Psycho-Babble Medication Thread 1020322

Shown: posts 70 to 94 of 107. Go back in thread:

 

Re: Welcome USA To Socialism Healthcare Bill Passed » Iansf

Posted by Dinah on June 29, 2012, at 12:15:45

In reply to Re: Welcome USA To Socialism Healthcare Bill Passed, posted by Iansf on June 29, 2012, at 12:10:10

I disagree, but I've already apologized for talking politics here and am not going to get into specifics.

I do appreciate that you weren't rude.

 

Re: Healthcare Bill Deemed Constitutional » emmanuel98

Posted by Dinah on June 29, 2012, at 12:23:44

In reply to Re: Healthcare Bill Deemed Constitutional, posted by emmanuel98 on June 28, 2012, at 21:00:05

And I brought that up mainly because I have esteem for you and can be hurt by your words. And don't, of course, wish to feel negatively towards someone I do have esteem for.

 

Why are so many Babblers liberals?

Posted by zazenducke on June 29, 2012, at 12:32:30

In reply to Re: Welcome USA To Socialism Healthcare Bill Passed » Iansf, posted by Dinah on June 29, 2012, at 12:15:45

Well here's one theory......Please don't call me any asterisked words. I'm so terribly sensitive you know.


When the Gallup pollsters asked Americans what they thought about their own mental health, they were intrigued by the difference between Democrats and Republicans.

While 58 percent of Republicans reported having excellent mental health, only 38 percent of Democrats described themselves that way.


The study was no surprise to Dr. Lyle H. Rossiter, a veteran psychiatrist and author of a controversial book that makes the clinical case liberalism is a mental illness.

Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded, says Rossiter, author of The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness. Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave.

While political activists on the other side of the spectrum have made similar observations, Rossiter boasts professional credentials and a life virtually free of activism and links to the vast right-wing conspiracy.


For more than 35 years he has diagnosed and treated more than 1,500 patients as a board-certified clinical psychiatrist and examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases as a board-certified forensic psychiatrist. He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago.

Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by both Barack Obama and his Democratic primary opponent Hillary Clinton can only be understood as a psychological disorder.

A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity as liberals do, he says. A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nations citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state as liberals do.

Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:

creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.

The roots of liberalism and its associated madness can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind, he says. When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious.

By the way, the Gallup poll conducted late last year also found only 43 percent of independents describe themselves as in excellent mental health. While Rossiter thinks he understands the discrepancy in the state of mental health between Democrats and Republicans, the Gallup pollsters could only scratch their heads.

The reason the relationship exists between being a Republican and more positive mental health is unknown, and one cannot say whether something about being a Republican causes a person to be more mentally healthy or whether something about being mentally healthy causes a person to choose to become a Republican, the study concluded.

http://www.wnd.com/2008/11/57683/

 

Re: Why are so many Babblers liberals? » zazenducke

Posted by Dinah on June 29, 2012, at 12:37:32

In reply to Why are so many Babblers liberals?, posted by zazenducke on June 29, 2012, at 12:32:30

There are also studies that characterize conservatives as mentally ill.

All studies of the sort make me very uneasy. I doubt it's possible to make such broad characterizations.

There are so many ways to get to a destination.

 

Re: Why are so many Babblers liberals?

Posted by zazenducke on June 29, 2012, at 12:41:23

In reply to Re: Why are so many Babblers liberals? » zazenducke, posted by Dinah on June 29, 2012, at 12:37:32

Thanks for not calling me names. I believe you are quite mentally ill if that makes you feel better :)

But I have often noticed a kind of kneejerk liberalism on this board and wondered which came first.

 

Re: Why are so many Babblers liberals? » zazenducke

Posted by Dinah on June 29, 2012, at 12:50:54

In reply to Re: Why are so many Babblers liberals?, posted by zazenducke on June 29, 2012, at 12:41:23

Thank you. :)

I always thought it might be self selection. One might feel uncomfortable as a conservative, or even a moderate. That was the reason I wished Dr. Bob would ban discussions of Politics. The rhetoric after the Bush election (can't recall which one) made me feel that Babble was not a place I could be.

Do most mental health sites lean liberal?

