I'm in the middle of my own busyness, but Lissa, I stopped and read this as I used to follow Charles as well, and have been mightily distressed by his veering into the conspiracies and Kennedy, etc. All I can say clearly to this is thank you. Thank you for your clarity, for taking time to be so thorough and thoughtful. I send writing students your way, so follow where you are headed and I appreciate you.
You seem to be embodying the "both-sides-ism" that Lissa has warned against.
Look at what the Democrats have done for the poor and working class people over the last 50 years. Compare that with what Republicans have done (even before they became Trumplicans). It would be hard to come up with even two accomplishments for the Republicans, where there are dozens for the Democrats. Forget whatever deep psychological motivations you may project into the D's; judge them by their accomplishments. Obamacare is an obvious one; if the D's had accomplished nothing else, this alone would dwarf the entire contribution the R's have made in that time. *Most* of their accomplishments have been to benefit the wealthy, at the expense of the middle class and poor.
That last line *proves* that both parties are not the same. Any Democrat that said anything even *vaguely* like the many atrocities Trump has proposed would be thrown out of the party instantly.
The goal for Obamacare was to get medical coverage to a lot of people who couldn't afford it otherwise. That has been pretty successful. If more people are insured, a natural consequence will be that insurance companies will get more money--that is a feature, not a defect Obama got the best deal he could get at the time. If Hillary had won, that process would have continued, to improve it and move it more towards a single-payer plan.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare, increased health insurance costs for many people through a number of factors, including:
Mandates and regulations
The ACA's regulations and mandates increased the cost of health insurance in the individual market in nearly all states.
Income-related subsidies
New income-related coverage subsidies increased health insurance premiums for millions of Americans.
Reduced competition
The ACA's mandates and regulations reduced insurer choice and competition.
Employer-provided health insurance
The ACA did not tax the value of health insurance that employees obtain through their employers. This led to workers choosing more expensive health insurance plans than they would otherwise
Lots of claims here, none that match anything I have seen. Without some credible sources, I don't see much to believe in what you say.
I did notice that you didn't mention some of the major benefits of the ACA ("Obamacare")--that it did away with "pre-existing conditions", and the fact that there are tens of millions of Americans who now have health insurance who had no access to it before. There are also indications that the ACA has helped keep health care costs from rising as fast as they would have otherwise.
There are still many things that could be improved about the ACA--is was just the first step to bring the US out of third-world status as far as health care goes.
A thorough study of the ACA has shown it to have a substantial net benefit both to individuals and the society as a whole. Here is one such study:
Thank you, great stuff. I have travelled in many of the same social circles as Charles until he starting going off the deep end. A tipping point for me - I wrote 20 climate change articles, mostly for HuffPost - was when Charles shared an essay to hype is (at the time) new book about climate change. To buttress his contention that carbon emissions are not the most significant single factor contributing to the heating climate - or, indeed, much of a contributor at all - he posted a link to a website purporting to demonstrate that, even with steadily rising greenhouse gas emissions the overall global temps may actually be FALLING!! Naturally, I clicked on the link. It took me about 12 seconds (less, actually) to ascertain that the website was one of many brain-dead, right-wing-funded, anti-scientific distractions, printing brain-dead, anti-scientific "evidence". It sort of stopped me in my tracks. Not so much that Charles might disagree with basic scientific findings , but that he would point to a source that a moderately intelligent 12-year-old would ridicule let alone someone who had matriculated at Yale. I realized that, indeed, something had "happened" to his...his orientation to basic reality.
I get that. He was on a text thread with me and 2 other doctors at the beginning of the pandemic, when none of us- scientists included- really knew what was happening. The links he was sending us were so obviously non-scientific right wing nonsense that we dropped him from the thread. His argument when w challenged his critical thinking was always “It’s important to always track both sides.” He would not admit until much later that he actually believed that other side to be more true then the actual evolving science we were sharing with him, which he unscientifically debunked.
You just proved her point in the article - it's time to stand up for what's right or sit down. Only ONE party promotes and pushes voilence and conspiracy theories, the majority of GOP candidates are Swimming in dark money. Only One party is ok with schoolchildren murdered, only Maga plans to dismantle constitution and all the rights we've gained in half century. Only ONE party wants to take us Backwards. Harris at least wants restore our rights protect our vote and take us forward. In truth if trump returns to office Your point is MOOT. there would be NO democracy, no office, no country. Therefore your post makes no sense, makes no point, takes no sides and implies you doing the sin of boh-sideism, she's decrying.
