I'm kind of wondering what the "Obama can do no wrong" excuse-makers will have for this. "If you hear of anyone saying that Obamacare isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread (whole wheat, natch), let us know. We won't really collect the names <wink, wink>."
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I'm wondering if you can't come up with a plausible and non-nefarious (farious?) explanation.
Or if you can come up with a plausible reason to collect names or email addresses that could actually amount to anything nefarious.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
:yaaawwwnnn:
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm with you, Lisa. I can't even imagine what people would be screaming if President Bush had set up an official way to report on people who disagree with one of his proposals.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
He did. It was called TIPS.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: TIPS -- the Terrorism Information and Prevention System -- is one of the core elements of President Bush's Citizen Corps Program. The national system for reporting suspicious and potentially terrorist-related activity is predicated on the assistance of do-good local citizens who would be in positions to witness unusual or suspicious activity in public places. Volunteers will hand tips over to the Justice Department via a toll-free hotline or online.
The Teamsters union is throwing its support behind Operation TIPS not only as a means to show its nonpartisan stripes, but to lend an effort to homeland security, said Teamsters spokesman Rob Black.
Teamsters President James Hoffa -- re-elected last November to run one of the nation's oldest and largest unions -- "made clear" at the end of June during a meeting with Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge that "the Teamsters fully support Operation TIPS," Black said.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Also there's a lot more patently false disinformation being spread... and down right incitement to violence taking place over health care than nearly any of Bush's policies.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Got anything to prove that, Alcon? Even attempting to?
So...you have no problem with asking citizens to report other citizens' use of free speech to discuss proposed legislation?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
While I never supported any of Bush's information-gathering policies, I will say that I think trying to collect information on illegal activities is a lot less rage-inducing than trying to collect information on political dissent.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Thank you, PSI. I don't object to calling the police if you see something illegal. I do object to reporting your neighbor for protesting an enormous, costly new entitlement.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
TIPS was trying to gather information on outside sources that might harm the overall United States.
Can't be compared to "flag" which is trying to get Americans to report on each other for simply disagreeing with a policy proposal.
I see those as very different. One is the U.S. people choosing to protect their very nation and security from other nations; the other is very internal.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
What is it that people are afraid that the Obama administration is going to do with this information?
I think if this was a sign of intent to intimidate, discredit, or re-educate citizens who dare to oppose the regime, it'd be a sign of a hilariously incompetent plan, because collecting names before you have any of the other totalitarian infrastructure in place seems like tipping your hand a bit early.
On the other hand, as a means of identifying talking points to be countered, it seems pretty reasonable.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
From the White House blog:
quote:There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.
So they want to know when people are lying about their programs. So?
What, do you think some secret police are going to show up and disappear the people who lie about health care?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think the White House is asking citizens to report on other citizens' speech concerning pending legislation.
It doesn't matter what happens next or what they do with it. Simply asking for it is an abuse of position.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Theoretically, I may want to consider archiving this thread and email a copy to flag@whitehouse.gov Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
I think it's utterly ridiculous. I used to support Obama because he spoke softly and viewed that as a sign of wisdom.
But what actions does he take while speaking softly?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That would do an excellent job of proving my point, thank you. Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
We haven't said anything negative/misleading about his health care reform here yet, Mucus.
However, that can be arranged....
Posted by J-Put (Member # 11752) on :
Sounds to me like they are trying to stop the spread of incorrect information. I don't think it even has anything to do with reporting the PEOPLE saying these things, but more the things being said. They want people to be informed before making a judgment and not rely on all the crap spread all over the internet.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
The thought of forwarding a fishy email irks me to no end. Considering the fact that most chronic email forwarders are too dense to ever delete the preceding addresses just means that you'd be hand-delivering a list of names from, possibly, the beginning of the e-mail's circulation.
The moral: don't forward emails.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I think the White House is asking citizens to report on other citizens' speech concerning pending legislation.
It doesn't matter what happens next or what they do with it. Simply asking for it is an abuse of position.
