It’s worse than that, many of them will say they DO care, but doing what we’ve been doing or just letting “the free market” work in healthcare will make things better and cheaper. They do not believe the healthcare market is any different than any other market and will behave identically to other markets. And why? Because their political ideas around the free market are more religious than empirical. They will point to areas where markets being more free produce better results, ignore areas where free markets do not solve or exacerbate issues, anything to preserve the dogma written down on stone tablets thousands of years ago, thou shalt never let government intervene in thine holy market economy. The certainty and absence of the tiniest sliver of doubt in their world view is what generates the bulk of my contempt for such people. The scale of their arrogance makes me wish they suffered supremely as a direct consequence of their dogma. But they will not suffer enough, and others will often take their place, so we cannot rest on that wish. We have to beat them, and try to persuade the new generation that has not already turned into free market jihadis in all things.
It’s almost like there’s a huge disconnect between your average Republican voter and your average Republican politician - that’s how we got Trump, and if the Democrats weren’t so good at shooting themselves in the foot, that disconnect could be exploited for political gain.
The GOP has had years to come up with a replacement, all they can come up with are talking points.
The problem is our health care system is way too expensive. It is now at $10,000 per capita in health care spending (most other wealthy nations spend closer to $3000-5000 per capita per year).
The only way to provide decent coverage to everyone is to either drastically lower prices, or expand the role of the state in subsidizing coverage. The GOP has no interest in either. The dems also have no interest in lowering prices, because doing so would involve taking on the powerful interests of the health care industry, a 3 trillion a year industry. Neither party wants to reduce costs, but at least the dems want to subsidize coverage.
There is no easy answer.
I agree, and I think it’s high time their stupidity became painful for them.
My bold.
There is an additional component: Make everyone sign up (like we make all car owners buy insurance) so there’s enough money in the pot. Lowering prices would be a bonus.
Nobody really wants coal jobs, because coal jobs suck. My grandfather worked briefly in a coal mine, because he had a big family to support. Every day, as soon as they got to work, all of the workers would open their lunchboxes and eat their desserts, because they knew that there was an all-too-high chance that they’d die before lunchtime, and if they were going to die, at least they were going to eat their dessert before they did. That’s what the Republicans are trying to save.
Now, fortunately, the Republicans can’t save coal. Nobody can. But what we can do is replace coal. The same mountains that make Kentucky poor farm land make it prime land for wind power, which means jobs, and better jobs than coal mining. And just who is trying to bring those jobs to Kentucky? Not the Republicans.
This. These people are not receptive to actual arguments. They’re not listening. They don’t want to understand what’s going on. Try to explain it to them and you are wasting your breath. Hence, if it takes people dying to pass the message on, I have absolutely no problem with it being people like the interviewed couple. They made their bed.
You mean like this?
That’s about as close as you’re going to get. Now contrast that with Trump’s “we’re going to keep all the coal jobs” rhetoric, something which he couldn’t fulfil even if he had the slightest intention of trying (which I doubt he does).
People don’t want the harsh truth that the world changes and they are in imminent danger of being left behind. They want someone to say “the bad things happening to you are the fault of THOSE PEOPLE and I will make those people go away and then everything will be fine again”. Never mind that it’s a blatant lie that a moment’s consideration would reveal; it’s a lie they cling to because the truth is incredibly scary.
You’re conflating the gullible with the gullers.
I wonder if – on a board that leans the other way from this one – somebody is saying that, word-for-word, about Democrats fuming at how Republicans have successfully marketed themselves into the White House, and the House of Representatives, and the Senate, and most state legislatures and most Governorships.
(You know: that the Dems don’t want the harsh truth – that the world changed, and their party is getting left behind – because they instead cling to rants about how (a) those losses are the fault of THOSE PEOPLE, but (b) everything will be fine again, since it’s incredibly scary to think they need to pitch a different message.)
Oh, the Democrats don’t want harsh truths either and prefer comforting lies. People don’t like harsh truths (which is what I said). Which is why complaining about politicians lying to us is somewhat ridiculous - politicians lie to us because ultimately we prefer it to being told the truth, and this is reflected in the way we vote.
The difference is that a lot of the lies being told on the right at the moment result in a lot more bad things happening to vulnerable people than the left-wing lies do.
No, I’m responding to Der Trihs’s attacks on Republican voters.
The excerpt of the speech that you just quoted that kept being repeated over and over by the right wing propaganda machine was “…we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right?”.
Some people on this very board point to that statement as to one of the primary reasons that she lost.
Then they say that she lost because she wasn’t honest enough.
I still can’t get my head around that disconnect.
But, you are right, she lost because she gave complex answers that would require hard work, and he gave simple answers that were easy. The fact that her answers were based on actual policy and real ideas that could work, and his were based on lies and fantasy doesn’t matter.
People vote for the person that makes them feel good. Not the person who will actually improve their lives.
You think that’s bad? Consider the “What difference does it make?” quote, which originally meant that the important aspect of the Benghazi attack was the deaths of four Americans rather than quibbling over whether the attack was planned or a reaction to a film, and which was repeated out of context to imply that Clinton didn’t care about the deaths at all. The right-wing lie machine is a powerful one.
Well, she lost for lots of reasons but the fact that Trump told people what they wanted to hear was a big one.
That’s why it annoys me when people say that it was her message that was off.
