I’ve been trying to figure out how the Right seems to do such a great job with getting their message out while the Left seems to constantly be struggling. The Occupy Wall Street protest tends to appears to the public as a whiny, unemployed, scattered bunch who is unable to focus on a message. If they are mad at the government, why aren’t they in DC? They are mad at the very people who create jobs….They are mad at corporations who are following the law…They are on welfare…They are being paid to protest….
I admit, I think Occupy Wall Street message is a little diluted, but I believe that is because of the amount of anger. Americans have been quiet for so long, believing things were going to get better, believing the lies the politicians told, believing that if they were good employees, good citizens, that good things would happen. And they were lied to. And they are pissed.
As some of you know, I have a few Conservative friends. I grew up in the South and it seems that a significant percentage of my high school friends drank the Kool Aid– or rather the “Tea.” I suppose I could just de-friend them, but then it appears that I’ve drunk the organic, Fair Trade Chai, low-foam, skim milk with pure crystalline raw sugar…crap, that’s tea also. And my natural inclination is to say that “my view” is the “right view, but I realize that they are saying the same thing. I’ve tried to engage in dialog with my Conservative friends with the idea of exchanging thoughtful, critical view points and both of us walking away with a better understanding of the other side’s position.
Yeah, they usually call me names. Apparently, I am a liberal, fascist, socialist Democrat. Obviously, there aren’t a lot of dictionaries down South because they obviously don’t have any idea what any of those words mean.
Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, “of freedom”)[1]
The belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, free trade, and the freedom of religion.[3][4][5][6][7]
A radicalauthoritariannationalist political ideology.[1][2] Fascists seek to rejuvenate their nation based on commitment to the national community as an organic entity, in which individuals are bound together in national identity by suprapersonal connections of ancestry, culture, and blood.[3]
An economic system in which the means of production are either state owned or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively; or a political philosophy advocating such a system.[1] As a form of social organization, socialism is based on co-operative social relations and self-management; relatively equal power-relations and the reduction or elimination of hierarchy in the management of economic and political affairs.[2][3]
Dictionary aside, one of the things I’ve noticed is how fervently Conservatives stay on message. I do have to give them credit for that. One of my conservative Facebook acquaintances recently posted, “So much for protection from HIPPA over medical records. Big brother now wants private insurance companies to release the records to them.”
Hmmm, I thought. That sounds terrible. I must investigate this huge violation. If it is true, certainly agree that this is potentially a huge invasion of privacy.
So I googled “insurance company, federal government, private” and a come up with this:
Now the Washington Examiner is certainly not my go-to source for impartial news–especially an OP-ED ARTICLE WRITTEN BY A REPUBLICAN REPRESENTATIVE, so I pull one of the descriptive sentences from the article, “federal government private insurance companies releasing medical records” and get this:
The thing that really bothers me about this are the bolded words. All of these are direct quotes from the original Washington Examiner article. These articles are actually reporting on the issue. Isn’t about the information being right or wrong. I actually cannot find a source that actually talks about the issue–probably because it is a non-issue. No one wants to read a story the “a bill that doesn’t really do anything that is in anyway divisive” was passed today. The conservative blogs all refer to the proposed rule but in it’s government-esque verbiage, it is all but impossible to tell what the rule is proposing. I found the “rule” and the summary says:
This proposed rule would implement standards for States related to reinsurance and risk adjustment, and for health insurance issuers related to reinsurance, risk corridors, and risk adjustment consistent with title I of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, referred to collectively as the Affordable Care Act. These programs will mitigate the impact of potential adverse selection and stabilize premiums in the individual and small group markets as insurance reforms and the Affordable Insurance Exchanges (‘‘Exchanges’’) are implemented, starting in 2014.
…
The temporary Federally-administered risk corridor program serves to protect against uncertainty in the Exchange by limiting the extent of issuer losses (and gains).
Did your eyes glaze over yet? From what I can tell, the government wants to make sure the insurance pools are protected and not overly funded (with our premiums) because of cautious states over charging high-risk clients in the pool.
To avoid adverse selection, issuers may set premiums higher than necessary in order to offset the potential expense of high-cost enrollees. This uncertainty could also result in an issuer being more cautious about offering certain plan designs in the Exchange. This risk will be greatest in the first years of the Exchange, and become less as the new market matures and issuers learn more about new enrollees.
I couldn’t find anything in the bill that stated the government would have access to my personally identifiable medical records. In FACT, the document states that “The State, or HHS on behalf of the State, must, “(1) Provide HHS with de-identified claims and encounter data for use in recalibrating Federally-certified risk adjustment models…”
Sorry, eyes glazing over again.
So what is the take away here? The Tea Party is, if nothing else, consistent on message. To a fault. It doesn’t matter if there isn’t any truth in the message.
What is a liberal, socialist, fascist supposed to do when confronted with people like this? First, realize that you aren’t going to change his mind any more than he will likely change your. Be polite and don’t use personal attacks, as he will certainly do to you. Research the topic and ask for a news citation. Be aware that this is a one-way streets. When YOU supply a news citation, it will be derided as a “liberal rag,” but ask for proof anyway. It’s ended several dialogues (usually with me being called a liberal, socialist, fascist) but I think it’s important that critical thinkers who are truth tellers, challenge those who are less honest and informed.
