Even you admit there are differences among discomfort, anxiety and resentment, so why wouldn't those differences stand when they are used together in a sentence?

Even you admit you were paraphrasing, so why use quotations marks as if you were making a direct quotation?

Anyone who cares can go back and read what I actually said. That's why I put the quote here. That's why I put the link here.

And that is really all I've got.

Catch you next time.

None of this, of course, comes anywhere close to calling you a bigot.

This is a pretty old thread, so I'm not sure anyone else is reading this beside you and me. But again, I'd like to thank you for defending me. Especially if you think I'm just a bigot.

But I have a complaint. What you have in quotes is not a direct quote by me. And I have to say I've complained about you doing this before.

I did not say, as you have in quotes, “White men resent having to share their prerogatives”. That's far more extreme than what I actually said.

Anyone, anyone, anyone can go back up just a few comments and read the actual words I wrote, which were, “white men (and even more specifically, straight white men of the middle class or higher) are now expected to share what were once their prerogatives.”

In the next sentence, what I then said was, “Naturally enough, some–maybe most–of them feel discomfort, anxiety, even resentment over that fact.”

I said there's plenty of racial discomfort, anxiety and resentment in America, because that just seems obviously true to me. And it seems obviously true to me that white people feel those things too.

But there's a great deal of difference between the three–discomfort, anxiety and resentment.

You don't have to agree. You are free to say my calling the existence of some discomfort, some anxiety, and, yes, some resentment over racial matters in America is proof of my bigotry. But I think that'd be a pretty hard sell. So hard that, instead, you put forth a more extreme argument as if it were in my words–and then used those words of your choosing to bash me as if I'd said them.

You're free to mock me for nuance. For that matter, you're free to mischaracterize what I said. Just as I'd be free to come back and point out your mischaracterization. These are public threads, so readers are also free to decide which of us had gotten it wrong.

But you shouldn't be so sloppy on the factual matter of quotation. Anyone can go back up a few comments and read my actual words. I put them there specifically so people could read my own actual words. I put in a link to the entire thread to people could read the whole thing as it actually happened.

So please don't take your words and put them into my mouth. It's better for your own credibility that way.

On health care, I favor the public option. Sorry if that's been unclear.

And I'm sorry if you think I've just been picking on you. To tell the truth, I'm not really sure where you stand. Unlike so many others, you've agreed there's an insurance crisis. But you think the government should butt. Except that you think sometimes the government should be paying for people without insurance.

I'm sure we'll have plenty of opportunity to disagree about all these things on other threads. But even if you don't see what I'm saying about the racial issue, I hope you'll see what I'm saying about the quotation thing.

I'll stand by my reading of what you wrote. “White men resent having to share their prerogatives [with other classes/races]” sounds pretty much the same to me as “white men are bigots.” I'm certainly having trouble seeing much distinction.

Thanks to you also.

I appreciate your willingness to defend me in spite of our often contentious disagreements over the issue of health care.

Seriously: thanks.

But I didn't say most white males are bigots and I'm not really sure why anyone would say so. Let me quote myself:

I completely understand that white men (and even more specifically, straight white men of the middle class or higher) are now expected to share what were once their prerogatives.

Naturally enough, some–maybe most–of them feel discomfort, anxiety, even resentment over that fact.

The notion that justice should be blind is a pleasant one, but that pleasant blindness is just metaphorical–I think it means everyone who seeks justice should get a fair shake, without fear or favor.

I don't think anyone can look at our history and say that justice has ever been blind. That assertion is likely to ring hollow in a lot of ears.

I also think that a lot of people who lived a hundred years ago–Italians, Poles, the Irish, Jews–would be surprised to see their grandsons considered white men, equal to the Boston Brahmins. I think that's good thing. I think that tendency should continue.

I doubt many people are still reading this thread, but anyone who still cares is certainly free to go to the link I provided a few comments up and read the whole thing.

Again, Dr J, thanks. As you may have noticed, Austin Roth defended me way up there on this very thread. Austin Roth and I have been butting heads here for something like five years, so I appreciated his willingness to stand up for me. I should have thanked him sooner.