How do you arrive at this conclusion? What is the legal, ethical, or constitutional principle that bars asking citizens to report this kind of information?
(If there were some kind of reward for reporting it, or penalty for not reporting it, I'd also be concerned. But as far as I can tell this is ordinary political intelligence gathering, and doesn't really exploit the office in any way, other than having a whitehouse.gov email address, which is not something I'm really concerned about. While I think tit for tat rebuttal of Internet chain email propaganda is likely to be ineffective, I don't think it's threatening.)
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
The thought of forwarding a fishy email irks me to no end. Considering the fact that most chronic email forwarders are too dense to ever delete the preceding addresses just means that you'd be hand-delivering a list of names from, possibly, the beginning of the e-mail's circulation.
The moral: don't forward emails.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
It seems to me that the White House is trying to gather information about what is being said so it can sift through fact and fiction and address citizen's concerns. I don't see any effort to actually silence these people, and since much of this program is focused on the internet, I'm not sure how you could plausibly go about silencing anyone.
FWIW, I made it through 8 years of Bush and the country didn't descend into anarchy, so somehow I can't find it within myself to panic about sending a copy of fallacy-ridden chain letters to the White House staff so they can counter the misinformation.
It is the President and it is a White House email address. Unless he's only the President of people who agree with him - which he is not - then he is abusing his position.
It's like calling people for campaign donations from the Oval Office. It is an abuse of position.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Farmgirl: Theoretically, I'm not a citizen either, not that you'd be able to tell via email.
Actually, I kinda wonder if the reaction would have been stronger or weaker if they opted to set up either a twitter hashtag(?) or a public wiki instead. I could see it going either way, I dunno.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
It might also be noted that some of the misinformation being spread on the subject is completely in the realm of hysteria, but that spreading false information about government policies isn't necessarily illegal (if it were, the talk radio circuit would quickly be silenced.) While asking for specific names- if the link has- may be incredibly tone deaf, it seems more than a little bit of a stretch to suggest that it's a cue for the jackboots to come to the doors of the misinformers.
Don'cha think?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I suppose my biggest worry is with the use of the word "disinformation" rather than "misinformation." They are clearly asking us to report people who are deliberately spreading false rumors, not just the information itself.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Can you elaborate, katharina? I'm afraid I don't know what you mean. How does disagreement with some of the citizenry preclude gathering information to try to persuade them?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Kat, he's not saying, "If someone disagrees, send us their email so we can get it to stop."
He's saying, "There are a lot of lies out there. Send us the lies so we know what truths need to be heard."
Yet you and others seem to want to make the absolute worst out of anything that is done--feeding some paranoid conspiracy philosophy.
Here is a hard plain fact for all the paranoid conspiracy folks. President Obama doesn't care who says things against his policies. You just are not that important. The rumors and the truth are. He wants to identify the rumors so that the truth can be placed out there, and so that rational, not psychotic, discussions can be held.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
How dare Obama try to make sure we have a well-informed populace. The nerve! Why can't he just let us enjoy our misinformation koolaid and leave us be. Wanting us to know the truth? Shame on him.
Nah, seriously, I get what the concerns are with flag. It does give the appearance that President Obama is taking the names of opponents and political dissenters. But really, I don't think that's what the true purpose is. If they wanted to find the folks who were spreading the misinformation, they'd just need to type some of the misinformation in a search engine and then they'd find a lot of folks saying it.
The point isn't about finding out who the folks are that oppose health care reform, it's finding out why they do and their most common arguments against it. It seems to me that the whitehouse is information gathering to make strong rebuttals against misinformation, not political dissenters. I see why their approach is a little disturbing, and the Obama administration is... shall we say... crafty. (Easiest way to find out active e-mail addresses and phone-numbers of your supporters? Offer to tell them who the new VP is first!) But on the whole, I'm willing to give the administration the benefit of the doubt. You know, that silly little 'innocent until proven guilty' shtick. If I catch wind of them using the information they've gathered through flag to attack their opponents rather than their arguments, I'll be right there with y'all who are upset by this. But until I see that, I'm going to trust that this is a good-natured move.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: He's saying, "There are a lot of lies out there. Send us the lies so we know what truths need to be heard."
