Why don't people know what is in the bills and laws that they hate?

[Paschendale]

I agree, people should be more knowledgeable about the legislation our Government is working with. I think the most practical place to start with this education are the legislators who vote on it.

It's not that they don't know what the laws say. It's that they don't care. Because of our electoral process, a congressman's job is not to govern. It's to get elected. It's to secure fundraising from their wealthy constituents. It's to convince the voters to vote for them, not by governing well, not by advancing their interests, but by exploiting their fear and ignorance. You don't solve this kind of corruption from the top down. You do it from the bottom up.

He does a better job than most. I would even take "federal subsidization of private insurance" as an answer.

If only we could get federal replacement of private insurance.

 

[humbolt]

Even Obama can't do that!

Sure he can. He just makes **** up. The whole PPACA is being made up as it goes along too. How in the hell would anybody know what it is? Why, it's even being implemented until it's not.

 

[Smeagol]

I have noticed a rather annoying thing with most people who have strong political opinions on legislation and that is they seem to have very little idea what they are talking about.

Case in point, I was talking to a friend who opposes the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and they were very clear that they hated it and thought it was pure socialism. Just out of curiosity, I proposed an alternative idea, which really was not an alternative, but just a description of what the bill actually does, and my friend thought it was brilliant. That seems ridiculous to me. People form strong opinions on legislation without really having any clear idea of what it does. People seem to love the talking points repeated incessantly by the media and the politicians but nobody seems to take the time to do a little research themselves on what the legislation actually does or will do.

Another case is immigration reform. I've asked people who oppose it how long they think it takes to become a citizen and what steps people have to go through and they simply do not know. I ask what the currently proposed ideas for reform are and some think that the plan is to give full citizenship to illegal immigrants without any sort of process or wait whatsoever. They know that they oppose the current proposals for reform but do not know what is in the reforms. And once again I can play the card of simply describing what the reform proposals actually are and people generally agree that they are reasonable and that is what they politicians should be doing (even though that is what they currently are doing).

I personally think if someone went around and tested people on their knowledge of the legislation they oppose the vast majority would probably fail miserably. I am not asking that people support the legislation. I am asking that they at least have a basic knowledge of it and can explain why they oppose it in reasonable terms. I have gotten to the point where I just poke fun at people without them even knowing it by getting them to unkowning support the very bills and laws they ardently claim to oppose. Isn't that kind of messed up?

One of two reasons or both.

1. They've identified with a political team, party affiliation, etc. The team's leadership invokes passionate, emotive opposition and due to team loyalty they add their support to that opposition even if they don't understand it.

2. The fact that they don't understand it other than sweeping changes are about to occur is the reason for their opposition. In other words, they would prefer to know what is about to happen before putting on the blindfolds and hitting the accelerator. This is especially true if they also are convinced not even the person driving knows what is about to happen.

 

[Kal'Stang]

I don't care if you support or oppose it. I don't care if you have an in depth understanding of the law. Can you, in a single sentence, describe what Obamacare actually does?

Mandates that people buy health insurance coverage and if you don't it is tied into the tax code so if you don't have health insurance they fine you.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

I have noticed a rather annoying thing with most people who have strong political opinions on legislation and that is they seem to have very little idea what they are talking about.

Case in point, I was talking to a friend who opposes the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and they were very clear that they hated it and thought it was pure socialism. Just out of curiosity, I proposed an alternative idea, which really was not an alternative, but just a description of what the bill actually does, and my friend thought it was brilliant. That seems ridiculous to me. People form strong opinions on legislation without really having any clear idea of what it does. People seem to love the talking points repeated incessantly by the media and the politicians but nobody seems to take the time to do a little research themselves on what the legislation actually does or will do.

Another case is immigration reform. I've asked people who oppose it how long they think it takes to become a citizen and what steps people have to go through and they simply do not know. I ask what the currently proposed ideas for reform are and some think that the plan is to give full citizenship to illegal immigrants without any sort of process or wait whatsoever. They know that they oppose the current proposals for reform but do not know what is in the reforms. And once again I can play the card of simply describing what the reform proposals actually are and people generally agree that they are reasonable and that is what they politicians should be doing (even though that is what they currently are doing).

I personally think if someone went around and tested people on their knowledge of the legislation they oppose the vast majority would probably fail miserably. I am not asking that people support the legislation. I am asking that they at least have a basic knowledge of it and can explain why they oppose it in reasonable terms. I have gotten to the point where I just poke fun at people without them even knowing it by getting them to unkowning support the very bills and laws they ardently claim to oppose. Isn't that kind of messed up?

So are you suggesting that people like yourself have read the complete Bills regarding Affordable Health Care Act and the proposed Immigration legislation, and have come to different conclusions without the need for the talking points, or other commentaries from others. Are you further concurring that the president has the authority over Congress to delay the implementation of Obama-Care?

 

[CriticalThought]

So are you suggesting that people like yourself have read the complete Bills regarding Affordable Health Care Act and the proposed Immigration legislation, and have come to different conclusions without the need for the talking points, or other commentaries from others. Are you further concurring that the president has the authority over Congress to delay the implementation of Obama-Care?

