He was planning to get a job at the local prison if the insurance ran out. After that, who knows? ACA meant he could keep his old job and his daughter alive.

  •  You a wonderfully patient interviewer (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    terrybuck, Lefty Ladig, nadd2

    who got them talking about values.

    Oh, I used to be disgusted
    Now I try to be amused
    ~~ Elvis Costello

    by smileycreek on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 06:26:10 PM PDT

  •  proof once again that conservatives aren't RUSH (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z

    there are a small minority of lout mouthed assholes on the right and they push people into corners on wedge issues

    but in my experience growing up on the right, the regular folks weren't all that different from the regular folks on the left

  •  They're stupid & evil, namely their RW Rs (0+ / 0-)

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 06:39:01 PM PDT

  •  low hanging fruit (0+ / 0-)

    really not current, kinda cheap

  •  What was stopping them (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    timewarp, kerplunk, Mathazar

    from accessing the ACA before it was passed?  It was online, all bills are online. And then there were many and various message boards and blogs which discussed and argued in depth what was in it, what changes were made and negotiations over details.

    The only thing I can remember which was taken out right before they passed it was the waiver ability to start up a state system. I didn't agree with that, nor do I like a lot of the carve outs.

    These women are making excuses for their own willful ignorance.

  •  Highlight Plunging Expectancy In GOP Red States (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OhioNatureMom

    The story of slipping nnational life expectancy  has been dribbling out for several months, so it's not easily dismissed, but only folks like Mother Jones is making the link between deep red counties and plunging life expectancies.

    Men are so necessarily mad that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness -Pascal

    by bernardpliers on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 06:48:36 PM PDT

  •  Well done! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PsychoSavannah, OhioNatureMom

    You engaged them in a friendly, non-confrontational manner and we saw them speak as they likely speak amongst themselves.  

    I was particurlarly struck the little bit about how they have to spend more these days as individual families on school supplies...that in itself, it followed up on could open a whole can of worms regarding what tax money is actually spent upon, as well as who is being taxed at what rates.  

  •  Conservatism is basically the ideology (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OhioNatureMom

    of entitled clueless people, whether their sense of entitlement is based on money, race, nationality or gender. If their prejudices run deep, it's extremely hard to get them to change through fact-based persuasion alone. They have to experience the harsh consequences of conservatism themselves to see the light. But if they're not deeply committed to their ideology and are reasonably intelligent and decent, sometimes they can be turned.

    The success of conservatism depends on there being large numbers of clueless and/or entitled people who are afraid of losing something dear to them, be it money, status, privilege or power. This has been true since always.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 06:58:19 PM PDT

    •  the problem with that (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mgleaf, Mathazar, pkgoode, OhioNatureMom

      is that I have conservative friends and family who have no problems with taking from the Government because they feel they really need and deserve it, whereas in their opinion, everyone else is just a moocher.

      The concept that other people need those same benefits equally and for the same reasons is completely beyond them.

      •  Thus clueless and entitled (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        OhioNatureMom

        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

        by kovie on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 09:14:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Do you literally not see (0+ / 0-)

        that every single point you made just proves every single point I made? The reason your friends and family believe that THEY are entitled to government benefits that other people aren't entitled to is precisely BECAUSE of their cluelessness and (utterly unearned and undeserved) sense of entitlement, because they're rich, or white, or "conservative", or don't live in some godless big city, etc. (even as they get government benefits and download porn way more than liberals and blue state residents). And this cluelessness and sense of entitlement is precisely what makes them "conservative" (which in its modern sense actually means selfish, mean, entitled and clueless).

        Conservative = selfish, mean, entitled and clueless

        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

        by kovie on Sat Jul 27, 2013 at 07:38:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  In general, I don't disagree with you (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kovie

          But I do think it's unfair to equate Conservatism with cluelessness, since many conservatives are actually very bright and aware of the problems in our country. There solutions to the problems are what are suspect.

          However I would say that that majority of conservatives do lack empathy for others.  And if they do feel compassion, they want to let the church handle those problems.

          You are correct in amending your comment to add selfishness; since the "me first" attitude is congruent with conservatism and libertarianism, beyond race or their station in life, but more importantly there is a feeling that other people who are in need don't deserve help because of some kind of deficiency in their efforts.