See, again, I would prefer that he say, "there are a lot of inaccuracies that we would like to clear up."
Referring to the inaccuracies as lies, straight from the get-go, is a little disconcerting. It makes me think that is issue is less with being clear and accurate than it is with weeding out lies/liars.
Vadon: DISinformation. There's a huge difference.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport:
quote: He's saying, "There are a lot of lies out there. Send us the lies so we know what truths need to be heard."
See, again, I would prefer that he say, "there are a lot of inaccuracies that we would like to clear up."
Referring to the inaccuracies as lies, straight from the get-go, is a little disconcerting. It makes me think that is issue is less with being clear and accurate than it is with weeding out lies/liars.
The Web site for the program never uses the word "lies," though. I don't think you can blame the White House for Darth_Mauve's choice of words.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport:
quote: He's saying, "There are a lot of lies out there. Send us the lies so we know what truths need to be heard."
See, again, I would prefer that he say, "there are a lot of inaccuracies that we would like to clear up."
Referring to the inaccuracies as lies, straight from the get-go, is a little disconcerting. It makes me think that is issue is less with being clear and accurate than it is with weeding out lies/liars.
Vadon: DISinformation. There's a huge difference.
You've seen the talk of death panels and the like, right? Lies seems pretty accurate.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
That said, it does use the word "disinformation" several times. YMMV as to whether thats synonymous enough with "inaccuracies."
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I'm with you, Lisa. I can't even imagine what people would be screaming if President Bush had set up an official way to report on people who disagree with one of his proposals.
An official way would have been more objectionable than an unofficial way? Why? I ask this in all seriousness.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Here's the thing about freedom of speech: You're free to speak and I'm free to tell someone else about what you said. I'm also free to ask you what someone else said. You're free not to tell me. And on and on and on...
There is nothing wrong with asking people to let you know what the opposition's viewpoint is. There isn't even anything wrong with asking people who is saying these things. What might you do with a list of e-mail addresses? The first thing that comes to my mind is to SPAM them, which is annoying but legal, and explain your point of view in contrast to the previous e-mail they received.
If we start arresting or blackballing people for their opinions, then that's wrong. But information gathering through legal means that do not violate privacy, ie forwarding an e-mail? You guys are reaching.
Bush was a problem because he was tapping people's phone lines without a warrant. That is a violation of our constitutional rights. I know of no constitutional right guaranteeing us the right that our forwarded e-mails, including our e-mail address, never goes further then the person to whom you forwarded it. Heck, if you are forwarding those obnoxious chain e-mails, you clearly EXPECT the e-mail, along with your address, to get spread around. You don't want that to happen? Don't forward chain mail. I don't.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
I don't even hold that much anger toward the use of disinformation either. It's no secret that the agenda of some folks is to dislodge health care reform and they utilize disinformation to do so. If I were in a fact finding mission and wanted to set the record straight, I'd want to know both the misinformation (like when the differences between Canadian and UK health care being confused) and disinformation(The death panels).
Either way, my point is that it's not hard to find the folks who spread inaccuracies. (Whether on purpose or because of being misinformed, but good intentioned) What is more difficult is finding out which inaccuracies are spread most often.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
And, again, TIPS.
"Send us messages concerning 'suspicious' behavior so that we can turn our warrant-less wire-tapping homeland security folk on them."
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
I think I'll go with slacktivist's posts today regarding lies: slacktivist
excerpt
B: You realize what you've done, don't you?
A: Drawn a link between the spreading of malicious falsehoods and the practice commonly referred to as "lying"?
B: Well, yes, that. That's not allowed.
A: "Allowed?"
