Posted on 08/29/2009 2:50:57 PM PDT by lowbridge
Heated partisan debate over President Obama's health care plan, erupting at town hall meetings and in the blogosphere, has more to do with our illogical thought processes than reality, sociologists are finding.
The problem: People on both sides of the political aisle often work backward from a firm conclusion to find supporting facts, rather than letting evidence inform their views.
The result: A survey out this week finds voters split strongly along party lines regarding their beliefs about key parts of the plan. Example: About 91 percent of Republicans think the proposal would increase wait times for surgeries and other health services, while only 37 percent of Democrats think so.
Irrational thinking
A totally rational person would lay out - and evaluate objectively - the pros and cons of a health care overhaul before choosing to support or oppose a plan. But we humans are not so rational, according to Steve Hoffman, a visiting professor of sociology at the University of Buffalo.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
1,000 pages plus of legislation is enough to convince me that this is no simple health care system for the uninsured, period.
It’s the Rats who don’t know how to think.
But that's ok, it's presented that the Republican viewpoint's all wonky. Shame they couldn't bother to spend the time to prove to the idiots out there that we're right, but then again, that wouldn't support the leftist agendas, now, would it?
Advocates generally appeal to what Obama says. Critics generally appeal to what actual proposed, and/or committee passed, legislation says.
A totally rational person would not use the utterings of a academic sociologist to guide their thoughts on health care. A totally rational person would give no special weight to anyone just because they happen to be from the academe. A totally rationale person would vet all opinions, no matter where they come from.
Some people are incapable of thinking. Dem voters mostly hate and blame. Lord, I am sick of them.
vaudine
funny how when the rats were desicrating the American flag, or comparing our President to Hitler or denigrating everything about this great country or destroying property while protesting the Iraq war for the six year period starting in 2003 we had no articles about a debate being wages illogically....
Actually diminishing resources, as fewer people will want to become doctors in this new hell, and more doctors will retire earlier.
There are no unicorns to charge to the rescue here. Kill America’s health system and you will deeply stab the entire world’s.
The Rats don’t know what to do with the bus when they finally catch it.
Irrational thinking
Let's see... Using real-world implementations of "socialized medicine" in deciding whether to support this nonsense is "irrational thinking?" Let's look at what has happened where this has been implemented. In Canada, they're canceling even critical surgeries, due to lack of funds. Women can't get admitted to hospitals for childbirth in Great Britain. MA, which has "universal insurance" has some of the highest costing insurance rates in the country. Didn't Hawaii have to cancel their "universal health care" because they ran out of money? Medicare and Medicade are broke and if they were in the private sector, they would have been declared insolvent and bankrupt years ago. Only because the federal government can play financial games that would get a private business owner thrown in jail are they still operating. And let's not forget the hundreds of billions of dollars in fraud and corruption that the government admits exists in those programs.
But now we're expected to hand over our health insurance and health care to a government that can't manage a rebate program for cars?
I see how anyone would conclude that opposing the government take-over of health insurance and health care would be "irrational!"
Mark
Many conservatives are arguing this wrong. Here is the beginning and end of the Health Care debate.
We the People of the United States, in Order to:
- form a more perfect Union,
- establish Justice,
- insure domestic Tranquility,
- provide for the common defence,
- promote the general Welfare, and
- secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
That is the “WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT” statement. Now, the end of the argument is:
Article [I.]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Article [II.]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Article [III.]
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Article [IV.]
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Article [V.]
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Article [VI.]
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Article [VII.]
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Article [VIII.]
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Article [IX.]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Article [X.]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
*************************************************************
THERE IS NO UNIVERAL RIGHT TO HEALTH CARE.
The United States Constitution does not, and was NEVER intended to, secure any “right” to health care provided/underwritten/administered by the government.
We can formulate laws which PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE. We can argue about how to do that till the cows come home. But Health Care is NOT a constitutional right.
Some of the most amazingly stupid people I ever met were in college. While they were surprisingly "well educated," i.e. were getting good grades, these people didn't have the slightest shred of common sense, or the ability to reason anything out for themselves. I swear, they didn't have the common sense to come in out of the rain!
Mark
Jeanna Bryner, you ignorant slut.
The fact that the same A-hole politicians who are creating this government takeover refuse to participate in it themselves is all anyone needs to prove that it’s a royal mess.
Jeanna Bryner, you ignorant slut. (I like the ring of that.)
My dog is smarter than any sociology professor. Period.
Mark
We conservatives have done that. We have read HR 3200 and understand what is in it and what the impact will be fiscally and qualitatively in terms of healthcare. It is the Left who are reacting emotionally and don't want to discuss what is actually in the bill or are lying about what is in it. Hope and change only go so far.
TennCare - bankrupt.
Romneycare - on the path to being bankrupt.
Medicare - pert near bankrupt.
Medicaid - bankrupting states.
Meanwhile, liberals are attacking the CEO of Whole Food markets for pointing out the obvious problems with governmental health care entitlements while providing market-based health insurance that his own employees vote to have - as that CEO takes a dollar a year salary (wonder how Obama's pay czar is gonna go after that buck).
In other words, this is not a debate. This is about a struggle between those who wish to force-feed government on free people.
And those who do not care for such a force-feeding.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
