Please Help Me Understand Your Suffering

I need help understanding something and believe some of you might be able to help me grasp the answer. I found this on FB today and felt a sincere desire to share it far and wide. I had trouble deciding if this should be in Please Help or here. It is a sincere question. Please read through the following entirely before commenting. Thank you.


To anyone who "suffered for the last 8 years under President Obama," please read this response from Scott Mednick when a Facebook friend told him, "We suffered for 8 years. Now it’s your turn.”

Scott's reply:
"I am surprised you would wish suffering upon me. That of course is your right, I suppose. I do not wish harm on anyone. Your statement seems to continue an ‘US v THEM’ mentality. The election is over. It is important to get past campaigning and campaign rhetoric and get down to what is uniting not dividing and what is best for ALL Americans.
There will never be a President who does everything to everyone’s liking. There are things President Obama (and President Clinton) did that I do not like and conversely there are things I can point to that the Presidents Bush did that I agree with. So I am not 100% in lock step with the outgoing President but have supported him and the overall job he did.
And, if you recall, during the Presidential Campaign back in 2008 the campaign was halted because of the "historic crisis in our financial system." Wall Street bailout negotiations intervened in the election process. The very sobering reality was that there likely could be a Depression and the world financial markets could collapse. The United States was losing 800,000 jobs a month and was poised to lose at least 10 million jobs the first year once the new President took office. We were in an economic freefall. So let us recall that ALL of America was suffering terribly at the beginning of Obama’s Presidency.
But I wanted to look back over the last 8 years and ask you a few questions. Since much of the rhetoric before Obama was elected was that he would impose Sharia Law, Take Away Your Guns, Create Death Panels, Destroy the Economy, Impose Socialism and, since you will agree that NONE of this came to pass,
I was wondering:
Why have you suffered so?
So let me ask:
Gays and Lesbians can now marry and enjoy the benefits they had been deprived of. Has this caused your suffering?
When Obama took office, the Dow was 6,626. Now it is 19,875. Has this caused your suffering?
We had 82 straight months of private sector job growth - the longest streak in the history of the United States. Has this caused your suffering?
Especially considering where he the economy was when he took over, an amazing 11.3 million new jobs were created under President Obama (far more than President Bush). Has this caused your suffering?
Obama has taken Unemployment from 10% down to 4.7%. Has this caused your suffering?
Homelessness among US Veterans has dropped by half. Has this caused your suffering?
Obama shut down the US secret overseas prisons. Has this caused your suffering?
President Obama has created a policy for the families of fallen soldiers to have their travel paid for to be there when remains are flown home. Has this caused your suffering?
We landed a rover on Mars. Has this caused your suffering?
He passed the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Has this caused your suffering?
Uninsured adults has decreased to below 10%: 90% of adults are insured - an increase of 20 Million Adults. Has this caused your suffering?
People are now covered for pre-existing conditions. Has this caused your suffering?
Insurance Premiums increased an average of $4,677 from 2002-2008, an increase of 58% under Bush. The growth of these
insurance premiums has gone up $4,145 – a slower rate of increase. Has this caused your suffering?
Obama added Billions of dollars to mental health care for our Veterans. Has this caused your suffering?
Consumer confidence has gone from 37.7 to 98.1 during Obama’s tenure. Has this caused your suffering?
He passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Has this caused your suffering?
His bi-annual Nuclear Summit convinced 16 countries to give up and destroy all their loose nuclear material so it could not be stolen. Has this caused your suffering?
He saved the US Auto industry. American cars sold at the beginning of his term were 10.4M and upon his exit 17.5M. Has this caused your suffering?
The deficit as a percentage of the GDP has gone from 9.8% to 3.2%. Has this caused your suffering?
The deficit itself was cut by $800 Billion Dollars. Has this caused your suffering?
Obama preserved the middle class tax cuts. Has this caused your suffering?
Obama banned solitary confinement for juveniles in federal prisons. Has this caused your suffering?
He signed Credit Card reform so that rates could not be raised without you being notified. Has this caused your suffering?
He outlawed Government contractors from discriminating against LGBT persons. Has this caused your suffering?
He doubled Pell Grants. Has this caused your suffering?
Abortion is down. Has this caused your suffering?
Violent crime is down. Has this caused your suffering?
He overturned the scientific ban on stem cell research. Has this caused your suffering?
He protected Net Neutrality. Has this caused your suffering?
Obamacare has extended the life of the Medicare insurance trust fund (will be solvent until 2030). Has this caused your suffering?
President Obama repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell. Has this caused your suffering?
He banned torture. Has this caused your suffering?
He negotiated with Syria to give up its chemical weapons and they were destroyed. Has this caused your suffering?
Solar and Wind Power are at an all time high. Has this caused your suffering?
High School Graduation rates hit 83% - an all time high. Has this caused your suffering?
Corporate profits are up by 144%. Has this caused your suffering?
He normalized relations with Cuba. Has this caused your suffering?
Reliance on foreign oil is at a 40 year low. Has this caused your suffering?
US Exports are up 28%. Has this caused your suffering?
He appointed the most diverse cabinet ever. Has this caused your suffering?
He reduced the number of troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Has this caused your suffering?
Yes, he killed Osama Bin Laden and retrieved all the documents in his possession for analysis. Perhaps THIS caused your suffering?
From an objective standpoint it would appear that the last 8 years have seen some great progress and we were saved from a financial collapse. Things are not perfect. Things can always be better. We are on much better footing now than we were in 2008.
I look forward to understanding what caused you to suffer so much under Obama these last 8 years."


