Instead of shouts, insults, how about persuasion?

Las Vegas Review Journal ^ | 8/17/2009 | Thomas Mitchell

[markomalley]

The debate over ObamaCare has degenerated into angry shouts, name-calling and thuggery, drowning out the very purpose of free speech: Persuasion.

We received a letter Friday from a person threatening to stop reading the paper if we continued "lending yourself in a campaign to attack the needed health reform. ... Too often your articles take side against such reform. If this trend continue I would stop reading your paper." Sounds like someone who has made up his mind and does not wish to be confronted with contrary facts.

Our own Sen. Harry Reid calls those questioning the health care legislation "evil-mongers" spreading "lies, innuendo and rumor."

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said, "I hope people will take a jaundiced eye to what is clearly the AstroTurf nature of so-called grass-roots lobbying." An odd accusation considering MoveOn.org practically invented the technique of urging fellow travelers to flood newspapers with pre-packaged talking points. We got a dozen or so Thursday alone, all using the same numbers and similar phrases traceable to a MoveOn.org Web site that generates letters to newspapers in a person's ZIP code.

One congressman called anti-ObamaCare people Brown Shirts. Some letter writers are calling opponents racists. Both sides are calling each other liars.

The word "socialism" gets batted about and abused, with neither side stopping long enough to grasp the fact that insurance is a simple form of basic socialism -- a group sharing risks and responsibilities. Each pays an amount into the pool. The majority will take out less than they pay in. A few will take out much more than they pay in.

[markomalley]

While this is a good editorial, I have to take issue with his definition of insurance as being "socialist."

"Socialist" is defined as public (read government) ownership of the means of production and distribution. Public policy determines how much of what is made and how and to whom it is distributed.

Insurance is a shared risk pool where interested parties voluntarily pool their risk with the understanding that across the pool as a whole, the expenses paid to the providers will not exceed the payments by the participants. The insurance pool leverages the size of the pool to obtain favorable terms with providers who also, voluntarily, choose to accept payment from the pool and are treated as preferred suppliers.

The key word being voluntary. One can choose whether or not to participate in the shared pool and with which shared pool to participate. Socialist systems are not voluntary. (That is, in fact, the distinguishing factor of HR 3200: the fact that an individual / company is required to participate and is sanctioned for not participating is what separates this from other government programs, to include other government social welfare programs)

Now, having said that, I would submit that insurance, as it is currently licensed and regulated by the State approaches fascism, but it is not socialism.

[Uncle Ike]

Yet another “Sit down, shut up, and let your ‘betters’ decide for you” editorial...

Sorry - not gonna do it....

[dalebert]

i thought the article was about persuation vs shouting.....stupid me.....the government has not persuaded me and thats why i am shouting..They are not listening.

[MNJohnnie]

John McCain tried to be reasonable and rational against Obam's all hype all the time. How did that work out for him?

The reason we do not have serious calm debate in this country is because the US Mass Media ignores anything that is reasoned serious debate. They find it "not newsworthy" The Junk Media is all hyper, glitz and confrontation all the time. The only way to get them to pay attention is to scream and carry on.

The ONLY reason the Left lost the Health Care debate is the fact that protesters forced the junk media to pay attention to them. Once they started covering the protests that coverage smashed thur the mass public fog of indifference and apathy of the average voters. It forced the average voter to pay attention and once they started doing that, they did not like what they were seeing at all.

[taxtruth]

Persuasion means being conned on this issue.The US governments job is very simple,"protect the peoples rights and leave us alone".

[Haiku Guy]

We are pursuading
We are demanding they vote “No”.
Or “Hell, No!” is good...

They want to talk us
Quite literally, to death.
We just say “Hell, No!”

[markomalley]

Yet another “Sit down, shut up, and let your ‘betters’ decide for you” editorial...

Sorry - not gonna do it....

Actually, you would find out that the editorial is at about the 95% level telling the pro-Obamacare side to stop using shouts and insults and start trying to use persuasion to sell their side. (It looks like he only barely mentions our side -- enough so as to be able to claim objectivity)

[taxtruth]

Communist are not reasonable people.

[MrB]

insurance is a simple form of basic socialism -- a group sharing risks and responsibilities

Seriously, this guy needs a punch in the mouth. Then, when he's lying there, explain the difference between voluntary cooperation and the threat/use of force.