B: Right. You can say, "Sarah Palin's statement is false," because, you know, it is. And you can say, "Sarah Palin's statement is malicious," because, again, it's generally regarded as a mean thing to say about other people that they want to set up a death panel and kill your handicapped child.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
If I recall correctly, when President Obama was a candidate, he had a similar program set up to deal with the immense amount of lies and other incorrect information told about him.
I'm not entirely comfortable with this. But, when you're dealing with an opponent that relies so much on lying about what you are doing and disrupting any open discussion as the Republican party seems to be doing, something needs to be done to counter this.
I don't get why the many Republicans that are concerned with things like the truth and deciding based on the evidence what is the best way to go forward aren't doing more to reign in these people. To me, what they are doing is unconscionable and very bad for the country. Plus, I don't know, one of the reasons I left the Republican party was because I was ashamed of them and didn't want to be associated with them. I very much doubt that people want to belong to a party that's public face is "Lying liars for stupid people." that the Republican party officials seem to be pushing for.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I think the problem with (illegal) wiretapping is that though the purpose is to gather information that could help us protect this nation; it could easily be abused. I see exactly the same situation here. I was against the Patriot Act under Bush and I'm against this. I don't know that I'd put them on the same scale but I think it's the same principle. The purpose of creating an informed populous is laudable just as is stopping terrorist actions in our country and others. I'm not thrilled with the way to create it.
And I do think it's different if a government employee, especially the President uses government funds and resources to get information than if some private organization or group were to attempt to collect arguments and counter them. Honestly part of my problem with this is I don't see why the DCCC can't do something like this, or just the Democrats in general (or the Republicans for that matter). I suppose their distinction from a government agency is at best fuzzy but I sure think most people including myself would feel better if it was done that rather than directly through the Executive Branch.
Hobbes Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That's where I'm uncomfortable with it too, Hobbes.
I think that the Obama White House (rightly) doesn't trust health care reform to Democrats other than themselves (I wouldn't trust the DCCC to run a bake sale), so they're going to take the lead on efforts like this. What would make me feel much more comfortable is if there was a separate section whose job was to deal with this stuff that had a very minimal line of communication with the White House proper. It's not perfect, but much better.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
That said, it does use the word "disinformation" several times. YMMV as to whether thats synonymous enough with "inaccuracies."
I'm aware that it does not literally say "lies," but no one's mileage should vary regarding the definition of disinformation.
According to Merriam-Webster:
disinformation: false information deliberately and often covertly spread (as by the planting of rumors) in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth
*shrug* Thats not what YMMV about, but whatever.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Hobbes, Squick, that would also make me happier.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Then, what?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I would have no problem with the DNC asking for it. It isn't the request for info to aid in the fight in passing the legislation: it's that the request came from the PRESIDENT and it is a White House.gov email address.
That's why it's an abuse of position. What is okay for Obama the Candidate to do is not okay for Obama the President to do.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
They aren't asking for the identities of the people spreading the mis/disinformation; they're asking for the mis/disinformation itself. They want to know what people are saying, not who's saying it.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
PSI Teleport: *shrug* They are both minor points. The major-minor point was simply that the website in question doesn't use the word "lies." The minor-minor point was it does use the word "disinformation" and it depends on the reader as to whether "disinformation" and "inaccuracies" are different enough to actually care about the difference.
(In my case, I couldn't care less whatever they called them anything in-between "fluffy wuffy white lies" or "insidious viral inhuman smears")
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I would have no problem with the DNC asking for it. It isn't the request for info to aid in the fight in passing the legislation: it's that the request came from the PRESIDENT and it is a White House.gov email address.
That's why it's an abuse of position. What is okay for Obama the Candidate to do is not okay for Obama the President to do.
Eh. Again I fail to see why your line of good conduct, and Obama's trespass into bad conduct, falls squarely in the area of a) common practice, and b) totally legal, while I don't see those kind of standards being applied, by you at least, to the opposition. Is that unfair- do you just feel that the, shall we say "dishonest," conduct of others who are not the President (and let's include legislators in this group) is acceptable because they aren't the Executive? Or do you feel that what has been done has been by and large fair, but that Obama should simply not deign to collaborate with his supporters directly as President?
