CPAPtalk.com

Slinky wrote:I work w/a young single man, late twenties, who is healthy, and who is eligible for health insurance thru his employer w/him picking up a small portion of his group premium each month. I was eligible for the same group plan but didn't take advantage of it since I was covered under my husband's health insurance plan thru his employer. But this young man elected NOT to buy/pay for insurance, as reasonable as his share of the premium would be, because he was young and healthy and felt he didn't need it.

The most controversial aspect of the PPACA -- and the one that is the subject of several lawsuits advancing on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court -- is that it would require this young man to take the insurance. For someone with strong libertarian principals, that is unacceptable. Libertarians argue that the young man should be allowed to make his choice and take the consequences. That's not the way things work, though, and they never will. As a society, we won't just let someone like that perish with no medical care no matter how bad his choices were. So he is really making a one-sided bet. If he never suffers serious illness or accident, he saves his premium, if he does, society picks up the cost of care one way or the other. He may lose his assets, but that isn't such a big deal when you are young and single. The PPACA doesn't permit that. Everyone earning a basic minimum salary must buy health insurance, and if they have a decent plan with their employer, they are not eligible for individual coverage through the insurance exchanges established by the act. They must join the employer's group plan. The Congressional Budget Office says that the PPACA will reduce the budget deficit, not increase it. One reason this sounds so implausible to many is because they don't take into account the premiums that will be paid by people like this young man and his employer. When he is covered by private insurance that he and his employer are paying for, he won't end up on Medicaid or Medicare (which covers many of the disabled, not just the old).

I agree that this is a forum for chat and it is fine as long as no one gets nasty or name calling. If we don't like it we can close the thread and move on which I am going to do because I am interested in cPap talk. But I don't have any problem with your speaking your piece. (peace)

The original question was "Is the Washington Post liberal?.

The case is that it, along with the NYT and many other newspapers, are actually psychiatric or psychological sites for the mentally ill.

Many have made the case that liberalism is a mental disease or disorder.
There is lots of evidence this is the case.
I do not know, but strongly suspect it is.
I could be wrong.

I don't know that I would go so far as to say these newspapers are "psychiatric or psychological sites for the mentally ill" or that liberalism is a mental disease or disorder.

The impression I've been getting is that far too many conservatives have gone off the "deep end" excelling in viciousness, fanaticism and curtailing the freedoms of those who disagree w/their "philosophy".

Somewhere out there in this country there are the sensible "middle of the roaders", thank God! I just hope and pray there are ENOUGH to them and they don't get too discouraged by the radicals at both ends of the spectrum, conservative and liberal.

Slinky wrote:Somewhere out there in this country there are the sensible "middle of the roaders", thank God! I just hope and pray there are ENOUGH to them and they don't get too discouraged by the radicals at both ends of the spectrum, conservative and liberal.

You are right. I've always been pretty much middle of the road. Get's kind of boring there at times! For many years I was right of the middle line, but after having a time living broke while working my butt off, and seeing W's attitude that the US Treasury is the piggy bank for the super rich and large corporations, and that he manipulated the conservative Christian crowd solely for their votes, and then seeing the right more and more move toward the attitude that if you can't make it on your own, too bad, and having foster children and my own children contend with the harsh life caused by low wage jobs that are far above menial, I've moved to the left of center on many aspects of politics.

There is one thing many conservatives do not understand nor appreciate - it costs a lot of money to be poor. Try paying bills when you can't afford a checking account. Try buying car insurance when you can't get together six months worth of premiums. Try buying groceries in money saving quantities when you don't have more than $50 in your pocket. And how far can you drive when all you have is $10 to buy gas? These are real problems faced by the working poor, not just those on unemployment or welfare. I know. I have been there.

Slinky wrote:The impression I've been getting is that far too many conservatives have gone off the "deep end" excelling in viciousness, fanaticism and curtailing the freedoms of those who disagree w/their "philosophy".

By omission, your "impression" implies there is not an equal number of liberals who have done the same.

One's assessment of the "middle" changes dramatically depending on where they are on the spectrum. Most tend to believe they are more central than they actually are.

No, LinkC, I was just pointing out the other end of the spectrum in reply to TomJax's comment.

tomjax wrote:The original question was "Is the Washington Post liberal?.

The case is that it, along with the NYT and many other newspapers, are actually psychiatric or psychological sites for the mentally ill.

Many have made the case that liberalism is a mental disease or disorder.
There is lots of evidence this is the case.
I do not know, but strongly suspect it is.
I could be wrong.

I understand what you mean, IDamTNBoy. George Bush, Cheney and Rummy drove me into voting straight Democratic for the very first time in my life!!! I NEVER thought I would see THAT day! I don't mean to imply that YOU were driven to such drastic voting measures, just that I've "been there" too. Water service turned off, electric service turned off, no money for even just 50 gallons of fuel oil, clearing $42 a week from a 48 hour a week job and paying $20 a week for a baby sitter ... yep, I remember those days! I sure don't miss them!!!

Proposed aphorism:
A Liberal is a Conservative who unjustly became poor.

tomjax wrote:The original question was "Is the Washington Post liberal?.

The case is that it, along with the NYT and many other newspapers, are actually psychiatric or psychological sites for the mentally ill.

Many have made the case that liberalism is a mental disease or disorder.
There is lots of evidence this is the case.
I do not know, but strongly suspect it is.
I could be wrong.

You are wrong - very wrong. IMO it's conservativism that's the mental disorder. I find the NYT and Washington Post to be a couple of the most intelligent newspapers in existence. I used to consider myself to be moderately conservative, but the conservatives have become so closed-minded and strident with their politics that I've come to think of conservativism as the dark side. I also thought I'd never vote straight Democratic, but I did in the last election. I'm now thoroughly liberal.

The NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, etc. are all mainstream newspapers. That is why they have the largest circulation. You can accept most of what they print as factual. Their editorials may reflect a liberal slant, no one has to believe the editorials, but they are usually well-balanced.

I always kinda liked the Wall Street Journal. My neighbor used to save it and give it to me. But I've never quite bought into if Wall Street is doing good the country is doing good. Its always seemed that our roughest times were when Wall Street was flying high. By that I mean, personally, my family and neighbors.

M.D.Hosehead wrote:Proposed aphorism:
A Liberal is a Conservative who unjustly became poor.

Change unjustly to unintentionally and that statement may just be quite valid!

Actually, IMO, it would be more accurate to say, "A compassionate Conservative is a Conservative who unintentionally became poor."

idamtnboy wrote: "A compassionate Conservative is a Conservative who unintentionally became poor."

"A liberal is a man who will give away everything he doesn't own."
- Frank Dane

So Well wrote:"A liberal is a man who will give away everything he doesn't own."
- Frank Dane

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=63618&p=595165#p595165

LinkC wrote:One's assessment of the "middle" changes dramatically depending on where they are on the spectrum. Most tend to believe they are more central than they actually are.

This really made my day. It tickled my funny bone, and it is VERY true. Except for me. I am, of course, an exception to the rule .