Is it time to resurrect the "Georgia will go blue" threads from 2008? (how much, unemployment)

[suprascooby22]

Originally Posted by arjay57

That's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Most Americans (Republicans, Democrats and independents) support what's actually in the Obamacare legislation.

Obamacare’s provisions for insurance reform (ie, guaranteed issue despite preexisting conditions, eliminating lifetime benefit caps), tax credits to small businesses, health insurance exchanges, closing the Medicare doughnut hole, expanding high risk insurance pools are all highly popular.

However, many folks go off the rails based on what they *think* is in the bill. They hear talk about “death panels”, “government takeover” and stuff like that which isn’t in the bill and they freak out.

That’s why I say most voters tend to travel on stereotypes and hysteria rather than reality. It’s like those Medicare recipients running around with signs saying “Keep your government hands off my Medicare!”

The bill is over 2000 pages long, I am sure there are good parts to the bill but to ignore that there are real concerns in the other parts is being disingenious. Plenty of people have read the bill and they say it is a disaster. Now admittely I have not read the bill but I will defer to people that I take as being rational and truthful and form my opinions accordingly. Right now the majority of the American people want it to be repealed, not just ammended.

[RoslynHolcomb]

Originally Posted by suprascooby22

Tell that to the 25 other states along with Georgia that are considering the exact same law. Are they all idiots too considering thats HALF the country?

Half the country supported slavery too. Half the country supported putting the Japanese in internment camps. Half the country supported the Trail of Tears. Just because people want it doesn't make it constitutional (or right for that matter). And yes, they are idiots, (or at least their Attorneys General are). Every constitutional scholar in the country regardless of their political bent has already declared this law DOA. You cannot make being in a country illegally a state crime. That falls under the area of foreign affairs and foreign affairs are expressly reserved to federal authority in the Constitution. There's no way around that, unless of course they change the Constitution and that's highly unlikely.

Instead of engaging in ridiculous hyperbole and passing laws that they have to know will be overturned, why on earth aren't politicians looking at REAL solutions? Like penalizing these companies that are bringing these people here in the first place? Only an idiot believes that 11 million people came here illegally by crawling under a fence. These corporations bring them here, then drop the dime on them when they need to cut production. Oh yeah, that's right, corporations are people, we can't flout their Constitutional rights. But it's okay to step all over the Constitutional rights of PEOPLE.

[RoslynHolcomb]

Originally Posted by suprascooby22

The bill is over 2000 pages long, I am sure there are good parts to the bill but to ignore that there are real concerns in the other parts is being disingenious. Plenty of people have read the bill and they say it is a disaster. Now admittely I have not read the bill but I will defer to people that I take as being rational and truthful and form my opinions accordingly. Right now the majority of the American people want it to be repealed, not just ammended.

I've read the law from cover to cover TWICE, and I agree with arjay. Every time I've gotten into a dispute with someone over the law they've been opposed to it because of something they've "heard" was in it. On one forum I frequent a woman was up in arms because of the requirement that doctors record their patient's BMI. She actually thought her doctor would be reporting her weight to the federal government. Uh no, it's simply requesting the same type of statistical data that's always been collected about various illnesses. I've never gotten into a conversation with anyone about this law that had actual, factual information.

What amuses the heck out of me is that a huge percentage of the people who are opposed to "government healthcare" already receive "government healthcare" and are willing to fight to the death to keep it. There's an absolutely crazy disconnect that's been exploited for political gain. I'll be the first one to acknowledge that the Democrats got taken off-message and didn't take the initiative on selling the health plan, but it's a good law. Not a flawless law, but it will in the long-run save lives and save money. Not to mention help preserve our national security.

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by suprascooby22

The bill is over 2000 pages long, I am sure there are good parts to the bill but to ignore that there are real concerns in the other parts is being disingenious. Plenty of people have read the bill and they say it is a disaster. Now admittely I have not read the bill but I will defer to people that I take as being rational and truthful and form my opinions accordingly. Right now the majority of the American people want it to be repealed, not just ammended.

I agree with Arjay and I think he said it perfectly!

People are mad about things that they don't understand, because people are characterizing parts of the bill incorrectly (aka... "death panels" ... ending medicare, etc...)

But, mostly my problem is every public "real concern" that has been presented in the national debate has been a misunderstanding and/or direct lie.

Now I as well have read through the bill. I have an advanced degree and became fairly well acquainted at reading through legal legislation, although I'm not a lawyer.

There are some minor concerns...mostly from unintended consequences that will need to be (and some have been) addressed in the future. It will need to be tweaked and there are some parts that will work less effectively than intended and some parts that will work more effectively than intended. But, the overall direction of the bill, the major issues/changes are liked individually, which is what Arjay was referring to.