Nope. Read any other post I made in this thread and that should clear things up for you rather quickly.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

I have noticed a rather annoying thing with most people who have strong political opinions on legislation and that is they seem to have very little idea what they are talking about.

Case in point, I was talking to a friend who opposes the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and they were very clear that they hated it and thought it was pure socialism. Just out of curiosity, I proposed an alternative idea, which really was not an alternative, but just a description of what the bill actually does, and my friend thought it was brilliant. That seems ridiculous to me. People form strong opinions on legislation without really having any clear idea of what it does. People seem to love the talking points repeated incessantly by the media and the politicians but nobody seems to take the time to do a little research themselves on what the legislation actually does or will do.

Another case is immigration reform. I've asked people who oppose it how long they think it takes to become a citizen and what steps people have to go through and they simply do not know. I ask what the currently proposed ideas for reform are and some think that the plan is to give full citizenship to illegal immigrants without any sort of process or wait whatsoever. They know that they oppose the current proposals for reform but do not know what is in the reforms. And once again I can play the card of simply describing what the reform proposals actually are and people generally agree that they are reasonable and that is what they politicians should be doing (even though that is what they currently are doing).

I personally think if someone went around and tested people on their knowledge of the legislation they oppose the vast majority would probably fail miserably. I am not asking that people support the legislation. I am asking that they at least have a basic knowledge of it and can explain why they oppose it in reasonable terms. I have gotten to the point where I just poke fun at people without them even knowing it by getting them to unkowning support the very bills and laws they ardently claim to oppose. Isn't that kind of messed up?

Just curious, how did you present the explaination of the bill?

 

[CriticalThought]

Did you tell them that they would be fined if they didn't have this insurance or that they may lose their job or have their hours cut to get it, or that they may have to be paying for their insurance as well as other people's insurance depending on their circumstances?

Not in so many words but yes. When you get down to it, the basic ideas behind the Affordable Care Act were conservative and had the same proposal been made by a conservative politician the reception it received from conservative minded people probably would have been different. This whole thing is actually a fascinating social psychological experiment to me because the who seems to be considerably more important than the what when shaping people's opinions on these topics.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Not in so many words but yes. When you get down to it, the basic ideas behind the Affordable Care Act were conservative and had the same proposal been made by a conservative politician the reception it received from conservative minded people probably would have been different. This whole thing is actually a fascinating social psychological experiment to me because the who seems to be considerably more important than the what when shaping people's opinions on these topics.

Are you kidding me? Income redistribution is a conservative idea?

How can a "Libertarian" claim to like federal gov't controled, much less federal gov't mandated, medical care insurance funded by income redistribution?

 

[Fisher]

Not in so many words but yes. When you get down to it, the basic ideas behind the Affordable Care Act were conservative and had the same proposal been made by a conservative politician the reception it received from conservative minded people probably would have been different. This whole thing is actually a fascinating social psychological experiment to me because the who seems to be considerably more important than the what when shaping people's opinions on these topics.

No people resent being forced to do things, especially if it involves money. If there had been no mandates, nobody would have cared this much.

 

[CriticalThought]

Just curious, how did you present the explaination of the bill?

Rather than a single payer or socialistic system, what would you think about a system that would require coverage for all preexisting conditions through a set of minimum standards and that would try to reduce costs by using tax cuts, subsidies, and expanding existing government programs? And to deal with the problem of people trying to hop on for free it could require that everyone buy at least the minimum insurance or be fined?

 

[CriticalThought]

No people resent being forced to do things, especially if it involves money. If there had been no mandates, nobody would have cared this much.

If they had not called it a mandate and simply called it a tax then people would have most likely not blinked an eye. The only reason they didn't want to call it a tax was because that would mean they were raising taxes on people they had promised they would not raise taxes on but that backfired because a mandate comes off worse than lying about raising taxes.

Honestly I am not here to defend, just to see how well people understand it. It sounds to me like you oppose government all together so no form of health care reform would have pleased you aside from a complete deregulation and removal of all social programs.

 

[CriticalThought]

Are you kidding me? Income redistribution is a conservative idea?

How can a "Libertarian" claim to like federal gov't controled, much less federal gov't mandated, medical care insurance funded by income redistribution?

The ideas were originally coined by the Heritage Foundation. In fact the Heritage Foundation praised Romneycare for creating a patient centered health care market. I'm not sure where you are getting the "income redistribution" unless you are referring to the use of taxes for any form of social program, which would mean that Medicare in general is offensive to you.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Rather than a single payer or socialistic system, what would you think about a system that would require coverage for all preexisting conditions through a set of minimum standards and that would try to reduce costs by using tax cuts, subsidies, and expanding existing government programs? And to deal with the problem of people trying to hop on for free it could require that everyone buy at least the minimum insurance or be fined?

Interesting, not complete, but interesting. You did leave out some key points about businesses though. That being said though if ObamaCare was only what you just posted, and it isn't, I still wouldn't agree to it.

 

[CriticalThought]

Interesting, not complete, but interesting. You did leave out some key points about businesses though. That being said though if ObamaCare was only what you just posted, and it isn't, I still wouldn't agree to it.