In short, I think you ought to provide some reasoning as to why you find this kind of conduct unacceptable, not in comparison with the many frankly illegal things done by other executives in the past, but in terms of your personal sense of what conduct is appropriate for the President. I think if you could pin that down rather than calling it as you see it, which always looks like you're just saying it because you don't like him, your opinion would have more weight.
That said, I for one just find it to be bad politics. I expect the President to be figuring out what's being said and by whom- that isn't illegal and it would be stupid not to gather information. But I criticized Bush for being insular and answerable only to his supporters (crystallized in the famous John Bolton line: "the President has a responsibility to the people who voted for him"), so I criticize Obama for the same kind of behavior. He's nowhere near as ham fisted as Dubya was, nor certainly as intellectually lazy, but this kind of move is something he should avoid, or more precisely, should be something his staff knows to avoid.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
The new Republican strategy--what ever they call optional, we'll call mandatory. If we do it more often than they do, people will believe us and we win.
So when there is an Optional program to gather wrong information and counter it, they call it Mandatory and evil.
Just like the Optional End Of Life Counseling (promoted to remove Terry Shaivo type cases where your family gets to decides whether or not to let you die instead of having your wishes firmly known) became Mandator End of Life Counseling--read as euthenasia for expesive elderly patients.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It is inappropriate to use the office of the President to ask for citizens to inform on other citizens' free speech. Since the office of President carries a hefty amount of power and authority behind it, it is inevitably quelling on free speech.
Clear enough for you? Obama the Candidate did not have official power. Obama the President does. Using that bully pulpit to request citizens' to become informers in a legislation dispute is an abuse of that position and power.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
While I don't disagree with you, Katie, I find myself wondering: let's say that you, as the President, find your policies opposed by a massive, hydra-headed disinformation scheme. You wish to respond to the most important pieces of disinformation in a timely way, before they become part of the national intercourse and thus accepted as "true" by default among people who are inclined to believe that sort of thing.
How do you get out ahead of that cycle without abusing your power?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Clear enough for you?
No, you didn't answer my question at all to my satisfaction. Moreover you provided no support for your assertion about free speech. It just sounds like fear mongering to me, which is not a great surprise. Be short with me if you wish, but if aren't actually holding back some deeper level of reasoning on this, then I think fear-mongering is exactly what this is.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:It is inappropriate to use the office of the President to ask for citizens to inform on other citizens' free speech.
So...TIPS?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:let's say that you, as the President, find your policies opposed by a massive, hydra-headed disinformation scheme. You wish to respond to the most important pieces of disinformation in a timely way, before they become part of the national intercourse and thus accepted as "true" by default among people who are inclined to believe that sort of thing.
How do you get out ahead of that cycle without abusing your power?
Have your staff do research. Hire a clipping service. Use Google. Have the DNC put out the request and use a non-government email address for it.
There ARE other options that don't involve a White House email address and a request for citizens to become informants on political free speech.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
So basically do it all, but unofficially. Yeah, I'm getting where you're coming from now.
So had he done that, would you then have been incensed at the subterfuge and lack of openness? I'm betting on yes, but I'm even more sure that Lisa would be posting about that right now instead of this.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
katharina -
That's a somewhat thin line you're drawing there. If they do they kind of research and find blog postings and other sites and publications, and for that matter, if those staffers doing research go looking for suspicious emails, then it's going to be viewed as some secret investigation out to disrupt free speech. I think you're creating a situation where, applying the basis of your complaints, it's impossible for the president to collect information on his opposition without making him out to be an enemy of "political free speech."
I recognize the hypothetical danger that this tip line represents, but it doesn't really bother me. They want to know about the lies, rumors, dis/misinformation that's going around out there so they can articulate a response to it. Asking people to send them that faulty information is fine. If people send more information than is required, then it's their fault as far as I'm concerned. Intent matters a lot to me, and near as I can tell, the intent here has absolutely nothing to do with the people involved, but the arguments.