Thank you for posting this, nakaille. I hadn't seen it on FB yet.

I know that I have a relative who grew up in Brooklyn at the same time as I did. Similar background, first cousins. He moved to Florida and is a rabid Trump supporter. For the entire time President Obama was in office, he would send me insulting emails/memes/cartoons about the president. I finally told him to stop sending them to me, and he did. (I let it go for a while because I was curious to see what he was thinking and perhaps why he was thinking that way).

It seemed to boil down to the fact (speaking for my cousin only) that President Obama was a black man, with liberal leanings. My cousin was convinced of the birther rumor, could not stand Mrs. Obama and insulted her constantly for her looks, for anything she said or did. He was convinced that the president was undermining the military and allowing for the destruction of the moral fiber of our society (now, my cousin had been married several times himself and hadn't been an angel growing up, so this was a bit surprising to me). The fact that President Obama wanted to make it more difficult for people to obtain guns seemed to rankle a lot. He also hated that the president would discuss things with the leaders of other countries rather than trying to impose American values and mandates on them. Said cousin was also anti-immigrant, even though I pointed out that our shared ancestors had come here from Italy and hadn't had a very easy time of it themselves. Didn't make a difference; to him, our ancestors had come to "work" and the current immigrants were all coming for a free ride or as criminals.

I finally gave up. There was no way I could make him change any of his opinions. This is someone who I was very close to growing up and I cannot tell you why he made a hard right while I skewed left. I cannot think of any specific suffering he met due to President Obama, and yet this is how he thought. I'll be interested to read the other responses on this thread, too.



some people are angry that by law they need to buy health insurance. They preferred to go without and take the chance of catastrophic medical bills. I understand being angry that you now have to buy a fairly expensive product if you're not getting subsidies. But we're forced to buy car insurance too if we want to drive. And it's a bit histrionic to call it "suffering."


also a lot of people just blame Obama for anything bad that happened to them in the last eight years. Lost a job, or felt anxious about your future? Thanks, Obama.



ml1 said:

some people are angry that by law they need to buy health insurance. They preferred to go without and take the chance of catastrophic medical bills. I understand being angry that you now have to buy a fairly expensive product if you're not getting subsidies. But we're forced to buy car insurance too if we want to drive. And it's a bit histrionic to call it "suffering."

Apples and Oranges.

You only have to buy car insurance when you own a car. If you have a license you are free to drive any car belonging to a neighbor or friend whether you have insurance or not. Also, the only required insurance is liability.

The comparison is apples and oranges because you have the freedom not to buy car insurance. Don't own a car. You won't be penalized if you don't buy it when you don't own a car, even if you drive a car.

With Obamacare you don't have that freedom. Simply by existing you have to buy insurance in the private market or you are mandated a penalty. The fact that only your existence requires you to buy a private product seems rank to me.