Thank you for pushing, Lissa. And for your compassionate explanation of conflict-avoidant parts - it explains a lot about conversations I find myself in, and try to get out of.
I still appreciate this from Eckhart Tolle that he said at the beginning of the pandemic:
“When you are faced with challenge—you will not immediately react, there will be an ability to face someone/something, to give it attention, this is an aspect of awareness. Or even give attention to an arising thought—
Why are people so insane they don’t get vaccinated?
Why are people so insane to take the vaccines?
Instead of identifying with one or the other you can hold two seemingly conflicting thoughts.
Otherwise whoever holds an opposing thought becomes your enemy.
To hold the paradox is the sign of wisdom.
The ability to decide for yourself is there. ✨🌟💖🙏
I looked at the situation, I gave it attention, including some information, what are the risks, very quietly you look at it. Finally I decided to get the vaccine. 2 of them, now they’re talking about a 3rd, I don’t know about that yet. I will look at it, and a decision will arise.
Some people have become contaminated by fear. Once fear has taken a hold of you, you lose awareness.
Without the underlying awareness you are at the mercy of toxic thoughts that act in your mind the same way that a virus acts in your body.”
Thanks Lissa for such clarity about what has happened to make Charles go the way he has and clarity in calling out sociopatjic narcissists who of course deserve empathy like anyone with trauma induced personalities but should still be stopped and locked up if necessary. 🙏
I'm in the middle of my own busyness, but Lissa, I stopped and read this as I used to follow Charles as well, and have been mightily distressed by his veering into the conspiracies and Kennedy, etc. All I can say clearly to this is thank you. Thank you for your clarity, for taking time to be so thorough and thoughtful. I send writing students your way, so follow where you are headed and I appreciate you.
While I don’t disagree with you on many points, I don’t truly believe that the Dems actually care about what they pretend to care about.
I don’t see a party that’s any less beholden to corporate and military interests than is the GOP.
That’s it’s assumed the Dems are the real party of the people makes it even more concerning to vote them in.
At least with Trump in office people would be more vigilant. A Harris presidency seems like it could be a fox dressed as a chicken in the hen-house.
You seem to be embodying the "both-sides-ism" that Lissa has warned against.
Look at what the Democrats have done for the poor and working class people over the last 50 years. Compare that with what Republicans have done (even before they became Trumplicans). It would be hard to come up with even two accomplishments for the Republicans, where there are dozens for the Democrats. Forget whatever deep psychological motivations you may project into the D's; judge them by their accomplishments. Obamacare is an obvious one; if the D's had accomplished nothing else, this alone would dwarf the entire contribution the R's have made in that time. *Most* of their accomplishments have been to benefit the wealthy, at the expense of the middle class and poor.
Fundamentally, the two parties are the same.
Even Obamacare needed up throwing money to the insurance companies and big pharma.
And…I do realize that Trump wants to be a dictator.
That last line *proves* that both parties are not the same. Any Democrat that said anything even *vaguely* like the many atrocities Trump has proposed would be thrown out of the party instantly.
The goal for Obamacare was to get medical coverage to a lot of people who couldn't afford it otherwise. That has been pretty successful. If more people are insured, a natural consequence will be that insurance companies will get more money--that is a feature, not a defect Obama got the best deal he could get at the time. If Hillary had won, that process would have continued, to improve it and move it more towards a single-payer plan.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare, increased health insurance costs for many people through a number of factors, including:
Mandates and regulations
The ACA's regulations and mandates increased the cost of health insurance in the individual market in nearly all states.
Income-related subsidies
New income-related coverage subsidies increased health insurance premiums for millions of Americans.
Reduced competition
The ACA's mandates and regulations reduced insurer choice and competition.
Employer-provided health insurance
The ACA did not tax the value of health insurance that employees obtain through their employers. This led to workers choosing more expensive health insurance plans than they would otherwise
Lots of claims here, none that match anything I have seen. Without some credible sources, I don't see much to believe in what you say.
I did notice that you didn't mention some of the major benefits of the ACA ("Obamacare")--that it did away with "pre-existing conditions", and the fact that there are tens of millions of Americans who now have health insurance who had no access to it before. There are also indications that the ACA has helped keep health care costs from rising as fast as they would have otherwise.