Catch you on the next health care thread.

Now if you think I'm coloring those facts in any way, please enlighten me. There is no projection or estimation involved at all, just the actual cost divided by the actual served population. Let me note additionally, that the 65+ population is included in the group of “all Americans”, bringing the average down somewhat, so the cost of health care for the younger pool per covered person is bound to be higher.

all communists of course, according to AR)

Please, at least be honest and accurate in describing my position, as my words as on this very thread. They are NOT all communists; most are socialists. I allowed for that. But man, you put the communist out there (which SOME on this board sure seem like they are, huh Kathy?), and the result is a feeding frenzy of denial from the left.

“We don't believe in communism! We just think the government should control the means of production, provide for all the workers, determine the amount everyone should get paid, and make sure everyone is equal (except for those who are more equal than others, of course”

Certainly no one could think THAT sounds REMOTELY communistic.

You guys have had a great discussion on this, and it's an important topic, but I'm going to take part of AR's advice and not allow myself to continue to get wound up or bogged down in it too much right now. I'm just in too good of a mood. I still think the public plan defenders here are, in some aspects, being either intentionally misleading or don't grasp the long term effects of what we're discussing, but I can also see how the prospect of free or cheap healthcare for everyone with nobody ever having to pay for it is appealing to the masses. Also, there's that natural, populist, “let's stick it to the man” (in this case the insurance industry) that's really tempting to some.

But as to AR's point about insults, etc. it was not this thread I was referring to, and George knows exactly which one I'm talking about, where he decided to “enlighten” me about how old white guys are “understandably” uncomfortable with the idea of minorities or women having equal rights. Still, on a bright, sunny morning in the mountains with a boat full of bass gear waiting for me, I find it pretty hard to get annoyed with anyone.

Anyway, I don't know of this public option will make it out of Congress in one piece. But if it does, and you all get what you're wishing for, let's meet back here in a few years and chew the fat over what happens after you've driven that industry out of business. Be careful what you wish for. You just may get it.

But, honestly, I find the cries of communism and socialism kind of ridiculous.

Did you know that Medicare won't pay for vision or podiatry? How do they expect people to see or walk?

Anyway, I'm not against Medicare, I'm just against the waste it permits and the dishonesty it's funded on. If we could find an honest way to fund it and a more efficient way to run a system that includes it, I might even warm up to the idea of expanding it. And those two are linked. Honesty about economic tradeoffs is the first step toward improving efficiency.

2017 is only 8 years away. It will surely take longer than that for Mr. Obama and likeminded socialists to bankrupt us completely, won't it?

Haven't you previously said the government should be writing checks to people who can't get insurance so they can pay their health care providers?

Actually, it's the response of an optimist. When private insurance crashes and burns, the public will demand Washington fix the problem, and finally, finally, we'll join the rest of the civilized world (all communists of course, according to AR) in deciding that everyone should have medical care just for being a citizen, regardless of wealth or employment status.

Let's face it, you can no more predict our fiscal status in 2017 than I can predict earthquakes. Things are changing mighty fast, and there is every likelihood that we will be a second class economic power, a tarnished has been. DLS will get his way and automakers will be sold off to China, we'll sacrifice what manufacturing we have left (do we?) on the altar of globalization, and turn to single payer out of necessity.

“It will no doubt be fixed again” is the response of an ostrich. The question is how it will be fixed, and the answer is by raising taxes and/or cutting services a lot. We're in an unusual situation, too, one of only four industrialized countries that thanks to immigration isn't graying much…yet. That's going to change.

What's Mom supposed to do? Well, if the bills are only $7,000 per year, simply pay them. Everyone should be saving for retirement, including health care they're likely to need.

Or even better, if the economics are as cut-and-dried as you like to represent, why don't you set up an insurance company of your own? One that doesn't overpay executives, advertise, or make obscene profits, one that doesn't deny coverage and gives great deals to everyone. If you believe even half the numbers you put out, it should be a great bet. I'd just rather you make it with your money rather than mine.

Megadittos. Losing credibility is the price of bad behavior… which is unfortunate and unnecessary. Think heat vs. light.