Furthermore, THIS kind of political free speech needs to be combated wherever it rears its ugly head, and I'm more than willing to take the nanoscopic risk of some sort of abuses coming out of this in order to combat a willful proliferation of falsehoods to score cheap political points.
Ask yourself an honest question: What's a larger danger to America, a White House tip line, or a nation that can't engage in honest civil discourse because someone always throws a wrench into the gears that no one can ever seem to pry out?
You might argue the first one is a first step on a slipper slope to authoritarianism, but the second is a nation already in the middle stages of decay.
It's the fall that's gonna kill ya. Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Some of you may not be familiar with this new fangled thing called The Internet. All the kids are using it to make up stories about how Obama wants to kill your grandma and retarded babies - you should check it out!
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus: It seems to me that the White House is trying to gather information about what is being said so it can sift through fact and fiction and address citizen's concerns. I don't see any effort to actually silence these people, and since much of this program is focused on the internet, I'm not sure how you could plausibly go about silencing anyone.
I don't read it that way at all. They seem less concerned with addressing citizens' concerns and more with passing the legislation. Maybe I'm reading some into it with that last statement, but I see no where in the text (videos don't agree with this computer) on this page anything about what they plan to do with these so-called fishy emails, just that they're going to be collecting them if you send 'em in.
I'm definitely leaning toward Katie and PSI's view on this. I am, however, more concerned with the possible trend (include TIPS, for it certainly is part of it) this is encouraging.
(edited to include note about videos hating my work computer)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm just imagining somebody submitting a link to The Free Republic as if the administration were somehow unaware of its existence. Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
So, for this to be okay, all Obama would have to do is move the inquiry to a yahoo mail account...?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I don't read it that way at all. They seem less concerned with addressing citizens' concerns and more with passing the legislation. Maybe I'm reading some into it with that last statement, but I see no where in the text on this page anything about what they plan to do with these so-called fishy emails, just that they're going to be collecting them if you send 'em in.
Considering that that entry in under the heading: As part of our effort to push back on the misinformation about health insurance reform, we've launched WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck., I thought what they are claiming to plan to do with them is pretty clear.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Exactly. The point is more to discourage people from speaking against the issue in order to avoid being reported to the White House rather than actually gathering information that lying around for all to see.
If that WASN'T the point, it does a marvelous impression of it, and that's a major problem in itself. There's a reason it's called the bully pulpit - bullying people to stop free speech is not behavior becoming to an elected President.
quote:So, for this to be okay, all Obama would have to do is move the inquiry to a yahoo mail account...?
And have the DNC make the request, not have the request posted on a government website. Yep.
Just like it is okay for the Vice President to call people and ask for campaign money, but not for him to do it from the White House.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Kath, your argument requires that "being reported to the White House" is some kind of danger. Yet I've received emails from Disrupters who find getting themselves onto the FLAG list as an accomplishment.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Presumably the people who cling to guns or religion wouldn't be in a hurry to stop speaking because they've been told on.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Exactly. The point is more to discourage people from speaking against the issue in order to avoid being reported to the White House rather than actually gathering information that lying around for all to see.
If that WASN'T the point, it does a marvelous impression of it, and that's a major problem in itself. There's a reason it's called the bully pulpit - bullying people to stop free speech is not behavior becoming to an elected President.
I disagree entirely. I think the the point is to combat misinformation, which theoretically leads to an honest and open debate about the issues. If you relabel that as "using the bully pulpit" then you're essentially saying the president has to allow himself to be run roughshod over.
The problem isn't that the opposition is disagreeing with his plan, it's that they're creating entire sections of new material to add to his plan, and are then attacking those portions vociferously. If he isn't allowed to combat that, we might as well pack it in and call it a day, because we'll never be able to get any sort of national discussion off the ground ever again.
And actually, I'm not convinced we will be able to anyway, but take away that piece of the puzzle, and I'm positive we won't be.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Exactly. The point is more to discourage people from speaking against the issue in order to avoid being reported to the White House rather than actually gathering information that lying around for all to see.