A doctor wrote

None of us blink when millions of smart younger patients with few
medical problems pay the tax penalty rather than jump into the health
coverage pool. Doctors know that young, healthy patients don’t want
to see us unless they require a work or school physical.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/dr-marc-siegel-doctor-hates-obamacare-article-1.2846378


Objectively speaking none of Obama's domestic policies or actions caused any pain or suffering to any significant number of people - and almost certainly not to the people who complained the loudest.

Obama tried to help people.

These folks were simply brainwashed into believing nonsense, It's that simple. Just like if you have a discussion with a Trump voter to see why they voted for Trump, asking an Obama hater why they hate him will return a stream of unintelligible blatherings about who he is and what he's done that have no basis in reality.

The right wing media monster - from Fox to Limbaugh to the Heritage Society to lying politicans - disconnects them from reallity.

Some of the guilty actually admit it - Charlie Sykes - former rw radio host

CHARLIE SYKES: Well, I think in part, and I have a longer analysis of this, but over the years, conservative talk show hosts, and I'm certainly one of them, we have done a remarkable job of attacking and challenging the mainstream media. But perhaps what we did was also then to destroy any sense of a standard. Who are the referees? Where do you go to basically say, this is the truth? Now you have Donald Trump comes along and the man says things that are demonstrably untrue on a regular basis. But my experience has been look, we live in an era where every drunk at the end of the bar has a Twitter account, has an email account, and maybe has a blog. And when you try to point out, OK this is not true, this is a lie, and then you cite The Washington Post or The New York Times, their response is, ah that's the mainstream media. So we've done such a good job of discrediting them, that there's almost no, there's no place to go to be able to fact check. Now having said that, the mainstream media does have some responsibility here. For years and years and years crying wolf, accusing every single Republican of being a racist. Now, you have the real thing come along and we're kind of at a loss.

Read the whole thing.

Most of the guilty - like enabler David Brooks, either don't admit it or are still clueless or are getting rich from it.

It's by far the country's biggest problem. I see no solution. The country is split not by politics, or by race, but by different realities - one of which tries to adhere to truth, and the other which disregards it.

You can't build a bridge if there's no place to anchor it on the other side.



BG9 said:



ml1 said:

some people are angry that by law they need to buy health insurance. They preferred to go without and take the chance of catastrophic medical bills. I understand being angry that you now have to buy a fairly expensive product if you're not getting subsidies. But we're forced to buy car insurance too if we want to drive. And it's a bit histrionic to call it "suffering."

Apples and Oranges.

You only have to buy car insurance when you own a car. If you have a license you are free to drive any car belonging to a neighbor or friend whether you have insurance or not. Also, the only required insurance is liability.

The comparison is apples and oranges because you have the freedom not to buy car insurance. Don't own a car. You won't be penalized if you don't buy it when you don't own a car, even if you drive a car.

With Obamacare you don't have that freedom. Simply by existing you have to buy insurance in the private market or you are mandated a penalty. The fact that only your existence requires you to buy a private product seems rank to me.

A doctor wrote


None of us blink when millions of smart younger patients with few
medical problems pay the tax penalty rather than jump into the health
coverage pool. Doctors know that young, healthy patients don’t want
to see us unless they require a work or school physical.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/dr-marc-siegel-doctor-hates-obamacare-article-1.2846378

Of course young people can have a catastrophic accident or suddenly suffer an unexpected illness. Then we all pay. My son was never sick a day in his life, until he was.

Sometimes we all have to help one another.


Then let them pay the tax penalty; it's the least they can do.

By going uninsured, they are not only risking their own savings (if any) and well-being, they are also depending on society as a whole (aka the rest of us) to bail them out if something catastrophic does happen, via "charity care" at hospitals (added to the bills of paying patients) and/or Medicaid, SS disability, or other benefits. Nobody wants to think about it, but we are all only one accident or diagnosis away from disability & bankruptcy, regardless of age and "good health habits."


None of the people who believe they suffered under Obama would read more than the first few lines of that post.