There are still many things that could be improved about the ACA--is was just the first step to bring the US out of third-world status as far as health care goes.
A thorough study of the ACA has shown it to have a substantial net benefit both to individuals and the society as a whole. Here is one such study:
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/sites/default/files/documents/___media_files_publications_fund_report_2016_feb_1860_schoen_aca_and_us_economy_v2.pdf
Thank you, great stuff. I have travelled in many of the same social circles as Charles until he starting going off the deep end. A tipping point for me - I wrote 20 climate change articles, mostly for HuffPost - was when Charles shared an essay to hype is (at the time) new book about climate change. To buttress his contention that carbon emissions are not the most significant single factor contributing to the heating climate - or, indeed, much of a contributor at all - he posted a link to a website purporting to demonstrate that, even with steadily rising greenhouse gas emissions the overall global temps may actually be FALLING!! Naturally, I clicked on the link. It took me about 12 seconds (less, actually) to ascertain that the website was one of many brain-dead, right-wing-funded, anti-scientific distractions, printing brain-dead, anti-scientific "evidence". It sort of stopped me in my tracks. Not so much that Charles might disagree with basic scientific findings , but that he would point to a source that a moderately intelligent 12-year-old would ridicule let alone someone who had matriculated at Yale. I realized that, indeed, something had "happened" to his...his orientation to basic reality.
btw - this was over 6 years ago...this veering toward other-than-reality began a while ago.
I get that. He was on a text thread with me and 2 other doctors at the beginning of the pandemic, when none of us- scientists included- really knew what was happening. The links he was sending us were so obviously non-scientific right wing nonsense that we dropped him from the thread. His argument when w challenged his critical thinking was always “It’s important to always track both sides.” He would not admit until much later that he actually believed that other side to be more true then the actual evolving science we were sharing with him, which he unscientifically debunked.
You just proved her point in the article - it's time to stand up for what's right or sit down. Only ONE party promotes and pushes voilence and conspiracy theories, the majority of GOP candidates are Swimming in dark money. Only One party is ok with schoolchildren murdered, only Maga plans to dismantle constitution and all the rights we've gained in half century. Only ONE party wants to take us Backwards. Harris at least wants restore our rights protect our vote and take us forward. In truth if trump returns to office Your point is MOOT. there would be NO democracy, no office, no country. Therefore your post makes no sense, makes no point, takes no sides and implies you doing the sin of boh-sideism, she's decrying.
Who are you addressing?
they deleted their comment that i was responding to
Thank you for pushing, Lissa. And for your compassionate explanation of conflict-avoidant parts - it explains a lot about conversations I find myself in, and try to get out of.
I still appreciate this from Eckhart Tolle that he said at the beginning of the pandemic:
“When you are faced with challenge—you will not immediately react, there will be an ability to face someone/something, to give it attention, this is an aspect of awareness. Or even give attention to an arising thought—
Why are people so insane they don’t get vaccinated?
Why are people so insane to take the vaccines?
Instead of identifying with one or the other you can hold two seemingly conflicting thoughts.
Otherwise whoever holds an opposing thought becomes your enemy.
To hold the paradox is the sign of wisdom.
The ability to decide for yourself is there. ✨🌟💖🙏
I looked at the situation, I gave it attention, including some information, what are the risks, very quietly you look at it. Finally I decided to get the vaccine. 2 of them, now they’re talking about a 3rd, I don’t know about that yet. I will look at it, and a decision will arise.
Some people have become contaminated by fear. Once fear has taken a hold of you, you lose awareness.
Without the underlying awareness you are at the mercy of toxic thoughts that act in your mind the same way that a virus acts in your body.”
Thanks so much for this! Here is my own rebuttal to Charles. https://momentoftruth.substack.com/p/charles-eisenstein-rfk-jr-donald?r=4uba8
Thank you! It's a great essay. I just commented over there...
Thank you for this. Absolutely true 💯
🙏 Thanks so very much 🙏 Clear and Kind.
Thanks Lissa for such clarity about what has happened to make Charles go the way he has and clarity in calling out sociopatjic narcissists who of course deserve empathy like anyone with trauma induced personalities but should still be stopped and locked up if necessary. 🙏
Bravo!