Are we talking about... motives?
I would think that discouraging people from lying by exposing their lies would be a good thing. Not every activity that could possibly lead to abuse is necessarily bad. By that standard, we should just have no government at all. Never try anything.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I completely support the President is putting forth a proposal and vigorously defending it. I do not support the President in asking citizens to forward the emails and links to places where other citizens are speaking against his proposals. It is asking citizens to be informants and that has a chilling effect on free speech. Free speech is good, even when it's stupid, and the appropriate response to stupid speech is better speech, not the suggestion that if you disagree with Obama's proposals and don't keep it to yourself, you'll be put on a White House list.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
You have established only your personal interpretation of a suggestion of a list. That's rather thin.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I certainly don't want the president bullying people to shut them up, but I want Americans to start paying attention to the quality of the information they believe, and providing factual rebuttals to disinformation seems like a good step in the right direction.
However, I can agree that there are other avenues to collect the same information that don't have the shades of Big Brother. While I would be truly shocked to find one person who felt intimidated by the blog post, rather than suspicious and angry and vociferous [rather the opposite reaction to the one people seem to be theorizing Obama was going for], I suppose it's theoretically possible that flag@whitehouse.gov could be chilling in some way.
Basically I think the idea that Obama is actually trying to intimidate anyone with this is completely ludicrous, but OK, maybe it's a bad idea anyway.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not blind to that concern, but I think the overarching concern over the health of civil discourse is more important, and as a way to help alleviate this particular ill, I'm fine with asking people to send along faulty information to help combat it. If it causes people to stop spreading false information, excellent. To you that might be stifling free speech, to me, it's energizing open and honest debate.
The irony is, free speech in this country suffers because of free speech. Why? Because if a Congressman comes out and says that he wants a war to end, I can utterly destroy him by spreading lies and rumors about him. Unless he toes the line in jingoistic bliss, he's vulnerable, and like chummed waters, the sharks will circle. But we have to protect lies and rumors because they are free speech, and if we actively start to prosecute such abuses of free speech, someone, somewhere, will rise out of the wood works to call them destroyers of free speech.
What you're saying is a symptom of what I see as a far larger problem. We don't have free speech in this country specifically because free speech enables us to tell lies that make free speech far too dangerous to engage in.
Edit to add: I suppose the more pertinent example would be to say a congressman can't get up and extol the virtues of single payer or universal healthcare without being called a socialist, despite the fact that what even the far left has on its wish list looks nothing like European socialized medicine. The value behind falsely created buzzwords drowns out free speech, so instead politicians either back off policy wise, or are forced to couch their ideas in the guise of something else.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Lyrhawn: You are against free speech? Really?
That isn't completely rhetorical. I know lots of people don't hold free speech as a high value. <Insert crack about Canadians.>
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I very much doubt that you're going to find many people who didn't start from a very biased position who agree with kat's characterization. It's pretty absurd. I doubt she herself actually believes it, and suspect rather that she's emulating Sarah Palin here.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I completely support the President is putting forth a proposal and vigorously defending it. I do not support the President in asking citizens to forward the emails and links to places where other citizens are speaking against his proposals. It is asking citizens to be informants and that has a chilling effect on free speech. Free speech is good, even when it's stupid, and the appropriate response to stupid speech is better speech, not the suggestion that if you disagree with Obama's proposals and don't keep it to yourself, you'll be put on a White House list.
Are you aware that I am capable of sending both this post, along with your forum name and posting history to the website? Has this chilled you so far? Are you sufficiently chilled? Are we witnessing the effect of this move on you at this moment?
Edit: You need not read that as a threat. I have no intention of bothering to report anything to anyone. I don't even tell on my neighbors for letting the cat pee on my stairwell every day.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That biased postion being "I place a very high value on free speech and don't approve of using the state to chill it."
What an interesting definition of absurd you have, Squick.