It isn't complete and that wasn't the point. I wanted to see if I pointed out some of the key details of the legislation if people would recognize it. They did not. I don't really care if you support or oppose it. Clearly you at least have a rudimentary understanding of what it does and perhaps even a better understanding than me.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

It isn't complete and that wasn't the point. I wanted to see if I pointed out some of the key details of the legislation if people would recognize it. They did not. I don't really care if you support or oppose it. Clearly you at least have a rudimentary understanding of what it does and perhaps even a better understanding than me.

Yeah I hear you. And believe me, I agree with you on your OP. It's scary that people take positions and don't know what is actually written. It's also scary that these same people vote.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The ideas were originally coined by the Heritage Foundation. In fact the Heritage Foundation praised Romneycare for creating a patient centered health care market. I'm not sure where you are getting the "income redistribution" unless you are referring to the use of taxes for any form of social program, which would mean that Medicare in general is offensive to you.

Medicare is a far less offensive concept, although currently grossly underfunded and subsidized with general tax revenue. With Medicare you must pay a flat portion of your pay for your entire working life to recieve possible benefits iff you reach age 65 or become disabled. Under PPACA many will get a $5,000 to $20,000 "private" medical care insurance policy for 2% to 4% of their pay, effective immediately and subsidized by general tax revenue. Considering that the "private" insurance company is allowed to apply up to 15% of that annual premium amount to use as overhead/profit, that far exceeds the "contribution" of those individual policy holders.

 

[MaggieD]

I have noticed a rather annoying thing with most people who have strong political opinions on legislation and that is they seem to have very little idea what they are talking about.

Case in point, I was talking to a friend who opposes the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and they were very clear that they hated it and thought it was pure socialism. Just out of curiosity, I proposed an alternative idea, which really was not an alternative, but just a description of what the bill actually does, and my friend thought it was brilliant. That seems ridiculous to me. People form strong opinions on legislation without really having any clear idea of what it does. People seem to love the talking points repeated incessantly by the media and the politicians but nobody seems to take the time to do a little research themselves on what the legislation actually does or will do.

Another case is immigration reform. I've asked people who oppose it how long they think it takes to become a citizen and what steps people have to go through and they simply do not know. I ask what the currently proposed ideas for reform are and some think that the plan is to give full citizenship to illegal immigrants without any sort of process or wait whatsoever. They know that they oppose the current proposals for reform but do not know what is in the reforms. And once again I can play the card of simply describing what the reform proposals actually are and people generally agree that they are reasonable and that is what they politicians should be doing (even though that is what they currently are doing).

I personally think if someone went around and tested people on their knowledge of the legislation they oppose the vast majority would probably fail miserably. I am not asking that people support the legislation. I am asking that they at least have a basic knowledge of it and can explain why they oppose it in reasonable terms. I have gotten to the point where I just poke fun at people without them even knowing it by getting them to unkowning support the very bills and laws they ardently claim to oppose. Isn't that kind of messed up?

Hell, there's people walking around who don't even know the capital of Washington, DC -- much less what's in complicated legislation. Our congressmen didn't even know.

Critical Thought -- I think I made my point here. :lol:

I replied to your OP -- see it right above here. Notice the bolded sentence. Even when people read? They still don't always get it. Get it now?

 

[Drake McHugh]

I have noticed a rather annoying thing with most people who have strong political opinions on legislation and that is they seem to have very little idea what they are talking about.

Case in point, I was talking to a friend who opposes the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and they were very clear that they hated it and thought it was pure socialism. Just out of curiosity, I proposed an alternative idea, which really was not an alternative, but just a description of what the bill actually does, and my friend thought it was brilliant. That seems ridiculous to me. People form strong opinions on legislation without really having any clear idea of what it does. People seem to love the talking points repeated incessantly by the media and the politicians but nobody seems to take the time to do a little research themselves on what the legislation actually does or will do.

Another case is immigration reform. I've asked people who oppose it how long they think it takes to become a citizen and what steps people have to go through and they simply do not know. I ask what the currently proposed ideas for reform are and some think that the plan is to give full citizenship to illegal immigrants without any sort of process or wait whatsoever. They know that they oppose the current proposals for reform but do not know what is in the reforms. And once again I can play the card of simply describing what the reform proposals actually are and people generally agree that they are reasonable and that is what they politicians should be doing (even though that is what they currently are doing).

I personally think if someone went around and tested people on their knowledge of the legislation they oppose the vast majority would probably fail miserably. I am not asking that people support the legislation. I am asking that they at least have a basic knowledge of it and can explain why they oppose it in reasonable terms. I have gotten to the point where I just poke fun at people without them even knowing it by getting them to unkowning support the very bills and laws they ardently claim to oppose. Isn't that kind of messed up?

I wish the people that supported those two bills had read them. They did not.
BTW,apparently many of the senators and congressman who supported "The Affordable Care Act"did not read it either. Only explanation why over 30 Senate Dems voted to get rid of the tax on medical devices,a key funding mechanism in "The Affordable Care Act". As a libertarian,you should oppose massive comprehensive federal legislation,not pimp it.