Her message was fine. It’s just that few were listening to her. They were listening to the out of context snippets, and refusing to understand what she said in context. I get the “well she said it” alot from some of the rabid hillary haters here on this board.
Imagine if your every utterance was recorded, and you were expected to make lots of speeches, most of them with unique content.
Then you are blamed when someone takes your words out of context to say something that you didn’t say or mean, but people insist that you did, because you “said those words.”
Many of the people that thought the democrats had abandoned them and voted for trump did so because of these out of context snippets, not because of what she actually said. If they had listened to the context of the speeches, they would have likely agreed with and applauded.
But, you know, that’s hard. Go with the easy answer. Go with the guy that doesn’t make you think, doesn’t make you listen, doesn’t ask you to put in any work. Go with the guy that says he’ll make everything alright again. Go with the guy that you know is lying to you, but it’s okay, because the lies he tells are exactly what you want to hear.
Yes, it was. And that whole mentality, for better or worse, is why you find them voting for Trump even though they may benefit from Obamacare. Within my lifetime, the people of Eastern Kentucky were overwhelmingly democrat. They were union coal miners, salt-of-the-earth, hard working folks that believed they were doing right for the country and fellow man, and, in recent decades, making a respectable living at it. I’m not saying Hillary was wrong, but I’m just saying its really not surprising, and I don’t think anyone that lives here expected anything other than what happened.
Bingo! And before people or media criticize or generalize about the folks being a bunch of dumb hillbillies, I hope they understand that right or wrong, coal is something they could take pride in. It represented their resiliency in the face of long term poverty. It represented a hard working attitude, and a way to provide for society. Many younger people have fled the area, but you’ve got a bunch of folks there, that are 15-20 years into their careers and its just not easy to say, “Go do something else, this needs to happen for the common good.”
Its funny that people seem much more sympathetic to others that lose jobs to progress. When a guy gets replaced by a robot, its all, “they took his job!!” even if it improves the overall good for society in terms of efficiency, buying power, etc. But a guy loses a coal jobs he’s worked for 20 years, its all, “Get over it! Coal is bad. Leave your home, abandon your culture. Oh, and by the way, its a backward, dumb culture anyway.”
I’m not saying they’re wrong… they need another industry, entrepreneurialism, something (btw building a federal prison is not going to solve all their problems, and they know it!). And honestly, they need to bear the brunt of the responsibility themselves (and I expect they will).
I just want to see people having some sympathy for a truly struggling people. It’s not surprising… these issues are fucking complex. Its not as simple as Obamacare or not Obamacare.
Remember the film Other People’s Money? This scene seems relevant:
Now, I don’t agree with this. I think they did hear what democrats had to say… in context… and didn’t like it. Eastern Kentuckians do not see coal as a bad thing. And while there are a lot of outside factors (natural gas comes to mind), you must agree that the left has certainly made it harder to use coal, and has strengthened the EPA. They were voting against that as much as anything.
I think the people in Eastern Kentucky did vote in their best interest, and it is understandable and expected, even if it may not be whats best for the rest of the country. They’ve got their lives TODAY to think about.
Now, whether it is realistic for coal to ever comeback is another debate, but they ain’t voting to hasten its demise. Its all the region has known for over a hundred years.
The “democrats” were not united enough, what we got was a result of compromises entirely between democrats.
Did you actually read the whole quote, or did you just read the excerpted part that I cut out?
That was my point, the speech itself gives hope and promise of support to those people. The fact that one sentence out of it acknowledges a truth that people don’t necessarily want to hear is not really her fault. It is not her fault that that sentence is the one that got played on a loop. It’s not her fault that people took that one sentence out of context, and summed up that she was looking forward to this happening.
I took the speech more as, you are going to need to do something else, as these jobs are disappearing, no matter what we try to do to preserve them. Here is help in doing that.
It’s not for the common good, it’s for their own good.
That is funny. And if anyone had ever said anything like that, then it would be even funnier. Did you read her speech? Is that what she said?
And people being replaced by robots aren’t exactly met with alot of empathy either. Not sure where you are getting that caricature.
Clinton’s goal was to find a way to get these displaced workers, both in coal and in manufacturing, into a new job that would pay better and last longer without going obsolete. These people voted against that goal.
If they have refused to leave the coal industry when there were those who were willing to help to fund retraining and relocation so that they would have a good chance at making it, do you really think that they will take the initiative to do the same when the government is not there to help them?
Clinton was their last chance for improving their lives. They voted for Trump instead.
I have sympathy for struggling people. I have been a struggling people myself. Many of my peers are struggling in one way or another.
I don’t have much sympathy for people who slap away offers of help.
I do not need to agree that the left has made it harder to use coal. That statement is actually not true at all. Your outside factors like natural gas that you dismiss is actually one of the big things driving down the price of coal. The EPA doesn’t have anything to do with it.
You also dismiss related factors like automation. Do you think it takes as many people to dig up a ton of coal as it did 50 years ago? Is that the democrats fault? Is that Clinton’s fault?
They may have voted in what they thought was in their best interest, but they were very wrong on that, if their best interest is getting good jobs that will be around for a while. If their best interest is to hold onto a flagging industry until they die along with it, then you may be right.
They think that it is realistic that not only will coal make a comeback, but that their jobs in digging it out of the ground will too. There is nothing that any politician can do, short of implementing a command economy and requiring he coal industry to employ these workers.
They didn’t vote to slow its demise. They just voted to ensure they had no other options.