I daresay feelings run high in this particular topic because among the mentally ill might be a higher percentage of unemployed or underemployed (or who recognize the danger) who are frightened by the lack of health insurance. Just as a lot of my initial distress was caused by the fact that I was going to have to decide which health care I would have to continue. I can't afford to pay more, and am not so well off I don't cry when I hear of an additional expense. So I do understand. One reason I don't oppose the bill in its entirety is that I realize that it could happen to anyone, no matter how careful and responsible they are.

So perhaps in this case, there's more involved than liberal bias.

 

Re: Healthcare Bill Deemed Constitutional » Dinah

Posted by 10derheart on June 29, 2012, at 13:20:09

In reply to Re: Healthcare Bill Deemed Constitutional » SLS, posted by Dinah on June 29, 2012, at 9:04:17

FYI, I asked Dr. Bob to move it. Asked very errrr....passionately.

However, this is at least the 10th request/question (lost count) over the past several months I've made to him and I've received ZERO responses, on or off boards.

I presently consider Babble 100% unmoderated.

I suppose that brings pleasure to some, but not me.

 

Lack Of Consensus

Posted by ron1953 on June 29, 2012, at 13:23:17

In reply to Re: Why are so many Babblers liberals? » zazenducke, posted by Dinah on June 29, 2012, at 12:50:54

The polarity and variety of positions regarding this legislation, and the very emotionally-charged aspects of same, are to me pretty good clues as to why truly effective legislation rarely, if ever, is enacted. Attitudes are so different, that it's a sure bet that no matter what is legislated, 50% will like it and 50% will hate it. It's frustrating.

 

And what's The Difference, Anyway?

Posted by ron1953 on June 29, 2012, at 13:33:57

In reply to Lack Of Consensus, posted by ron1953 on June 29, 2012, at 13:23:17

After all this debate, I'll bet that not one person involved has changed their mind.

It's all kinda silly if you really think about it.

 

Re: Why are so many Babblers liberals? » zazenducke

Posted by PartlyCloudy on June 29, 2012, at 14:00:25

In reply to Re: Why are so many Babblers liberals?, posted by zazenducke on June 29, 2012, at 12:41:23

> Thanks for not calling me names. I believe you are quite mentally ill if that makes you feel better :)
>

Ha ha ha ha ha
Consensus!

> But I have often noticed a kind of kneejerk liberalism on this board and wondered which came first.

Uh... politics. Not mental health care.

 

Re: Lack Of Consensus » ron1953

Posted by PartlyCloudy on June 29, 2012, at 14:03:13

In reply to Lack Of Consensus, posted by ron1953 on June 29, 2012, at 13:23:17

> The polarity and variety of positions regarding this legislation, and the very emotionally-charged aspects of same, are to me pretty good clues as to why truly effective legislation rarely, if ever, is enacted. Attitudes are so different, that it's a sure bet that no matter what is legislated, 50% will like it and 50% will hate it. It's frustrating.

Not so. I finally have some faith that Congress and the Senate and by extension the Supreme Court are not all idiots as I previously had. This was a big improvement and a change for me.


 

Re: Agreed » Dinah

Posted by europerep on June 29, 2012, at 14:08:13

In reply to Re: Agreed » europerep, posted by Dinah on June 29, 2012, at 8:57:15

> Keep insulting me, and I will keep being completely indifferent to your opinion of me. I know my feelings, and I don't need to accept your stereotypes of me.
>
> Keep it up against me. Wanna call me any other names? Want to think I belong to the tea party? Go right ahead. You are so far off the mark, it can't touch me.

The stronger and the more often people state that they can't be touched by something, the more they actually are touched by it. But let's leave that aside.

I still invite you to actually say something substantial on the topic of this thread. No, neither the economy under Carter nor your thoughts on the nature of stereotypes are on topic.

What about this: as I said earlier, if I had been born in a country that didn't have a public healthcare system, I would not be alive anymore. And the disease I suffer from was not brought on by any fault of my own, I might add. I would like to know how you would explain to me that you would not be willing to pay your share of a public healthcare system even if it saved my life - on the condition of course that everybody else contributes to the system as well, and that you yourself would benefit from it as well if/when you need medical treatment. There are two possibilities: I either fundamentally misunderstand your position on this issue, or you will see that it is you yourself who's to blame if someone were to call you egoistic and selfish.