[randita]

i thought the article was about persuation vs shouting.....stupid me.....the government has not persuaded me and thats why i am shouting..They are not listening.

Calls and emails rain 2 to 1 against the auto bailout and porkulus. But they wouldn't listen and went ahead and passed them anyhow. When they ignore the calls and emails, all that's left is to show up in person and shout until the next election rolls around and you can kick them out.

[Ann Archy]

Like Arabs, Congress ONLY respects POWER and FORCE! KEEP YELLING!

[MNJohnnie]

I agree, Obama is more Fascist then Socialist in outlook.

Socialists want the Govt to own everything. Fascists want to be able to control everything while leaving it in private hands. The model for the "Public/Private Partnership so beloved by the Clintonian Democrats, is Hitler's Germany.

The German "4 year plan" set the over all targets and left it to private industries to figure out how to meet the goals.

Looking at Obam's over all Economic policies, his outlook is basic old style Keynesian economics. The Obamites aren't "progressive" or even "liberal" they are purely reactionaries. They want to turn the clock back to the demand driven economic theories of the 1930s and FDR.

Like FDR, they are basically Fascist lite. FDR pretty much did the same thing Hitler did in Germany only with out the nasty racial politics and the militarism. That is not in any way to suggest that "FDR Was a NAZI" I merely point out there were quite a few similarity between Pre War Hitler's Germany's central planning and Roosevelt's "New Deal".

Obama is suppose to be a big fan of Lincoln, his real role model as President is FDR

[HIDEK6]

The only way to get them to pay attention is to scream and carry on.

The rats figured this out in 1964.

[Lucky Dog]

…I would submit that insurance, as it is currently licensed and regulated by the State approaches fascism, but it is not socialism.

While you are correct about some of the regulatory functions of the “state” on insurance companies approaching fascism, you are incorrect on the implied “free market” profit concept of insurance as is the author of the article. Additionally, in fairness, it should be pointed out that a great many of the regulatory functions to which you referred were created in an attempt to curtail fraud or to protect potential consumers from vendor misrepresentation, unintentional or otherwise. Whether these regulatory functions achieved that goal or created more harm than good through the “law of unintended consequences” is a different discussion.

The “free market” concept of insurance begins, as the article’s author asserts, with pooled, assumed risk on the part of a provider and loss protection on the part of an insurance purchaser. However, his explanation assumes no other economic functions in play, i.e., implied in his explanation, is that the insurance provider always has to charge the insured policy holder more than the assumed risk (loss) to make a profit. This is not necessarily true.

The author’s implied point completely ignores that insurance providers derive much more profit benefit from the economic “use” of the money between premium receipt and incurred loss than from any excess value of the premiums over expected loss value. In fact, this is how nearly all commercial insurance companies achieve profit.

The companies mathematically determine the likelihood, in terms of time, from premium receipt to loss pay out. This is the length of time that the company can invest the premium money in markets to achieve profit. As long as the time between premium receipt and accumulation of enough to cover any potential loss is enough for an investment to yield profit, the company can actually “sell” policies at a nominal “loss” in terms of the risk assumed.

Any sort of government entry or interference in the insurance industry, beyond attempted fraud or misrepresentation regulation, is detrimental to the insurance policy holder/purchaser, specifically, and the economy, generally.

[TYVets]

.....the government has not persuaded me and thats why i am shouting..They are not listening.

Some people you hit between the eyes with a 2 X 4 to get their attention.

Then they will listen.

[MrB]

On the flip side,

they want us to be collegial and polite

while they intend to enslave us all. And that’s NOT a hyperbolic statement.

Socialism IS SLAVERY.

[mad_as_he$$]

Insurance = private socialized capitalism of risk.

[Ann Archy]

They want us docile while they lead us to the oven of Socialism.

[MrB]

Insurance = private socialized capitalism of risk.

You're missing a big word:
VOLUNTARY

[ctdonath2]

Persuasion only works when both parties are willing to LISTEN.

Proponents of HR3200 et al just repeat the same glassy-eyed regurgitation of the same talking points while pointing at a do-or-die very aggressive non-sequitur schedule, regardless of whether those talked at respond with “but the bill doesn’t say that, it says the opposite!” We’ve had to get loud & obnoxious just to rattle some of them out of their delirium and make clear we ain’t buying this rhetoric.

All too often those mouthing calls for “persuasion” and “dialog” on the part of their opponents really mean “shut up and agree already”.