Cristabel said:

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/dr-marc-siegel-doctor-hates-obamacare-article-1.2846378
Of course young people can have a catastrophic accident or suddenly suffer an unexpected illness. Then we all pay. My son was never sick a day in his life, until he was.

Someone all have to help one another.

True.

But guess what? There are millions of very healthy young adults that have Obamacare and getting very nice subsidies. Subsidies in the thousands every year. They are not sick and not using health benefits.

And who do you think is paying for them? Month after month. We are. Even though they are not using the product.


in most of the U.S. you are hardly free not to drive a car. if you want a job, or you want to buy groceries, or do just about anything you need a car.

but leaving that aside, I don't like the mandate to buy private insurance either. There should have been a "Medicare for all" option. But regardless, would you call the mandate "suffering?"


BG9 said:



ml1 said:

some people are angry that by law they need to buy health insurance. They preferred to go without and take the chance of catastrophic medical bills. I understand being angry that you now have to buy a fairly expensive product if you're not getting subsidies. But we're forced to buy car insurance too if we want to drive. And it's a bit histrionic to call it "suffering."

Apples and Oranges.

You only have to buy car insurance when you own a car. If you have a license you are free to drive any car belonging to a neighbor or friend whether you have insurance or not. Also, the only required insurance is liability.

The comparison is apples and oranges because you have the freedom not to buy car insurance. Don't own a car. You won't be penalized if you don't buy it when you don't own a car, even if you drive a car.

With Obamacare you don't have that freedom. Simply by existing you have to buy insurance in the private market or you are mandated a penalty. The fact that only your existence requires you to buy a private product seems rank to me.

A doctor wrote


None of us blink when millions of smart younger patients with few
medical problems pay the tax penalty rather than jump into the health
coverage pool. Doctors know that young, healthy patients don’t want
to see us unless they require a work or school physical.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/dr-marc-siegel-doctor-hates-obamacare-article-1.2846378



You have a point. I know at least two people who had medical emergencies related to pregnancy, they had no insurance. Their bills ran up into the low hundreds of thousands (no joke) none of which they could pay. They were referred to charity care and the bills magically disappeared. So who pays? Not the insurance company obviously. Probably the tax payer. It seems to me the more people paying into the insurance pool the better for everyone. Perhaps my view is naive maybe someone can educate me. I'm willing to learn what the benefit of opting out of insurance is for the commonwealth.

mjc said:

Then let them pay the tax penalty; it's the least they can do.

By going uninsured, they are not only risking their own savings (if any) and well-being, they are also depending on society as a whole (aka the rest of us) to bail them out if something catastrophic does happen, via "charity care" at hospitals (added to the bills of paying patients) and/or Medicaid, SS disability, or other benefits. Nobody wants to think about it, but we are all only one accident or diagnosis away from disability & bankruptcy, regardless of age and "good health habits."




ml1 said:

in most of the U.S. you are hardly free not to drive a car. if you want a job, or you want to buy groceries, or do just about anything you need a car.

but leaving that aside, I don't like the mandate to buy private insurance either. There should have been a "Medicare for all" option. But regardless, would you call the mandate "suffering?"

I'm not sure if the mandate causes suffering. I doubt it does. The poor get Medicaid or a very high level of subsidy.

I'm in favor of Medicare for all. Plus modernization of Medicare. There are procedures which are not covered which should be considering the shift in health needs.

It rubs me wrong seeing health care money, our tax dollars and private premiums dollars thrown at private companies under a mandate penalty. Companies that do not in themselves provide the care but simply pass some of it along to those who do.

A main reason Republicans are now thinking about reforming Obamacare, instead of abolishing it, is that insurers are lobbying for reform. They couldn't care less about the public good. Have they ever?

The "reform" would be to insure a profit to insurers. Insurers love the subsidy. What private company wouldn't love seeing tax dollars go directly into their pockets? They love the mandate. It helps to give them additional customers, premiums from the customers pockets and from the taxpayers. What they don't like is that the mandate is not strong enough and that the IRS cannot force payment of the mandate penalty. They also don't like allowing pre-existing conditions but that than can factored in by adjusting rates.

The thing is to get enough people to sign up and the "right" insurance rates. To make a profit.