          The friends and family that I mentioned are just much better at rationalizing why they are more deserving to receive benefits than others.

          •  They call it personal responsibility (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kmfmstar

            We call it selfishness. We are our brother's keeper and that's just the way it is. You literally cannot be a Christian or Jew of true faith without believing and practicing this (and letting someone rot on their own is not "keeping" them). Which is why their profession of faith is so laughable. It is utterly without any substance. Some of them might be "smart", but in a very "in the box" sort of way, very formulaic, cram for your SAT's sort of way, like Romney.

            Although, the cluelessness I referred to was more of an empathic, not thinking kind. They seem to literally not get that most people aren't as well-off and privileged as they are. It simply doesn't register. It's just an abstraction, the way that some old people don't get that almost no one listens to Paul Anka or Connie Francis anymore. My dad's kind of clueless that way. Except, in the case of conservatives, it's not just a quaint idiosyncrasy, but sociopathology.

            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

            by kovie on Sat Jul 27, 2013 at 09:31:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You are overgeneralizing (0+ / 0-)

              and your argument is getting weaker.

              You actually can be a Christian or Jew, make your tithes or donations to the local church/temple, and feel completely righteous and justified in doing so because those are the instructions of the Church. Anything beyond that is extracurricular.

              Again, I agree that there are people who are purely selfish and cannot/will not spend on others no matter what, conservatism has less to do with privilege and more to do with a lack of empathy. It's easier for one person, who knows and understands their personal struggles, to justify why they deserve a hand-out. However, they automatically assume that certain people are naturally "takers".

              •  I don't care what they "feel" (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                kmfmstar

                I care what they ARE. You can tithe all you like but if you don't care about other people you're a religious hypocrite. The bible is pretty clear on what constitutes being a righteous person, and what constitutes being a bad one. Everything else is just rationalization and magical thinking.

                Now, perhaps they're clueless about that too, but that just further proves my point: conservatives are clueless AND selfish (and all that other stuff I'm too tired to remember). And those who aren't clueless, and know that they're being cruel, are just plain evil. Not all conservatives are evil, of course, but an awful lot are, be it on a small or large scale.

                "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                by kovie on Sat Jul 27, 2013 at 10:43:49 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  Wow (7+ / 0-)

    all I did was yell at the monitor because they were wrong, wrong, and wrong, and you know, this video does not give me hope at all.

    I thought I would see the lightbulb go off, and instead they just bitched about shit that isn't even there.

    "They're elitists" = we don't like Obama

    "I want to see us go in a different direction" = we don't like Obama.

    We hate that law!  We have no idea what's in it but we hate it!  It will destroy us!  

    Well, actually I'm mad because my reps voted for it without reading it.  Not that I have any particular bitch about it that's founded in reality.

    This is supposed to be hopeful?

    What it did show is what happens when you let someone spew garbage and don't challenge them.  It seems like a nice conversation because he lets them talk.

    Letting people talk without challenge usually results in a nice friendly conversation.

    This is why I don't talk politics with right wing people.  I just get pissed off, I have no patience.  I couldn't fathom how that guy just sat there listening without challenge.

    Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

    by delphine on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 07:02:01 PM PDT

    •  Not "don't like Obama" vis a vis "elitism" (0+ / 0-)

      Republicans have been throwing that disparagement at Dems for decades--it has nothing to do with Obama.
      Thinking Republican hatred and ignorance is all about race or Obama is not accurate or helpful in fighting it, because when R voters hear you call them racists or Obama haters and they aren't, they tune you 100% out. Do you really think it would have been any different if this was "Hillarycare" (or "WhomeverDemcare") they were arguing against? It wasn't in 1993-4, that's for sure . . .

      "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

      by bryduck on Sat Jul 27, 2013 at 10:29:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What a pair.... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Danali, pkgoode, OhioNatureMom

    Tweedledum and Tweedledummer. What a pair of ignoramuses. They are typical of so many.... They're apparently content to simply whine and complain about things they know little, if any, about.

    Hey girls (and like minded guys)!!! There's a new recreational activity you might try. It's called, READING!

  •  "Smaller government" means different things to (4+ / 0-)

    different people.  

    I have a Republican low info neighbor who thinks it means less bureaucracy...but what it really means is less regulation of giant monopolies, less regulation of our air, water etc.  And we are where we are today due to exactly that type of smaller government...as over the last 40 years regulation of various industries have been reduced as more and more of the stalwart legislators accept their bribes.  

