5 ms·

I bunch of things you talk about show all the symptoms of the bubble effect. People don't believe in things because they personally analyzed everything and cam

I bunch of things you talk about show all the symptoms of the bubble effect. People don't believe in things because they personally analyzed everything and came to a conclusion. You don't believe that a fossil in a museum is 5,000 years old, or a painting is truly made by Da Vinci 500 years ago, you trust 'experts', even though your own intuition would be against it. So for instance, if I showed you a painting and asked you if you believe that it was painted by Da Vinci, you may agree with the statement, but once you hear from the experts, you realize that it is a fake, then you'd change your opinion. It would be patently dishonest for me to go out and perform survey of people by showing them a fake da Vinci and getting a 75% affirmative answer that it is a real da vinci and then claiming "75% of the people believe that it's a real Da Vinci painting, but because 'experts' say that it's fake, nobody wants to come see it in my private museum". Same goes here, when asked, most conservatives might be ok with the individual Obamacare mandates like "Would it be better if your kids are allowed to be on your health insurance until they are 26", once they hear from the people they trust that this means health insurance premiums would go up, then they would be oppose it.

gizmo 10y ago
I totally agree that my observations are symptomatic of a bubble. That doesn't change that there are a meaningful differences between bubbles. People who blindly trust scientific consensus live in a bubble, but it's the best kind of bubble. The Obamacare scenario you describe doesn't match up with reality. It's not true that they oppose Obamacare on rational grounds (e.g. I don't want my insurance to go up). Obamacare is the republican solution to health insurance, it's a federal version of Romneycare. Republicans should love it, because it's their own program, but they hate it. This hatred for Obamacare is the product of relentless fear-mongering by the right wing press and talk radio. What's going on here is much more serious than just groups of people living in their own bubble and consuming their own kind of media. Bubbles aren't a new thing, embracing a fact-free worldview is.
- splintercell 10y ago
  > Obamacare is the republican solution to health insurance, it's a federal version of Romneycare. Republicans should love it, because it's their own program, but they hate it. When I used the word 'bubble', it really was applicable to you. People who raise the same points you've raised are so out of touch with anyone who doesn't agree with them already. When was the last time you met someone who could be convinced with the following argument: "Hey believer-of-X-ideology, you should support idea Y because it is actually a part of X ideology because one of the prominent leaders of the X ideologists supported it". Romney is a blue state Republican, which is different than a red state Republican. I'm sure Republicans in Massachussetts or California would all be ok with Obamacare, but the states in which Romney would never be a governor, they hate Obamacare for the idea it represents.
  - gizmo 10y ago
    There is no possible plan for healthcare to the right of Romneycare, because it is already the most conservative way to provide healthcare to people: for profit insurance, for profit hospitals, for profit pharma, with a mandate for healthy people to buy insurance on a market. Romneycare is essentially what Nixon proposed way back (it got rejected by the Dems at the time because they insisted on universal healthcare). People who are to the right of Romney like Cruz or Ryan are opposed to the idea that government should provide healthcare, a position so radical that no republican held it 30 years ago.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  And Romneycare is a state-level implementation of the mandate-and-subsidy proposal that various national Republicans and the insurance industry came up with as the recommended national healthcare policy in the wake of the failure of the Clinton plan in the 1990s when there was still pressure for a national policy. Of course, by sometime in Bush's Presidency, the dominant proposal among Republicans who thought there should be a national policy (which was a shrinking number) had evolved: it was still a mandate and subsidy plan, but now restricted to high-deductible plans tied to HSAs.

gizmo 10y ago

I totally agree that my observations are symptomatic of a bubble. That doesn't change that there are a meaningful differences between bubbles. People who blindly trust scientific consensus live in a bubble, but it's the best kind of bubble. The Obamacare scenario you describe doesn't match up with reality. It's not true that they oppose Obamacare on rational grounds (e.g. I don't want my insurance to go up). Obamacare is the republican solution to health insurance, it's a federal version of Romneycare. Republicans should love it, because it's their own program, but they hate it. This hatred for Obamacare is the product of relentless fear-mongering by the right wing press and talk radio. What's going on here is much more serious than just groups of people living in their own bubble and consuming their own kind of media. Bubbles aren't a new thing, embracing a fact-free worldview is.

splintercell 10y ago
> Obamacare is the republican solution to health insurance, it's a federal version of Romneycare. Republicans should love it, because it's their own program, but they hate it. When I used the word 'bubble', it really was applicable to you. People who raise the same points you've raised are so out of touch with anyone who doesn't agree with them already. When was the last time you met someone who could be convinced with the following argument: "Hey believer-of-X-ideology, you should support idea Y because it is actually a part of X ideology because one of the prominent leaders of the X ideologists supported it". Romney is a blue state Republican, which is different than a red state Republican. I'm sure Republicans in Massachussetts or California would all be ok with Obamacare, but the states in which Romney would never be a governor, they hate Obamacare for the idea it represents.
- gizmo 10y ago
  There is no possible plan for healthcare to the right of Romneycare, because it is already the most conservative way to provide healthcare to people: for profit insurance, for profit hospitals, for profit pharma, with a mandate for healthy people to buy insurance on a market. Romneycare is essentially what Nixon proposed way back (it got rejected by the Dems at the time because they insisted on universal healthcare). People who are to the right of Romney like Cruz or Ryan are opposed to the idea that government should provide healthcare, a position so radical that no republican held it 30 years ago.
dragonwriter 10y ago
And Romneycare is a state-level implementation of the mandate-and-subsidy proposal that various national Republicans and the insurance industry came up with as the recommended national healthcare policy in the wake of the failure of the Clinton plan in the 1990s when there was still pressure for a national policy. Of course, by sometime in Bush's Presidency, the dominant proposal among Republicans who thought there should be a national policy (which was a shrinking number) had evolved: it was still a mandate and subsidy plan, but now restricted to high-deductible plans tied to HSAs.