A solution would be to make the mandate equal to the cost of the insurance, effectively forcing people to buy the insurance. So if the standard average bronze plan costs $800 a month, make the mandate $9600 a year. Thus a person who has a $800 premium and gets a monthly subsidy of $500, would have to pay to an pay out-of-pocket of $300. It would then be crazy not to buy insurance. Better to pay a $300 premium than an $800 penalty.

That should get enrollments up. Ensuring a nice profit.


Look, the mandate is not the best solution - but if people are pissed off about that, they should be voting for national health insurance. Not its opposite.

Given the essential need for the US to try and join the rest of the civilized world in making health care a "right", - and facing the stupid obstinacy of conservatives against that goal - the mandate was the only way to get us closer to that goal. It doesn't inconvenience that many people, and can always be ameliorated by the obvious solution of increasing subsiidies - which we can well afford but that scares the crap out of the same people who complain.


You are all focusing on reason rather than emotion.

The very fact that the President of the United States was Black caused many emotional suffering. The fact that he was a Democrat or a "Liberal" caused others such suffering.

It;s similar to the " suffering" I am experiencing just because of the fact that the current "so-called' POTUS is a scumbag.


I read today that there are some people who felt they were "suffering" because Obama was forcing them to endure attacks on their values. I guess if your values including discrimination against LGBT people and thinking racism against whites is a serious problem then maybe you were suffering the past 8 years



drummerboy said:

Look, the mandate is not the best solution - but if people are pissed off about that, they should be voting for national health insurance. Not its opposite.

Voting for it would be nice if it worked.

Ever notice that even when Democrats control congress there are always enough votes to prevent health reform? An example was the move to lower the Medicare age to 55. It was opposed by just enough Democrats to prevent passage. Like Joe Lieberman, reform democrat poseur, who quickly metamorphed into a Blue Dog Democrat.

Every consumer wants lower drug prices. And what did congress do? They passed a law prohibiting Medicare from negotiating drug prices. The VA, which can, has managed to lower their drug prices by 40%.

Trump said he wanted to lower drug prices. He had a photo op with drug manufacturers ostensibly to lower prices. The only real thing they did was agree to remove regulations. The claim is that removing "burdensome" regulations will lower prices. If Trump really wanted to lower drug prices he can start by proposing legislation allowing Medicare to negotiate.


When I was young and working, I too thought I didn't need health insurance but was urged by my wise grandmother to take that b-weekly hit and sign up for it. Sure enough, I had some injuries the same year I signed up. If not for my insurance, the hospitals would have come after me, ruined my building credit and made my life hell for a while until I paid up. Sometimes the younger need an older person to be their Common Sense Whisperer. We all fall down and break stuff; even the young.



ml1 said:

I read today that there are some people who felt they were "suffering" because Obama was forcing them to endure attacks on their values. I guess if your values including discrimination against LGBT people and thinking racism against whites is a serious problem then maybe you were suffering the past 8 years

Another bs on their part.

Abortion would be an example. Pro-lifers feel oppressed because choice is allowed.

But there is a difference, on oppression.

A pro-choicer does impose choice on others. If a pro-lifer does not want to have an abortion, pro-choicers do not impose their choice by demanding that an abortion should be done for the public good. Whereas, the pro-lifers try to impose their beliefs onto others by getting laws passed prohibiting choice.

I think we know where the real oppression is.


Conservatism has polluted both parties. I haven't forgotten that Max Baucus practically controlled what the ACA would look like.

Regardless, people concerned about having a better health care system should never be voting for a Republican. At least with Dems there is a chance of getting something reasonable and moving the ball forward.

BG9 said:



drummerboy said:

Look, the mandate is not the best solution - but if people are pissed off about that, they should be voting for national health insurance. Not its opposite.

Voting for it would be nice if it worked.

Ever notice that even when Democrats control congress there are always enough votes to prevent health reform? An example was the move to lower the Medicare age to 55. It was opposed by just enough Democrats to prevent passage. Like Joe Lieberman, reform democrat poseur, who quickly metamorphed into a Blue Dog Democrat.

Every consumer wants lower drug prices. And what did congress do? They passed a law prohibiting Medicare from negotiating drug prices. The VA, which can, has managed to lower their drug prices by 40%.