    Dollarocracy is not Democracy

    by leema on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 07:24:29 PM PDT

    •  I'll bet... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OhioNatureMom, bryduck

      ...that your neighbor can't even explain what he means by "less bureaucracy." I'll bet that he doesn't want to reduce defense spending, and there's no greater bureaucracy than the military.

      "There is no room for injustice anywhere in the American mansion." Lyndon Johnson

      by pkgoode on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 09:31:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I would have liked the interviewer to (0+ / 0-)

      ask those women what they meant by less government or smaller government or whatever they said.  That's always what I'm thinking....what do they think it means?  

      Once my mechanic and I were discussing politics and he  was saying "less regulations" for big business and I said so you think they should be able to do business in whatever way is the most advantageous for them,regardless of its affects on consumers?  And he says, well, there should be laws and all.  Asshat.  These women are asshats.  Sorry, I can't be more charitable than that.

      Please save a child's life. www.signon.org/sign/sarasota-sheriffs-office

      by kmfmstar on Sun Jul 28, 2013 at 04:34:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  'obamacare' is textbook eg of talk radio success (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OhioNatureMom, missississy

    like so much other RW framing that term 'obamacare' was created largely because they have a radio monopoly that is allowed to do whatever it wants to do, and gets a free speech free ride from the left to do it.

    to the obama admin's credit and the dismay of the rovian feeders of the talk radio blowhards, obama co-opted it.

    if the roves had chosen a more negative term for it, that is the term most americans would be using today.

    such as 'crappycare'.

    or 'commiecare'

    and if the left had gotten anita hill's back like they did sandra fluke's, we'd have single payer by now. no joke.

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 08:09:05 PM PDT

  •  This is supposed to encourage me? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OhioNatureMom

    Clueless ignoramuses.

    There is no persuading these people, and the only point in treating them reasonably is to keep from being like them. The only answer is to marginalize them by voting in greater numbers.

    "There is no room for injustice anywhere in the American mansion." Lyndon Johnson

    by pkgoode on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 09:29:46 PM PDT

  •  That was very good. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OhioNatureMom

    It was a friendly exchange and they seemed like nice women. But they were not well-informed. It was clear that they get their info from the propaganda TV sites. It was interesting to me that they moved from CA to Austin, TX and like Texas better. I'd be curious to know if they still like Texas better.

    48forEastAfrica - Donate to Oxfam> "It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness." Edna St.V. Millay

    by slouching on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 11:39:04 PM PDT

  •  Conservative Women (0+ / 0-)

    These ladies demonstrate that they are just as uninformed as their other conservative bretheren. The lady on the left complains about how much money she has to pay and then says that she has five children. Hello? Why do you have children that you have difficulty supporting?
    They are totally uninformed about Obamacare, as it will help reduce their health insurance costs, unlike the current system. They also complain about the government debt, totally ignorant of the fact that when Bush came into office, someone they voted for, there were budget surpluses. So, just like all the others on the right they neeed to get an education.

  •  Very innovative use of media to promote discussion (0+ / 0-)

    Mr. Willies give us a clear demonstration of how to create open discussion with people whose minds are already made up.  He is nonthreatening, respectful, honest about his own position, and asks questions not easily answered by memorized sound bites.  You can see them catching themselves in contradictions.

    - Government cannot afford to insure people (but charities can?)

    - I am having to budget tightly, schools keep asking me for money (charity) that I don't have. (How much more will you give to the charities?)

    - We need interstate competition to lower health insurance rates -- (why do you pay such differing rates state-to-state now? Who decided the rates and why?)

    Well done, Mr. Willies, well done.  I am a new fan.  

  •  These two ladies... (0+ / 0-)

    apparently know very little of what the Affordable Care Act does for them and their children.  I'm so glad they've moved out of California.

  •  This is not helping my attitude about Californians (0+ / 0-)

    moving to Texas.

  •  It's all about how they "feel." (0+ / 0-)

    n/t

    So I see only tatters of clearness through a pervading obscurity - Annie Dillard -6.88, -5.33

    by illinifan17 on Sun Jul 28, 2013 at 11:16:07 AM PDT

  •  No hope (0+ / 0-)

    These people are nitwits.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site