Lastly, while I should have used more diplomatic terms, I completely stand by my assessment that both this and previous contributions by Philippa on political issues are unqualified and show her lack of knowledge and understanding on this issue. Just because everyone has an opinion on politics doesn't make all those opinions intellectually legitimate. This is as true for politics as it is for all other subjects: if you want to participate in a debate about medical treatments, you can't just come up with some voodoo nonsense and then complain that you'll be called out for that. If Philippa is upset about my comments, then that is the price to pay for entering into a discussion without even the most basic grasp of the actual matter. Misinformation is dangerous, and I won't refrain from pointing out the spreading of misinformation just on the basis of some absurd interpretation of politeness.

 

Re: Agreed » europerep

Posted by PartlyCloudy on June 29, 2012, at 14:17:57

In reply to Re: Agreed » Dinah, posted by europerep on June 29, 2012, at 14:08:13

Bravo.
As someone who was not born in the US, and started receiving treatment for my mental illness in yet another country with what many here would term a "socialist" health care system, I can say that I have become measurably worse since having to deal with the system here in the USA, to the point where my disability benefits hearing is finally scheduled - after 2 years of denials and waiting.
Nothing - but nothing - is humane about how the healthcare system has been working here to date. This, at least, is a step in the right direction.
That healthcare is a RIGHT and not a PRIVILEGE. That it is not my fault I am sick and unable to work. I have faithfully paid in to a system that's supposed to supposed to care for me when I am unable to, and it has taken two years for me to get to a court! Why should this be up to a judge and not a panel of doctors?

So much wrong. To have politicized the issue in the first place is sickening. It's inhumane to withhold care from anyone who needs it.

pc

 

Re: Agreed

Posted by Dinah on June 29, 2012, at 15:24:23

In reply to Re: Agreed » Dinah, posted by europerep on June 29, 2012, at 14:08:13

> There are two possibilities: I either fundamentally misunderstand your position on this issue, or you will see that it is you yourself who's to blame if someone were to call you egoistic and selfish.

Perhaps we should end on a statement to which we both can agree.

> Lastly, while I should have used more diplomatic terms, I completely stand by my assessment that both this and previous contributions by Philippa on political issues are unqualified and show her lack of knowledge and understanding on this issue. Just because everyone has an opinion on politics doesn't make all those opinions intellectually legitimate. This is as true for politics as it is for all other subjects: if you want to participate in a debate about medical treatments, you can't just come up with some voodoo nonsense and then complain that you'll be called out for that. If Philippa is upset about my comments, then that is the price to pay for entering into a discussion without even the most basic grasp of the actual matter. Misinformation is dangerous, and I won't refrain from pointing out the spreading of misinformation just on the basis of some absurd interpretation of politeness.
>

Well, I'll refrain from calling you any names. But we fundamentally differ on our beliefs concerning civility.

 

Re: And what's The Difference, Anyway? » ron1953

Posted by Dinah on June 29, 2012, at 15:25:50

In reply to And what's The Difference, Anyway?, posted by ron1953 on June 29, 2012, at 13:33:57

Quite true.

And these last two posts were not the posts of an *ssh*l*. I apologize for calling you that. I may have jumped to a conclusion or two myself.

 

It's not fair that you have a 500,000 property » sigismund

Posted by zazenducke on June 29, 2012, at 15:34:03

In reply to Re: Welcome USA To Socialism Healthcare Bill Passed » europerep, posted by sigismund on June 29, 2012, at 0:48:09

and I don't. I demand that you share.

Thank you Thank you Thank you in advance.

> >This whole debate is nothing but a joke, at the expense of poor and ill American citizens.
>
> Thank you thank you thank you

 

Re: Today After See A Trend? » sigismund

Posted by zazenducke on June 29, 2012, at 15:43:13

In reply to Re: Today After See A Trend? » Phillipa, posted by sigismund on June 29, 2012, at 0:51:09

Watch a lot of Fox do you? He is a moderate. Where do you come up with all your ideas about the US?

> PJ, Obama is a conservative, but not of the Fox news sort.