Trump said he wanted to lower drug prices. He had a photo op with drug manufacturers ostensibly to lower prices. The only real thing they did was agree to remove regulations. The claim is that removing "burdensome" regulations will lower prices. If Trump really wanted to lower drug prices he can start by proposing legislation allowing Medicare to negotiate.




BG9 said:

Apples and Oranges.

You only have to buy car insurance when you own a car.

Everyone owns a body, which will, with 100% certainty, become sick or injured at some point during its lifetime. If one believes it's OK for car insurance to be a mandate for car owners, some percentage of whom may in fact never have an accident, then --short of a single-payer system-- it's hard for me to see why one would object to mandated health insurance.


because freedom

BrickPig said:



BG9 said:

Apples and Oranges.

You only have to buy car insurance when you own a car.

Everyone owns a body, which will, with 100% certainty, become sick or injured at some point during its lifetime. If one believes it's OK for car insurance to be a mandate for car owners, some percentage of whom may in fact never have an accident, then --short of a single-payer system-- it's hard for me to see why one would object to mandated health insurance.



Freedom always has a cost. Someone deciding they don't wish to have healthcare will trickle down to us paying for them. The ER's of our nation are not for sore throats and acid reflux.


I say that those who do not want to participate in the individual mandate, pay a small tax penalty (2% of income) and sign a document acknowledging that there will be NO charity care, discounts, or other financial help in the event that they cannot pay a medical bill.


They "suffered" for eight years because they just did not want to hear about civil rights for LGBT, access to health care, action to address climate change, etc. They suffered just hearing that these things were happening. They suffered by being reminded that the country was moving in a direction that they did not like. They suffered by not having their values validated.

Here's a very interesting article about how to talk to people whose political views are opposite of your own.

The Simple Psychological Trick to Political Persuasion

Conservatives are more likely to support issues like immigration and Obamacare if the message is “morally reframed” to suit their values.




drummerboy said:

because freedom

BrickPig said:



BG9 said:

Apples and Oranges.

You only have to buy car insurance when you own a car.

Everyone owns a body, which will, with 100% certainty, become sick or injured at some point during its lifetime. If one believes it's OK for car insurance to be a mandate for car owners, some percentage of whom may in fact never have an accident, then --short of a single-payer system-- it's hard for me to see why one would object to mandated health insurance.

Also because I'm unemployed.



ridski said:



drummerboy said:

because freedom

BrickPig said:



BG9 said:

Apples and Oranges.

You only have to buy car insurance when you own a car.

Everyone owns a body, which will, with 100% certainty, become sick or injured at some point during its lifetime. If one believes it's OK for car insurance to be a mandate for car owners, some percentage of whom may in fact never have an accident, then --short of a single-payer system-- it's hard for me to see why one would object to mandated health insurance.

Also because I'm unemployed.

Understood. And to be clear, I'm not really advocating for the mandate. I'm in favor of the single payer public option. My earlier point was just to say that, IMO, the car insurance logic is more an argument for the mandate than against it. You may never wreck your car. You will most definitely get sick or injured.



BrickPig said:



BG9 said:

Apples and Oranges.

You only have to buy car insurance when you own a car.

Everyone owns a body, which will, with 100% certainty, become sick or injured at some point during its lifetime. If one believes it's OK for car insurance to be a mandate for car owners, some percentage of whom may in fact never have an accident, then --short of a single-payer system-- it's hard for me to see why one would object to mandated health insurance.

I believe car insurance is primarily mandated in case you hit me. Whether or not you hit a tree and want to fix your car afterward should be entirely up to you. Mandated health insurance only protects you, not me.


But if I get medical care and don't pay, the cost gets shifted to everybody else.



shoshannah said:

I say that those who do not want to participate in the individual mandate, pay a small tax penalty (2% of income) and sign a document acknowledging that there will be NO charity care, discounts, or other financial help in the event that they cannot pay a medical bill.


When faced with a decision between doing what's "right" and what is humane, some of us pick the humane choice, whether one thinks we should or not. (In this case, the "right" thing is saying, sorry you're sick or injured, but I won't help, because you agreed not to ask.)


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.