Minor concern examples
-Obama mentioned one today about perhaps the 1099 filing requirements are over burdensome given a small increase in effect.
- McDonald's/Fast Food industry. They provide extremely weak/poor healthcare to their workers, but it is slightly better than nothing (it has a $2,000 lifetime max). They are caught in a situation where they are forced to change, but most of their employees who would be eligible for a subsidy won't see that for 3.5 years and their is no immediate tax credit to Mcdonald's to recover the cost. (the whole law takes 4 years to 'phase-in') The fix: There has been an effort to give some companies a waiver from certain requirements until the legislation is fully in effect.

There are bound to be others, but these are issues that will be dealt with and changed, as would be with any major legislation. These are also issues that I, and for that matter most liberals, do want to work through and address. But, we don't want to destroy the major changes that individually are mostly liked.

Most of the people arguing against it aren't bringing these issues up. They brought up "death panels" and "doing away with medicare" and "government getting in between you and your doctor," which are all blatantly false. The sad thing is these attacks worked. My great aunt (age 92) was for the health care legislation, but then was fuming mad against it when she heard people say it was going to take away the medicare program.

[green_mariner]

I notice that the places where Democrats dominated,those places are majority African-American or majority-minority. The places where Republicans dominated, it is mainly White. That is the pattern I notice throughout the South. I don't see this that much in some of the Northern states, such as Maine, Vermont, Minnesota, and Iowa where you have places that are predominantly White and the Democrats dominated.

[AcidSnake]

I call it the "Scandinavian effect." States that are not very diverse to the favor of those with European ancestry tend to have VERY generous benefits & a strong social safety net. Very strong Progressive/Liberal Democratic support in those states.

States like Georgia & Mississippi that are decidely more diverse tend to have weaker social safety nets, so you will find more conservative/Republican support in those states.

I'm not saying that my ideas are consistent because there are plenty of northern states that elect Republicans. But usually those Republicans are more moderate to liberal than their southern counterparts, and are not so vehemently opposed to social benefits.

Just my humble opinion, anyways.

Originally Posted by pirate_lafitte

I notice that the places where Democrats dominated,those places are majority African-American or majority-minority. The places where Republicans dominated, it is mainly White. That is the pattern I notice throughout the South. I don't see this that much in some of the Northern states, such as Maine, Vermont, Minnesota, and Iowa where you have places that are predominantly White and the Democrats dominated.

[cwkimbro]

Originally Posted by AcidSnake

I call it the "Scandinavian effect." States that are not very diverse to the favor of those with European ancestry tend to have VERY generous benefits & a strong social safety net. Very strong Progressive/Liberal Democratic support in those states.

States like Georgia & Mississippi that are decidely more diverse tend to have weaker social safety nets, so you will find more conservative/Republican support in those states.

I'm not saying that my ideas are consistent because there are plenty of northern states that elect Republicans. But usually those Republicans are more moderate to liberal than their southern counterparts, and are not so vehemently opposed to social benefits.

Just my humble opinion, anyways.

Ignoring party labels... I completely agree with you about the "Scandinavian Effect!"

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by AcidSnake

I call it the "Scandinavian effect." States that are not very diverse to the favor of those with European ancestry tend to have VERY generous benefits & a strong social safety net. Very strong Progressive/Liberal Democratic support in those states.

States like Georgia & Mississippi that are decidely more diverse tend to have weaker social safety nets, so you will find more conservative/Republican support in those states.

I'm not saying that my ideas are consistent because there are plenty of northern states that elect Republicans. But usually those Republicans are more moderate to liberal than their southern counterparts, and are not so vehemently opposed to social benefits.

Just my humble opinion, anyways.

How do you suppose diversity has anything to do with it? California, New Jersey, and New York are diverse and are very Democrat and liberal. The Dakotas are Republican(though to a different tune than the South) and they aren't that diverse and have high numbers of persons of European ancestry, particularly of Scandinavian and German ancestry.

[aries4118]

Read this, y'all...


Election means that all of Georgia’s top leaders will be white male Republicans | SaportaReport

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by pirate_lafitte

How do you suppose diversity has anything to do with it? California, New Jersey, and New York are diverse and are very Democrat and liberal. The Dakotas are Republican(though to a different tune than the South) and they aren't that diverse and have high numbers of persons of European ancestry, particularly of Scandinavian and German ancestry.

There's no doubt that Germany and the Scandinavian countries have a history maintaining a generous social safety net.

However, I don't think that tradition alone accounts for the difference. A big factor is that when these safety nets were set up the populations were relatively homogeneous. Welfare programs were initially set up for the working classes during the Industrial Revolution and were strongly influenced by more socialist ideas of the social contract.

To make those programs sustainable, you have to have plenty of people working and paying in. Most of the Euro countries are now seriously feeling the pinch as the nature of their social structure has shifted. The majority can carry the minority for a while, but once things too get too far out of kilter the system comes tumbling down.