 

Re: Agreed » Dinah

Posted by europerep on June 29, 2012, at 15:43:58

In reply to Re: Agreed, posted by Dinah on June 29, 2012, at 15:24:23

> Perhaps we should end on a statement to which we both can agree.

Well, actually we shouldn't, but if you're not willing to take this debate to an end, I have to accept that.

> Well, I'll refrain from calling you any names. But we fundamentally differ on our beliefs concerning civility.

I don't think that our beliefs differ on the nature of civility, but maybe about whether civility should be allowed to override, if necessary, other aspects of a discussion. I won't sacrifice adequately characterizing someone's argument for the mere purpose of making sure that that person won't get his or her feelings hurt. Trying to link the Affordable Care Act to a political doctrine that has caused great harm to many people (ie, socialism) is not only ridiculously absurd, but it is either stupid or malicious. Either way, I strongly object to it.

 

What part of europe do you rep? (nm) » europerep

Posted by zazenducke on June 29, 2012, at 15:45:29

In reply to Re: Agreed » Dinah, posted by europerep on June 29, 2012, at 15:43:58

 

Re: It's not fair that you have a 500,000 property » zazenducke

Posted by europerep on June 29, 2012, at 16:06:41

In reply to It's not fair that you have a 500,000 property » sigismund, posted by zazenducke on June 29, 2012, at 15:34:03

> It's not fair that you have a 500,000 property and I don't. I demand that you share.

Ah, grossly mischaracterizing your opponent's arguments. A classic.

 

Re: It's not fair that you have a 500,000 property

Posted by zazenducke on June 29, 2012, at 16:11:46

In reply to Re: It's not fair that you have a 500,000 property » zazenducke, posted by europerep on June 29, 2012, at 16:06:41

My opponent?!? Sigi?? Jumping to conclusions are you?

> > It's not fair that you have a 500,000 property and I don't. I demand that you share.
>
> Ah, grossly mischaracterizing your opponent's arguments. A classic.
>

 

Obamacare unfair to young people?

Posted by zazenducke on June 29, 2012, at 16:31:03

In reply to Re: It's not fair that you have a 500,000 property, posted by zazenducke on June 29, 2012, at 16:11:46

Obamacare forces insurers to charge their eldest beneficiaries no more than 3 times what they charge their youngest ones: a policy known as community rating. This, despite the fact that these older beneficiaries typically have six times the health expenditures that younger people face. The net effect of this community rating provision is the redistribution of insurance costs from the old to the young.

According to my sources, this was a favor that Democrats did for the AARP, which was advocating for its older members. Democrats were happy to help out their ally, whose members are active at the voting booth, compared to younger Americans, who vote less often. The AARP actually wanted Obamacare to have a community rating ratio of 2:1that is, insurers could charge their eldest beneficiaries only twice what they charged their youngest. But they had to settle for 3:1.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/03/22/how-obamacare-dramatically-increases-the-cost-of-insurance-for-young-workers/2/

It also mentions how estimates of how much insurance premiums will go up are increasing (surprise surprise) and that will also effect young people who are just starting out more than more established people.

 

Re: P.S. » emmanuel98

Posted by zazenducke on June 29, 2012, at 16:46:43

In reply to P.S., posted by emmanuel98 on June 28, 2012, at 20:37:00

> I get really, really angry about turning this forum into a political debate.

You're really really angry at yourself?


Keep your politics to yourself.

You first :)


This is not what this forum is for.

Sez who?

 

Re: Healthcare Bill Deemed Constitutional » 10derheart

Posted by Dinah on June 29, 2012, at 16:51:09

In reply to Re: Healthcare Bill Deemed Constitutional » Dinah, posted by 10derheart on June 29, 2012, at 13:20:09

Same here. :(

 

Re: Healthcare Bill Deemed Constitutional » 10derheart

Posted by zazenducke on June 29, 2012, at 17:32:40

In reply to Re: Healthcare Bill Deemed Constitutional » Dinah, posted by 10derheart on June 29, 2012, at 13:20:09


> I presently consider Babble 100% unmoderated.
>
> I suppose that brings pleasure to some, but not me.

I was glad Dinah wasn't blocked for name calling.
Is that pleasure?


Go forward in thread:


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD, bob@dr-bob.org

Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.