As an accompaniment, I also support unfettered access to all citizens of age to their voting locations and I disapprove of efforts to discourage people from voting. Quick! Someone call Jonathon Swift!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I very much doubt that you're going to find many people who didn't start from a very biased position who agree with kat's characterization. It's pretty absurd. I doubt she herself actually believes it, and suspect rather that she's emulating Sarah Palin here.
I thought Kat was Palin...
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Speaking of stupid free speech.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Lyrhawn: You are against free speech? Really?
That isn't completely rhetorical. I know lots of people don't hold free speech as a high value. <Insert crack about Canadians.>
The law of the land is against free speech. Slander is illegal.
It's all just degrees after that. In keeping with the idea that saying something untrue about someone else is wrong, I'm against dishonest speech.
You may feel free to repackage that in any way you deem necessary to make your point in a more dramatic fashion.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Speaking of stupid free speech.
Don't try to chill me! I'M ONTO YOU CHILLER!
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: What is it that people are afraid that the Obama administration is going to do with this information?
God, you sound like Joe McCarthy. "If you're innocent, you have nothing to fear." Garbage.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Theoretically, I may want to consider archiving this thread and email a copy to flag@whitehouse.gov
Please do. In fact, if you don't mind, can you send it a few thousand times?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:That biased postion being "I place a very high value on free speech and don't approve of using the state to chill it."
err...No. I thought my meaning was pretty clear. I also think that that is obviously not what I was talking about, so much so that I'm pretty sure that you don't actually believe it and it's just a dishonest (should I say, Palinesque?) artifice.
This isn't going to chill free speech. The idea that this was definitely the point of the program is ridiculous. There are legitimate criticisms of it (one of which you may have noticed I made), but that is not one.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Lisa -
It's valid question.
Rather than hypothetical fear mongering, what is it that you personally think will happen Lisa?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Lisa, when this information gets used for nefarious purpose, I'll be right alongside you, screaming bloody murder.
As long as it is used for the purpose the Obama administration is claiming it is being used for, and as long as they continue to ask for information rather than names, it is serving a necessary function (I.E. letting honest people fight the lies of lying liars).
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus: It seems to me that the White House is trying to gather information about what is being said so it can sift through fact and fiction and address citizen's concerns.
It isn't a matter of fact and fiction. It's a matter of extremely different views. The White House is engaged in a propaganda campaign to put across their plan. Fine, that's nothing new. Every administration does that. But this one is asking for help from the public. That's inappropriate. It's assuming that everything the White House says about the plan is true and correct, and anything that disputes the White House view is "misinformation" and "fishy".
That's not American. That's Soviet.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: It might also be noted that some of the misinformation being spread on the subject is completely in the realm of hysteria, but that spreading false information about government policies isn't necessarily illegal (if it were, the talk radio circuit would quickly be silenced.) While asking for specific names- if the link has- may be incredibly tone deaf, it seems more than a little bit of a stretch to suggest that it's a cue for the jackboots to come to the doors of the misinformers.
Don'cha think?
Oh, stop with the strawmen. No one has suggested jackboots at the door. But this is a blatant attempt to intimidate people who disagree. And even if we aren't at jackboots right now, the government should not be allowed to gather lists of people who disagree with them.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That's not entirely true.
Arguing cause and effect is one thing, making crap up that isn't in the bill and saying that it is, is a lie.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm pretty sure "They're going to set up Death Panels that will kill off the elderly and retarded children." isn't really a matter of different views. It's just a lie.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: ... the government should not be allowed to gather lists of people who disagree with them.
I'm assuming you were just talking about politically active people here, and not people on terrorist watch lists, FBI most wanted lists, no fly lists, etc. Are those lists cool, or do you have to be more than a liar or a simple agitator to be on one of those?
Wouldn't be a lot of Palestinians on those lists... so this should be an interesting decision for you.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Lisa, when this information gets used for nefarious purpose, I'll be right alongside you, screaming bloody murder.
No, Paul, you won't. Because there's a line past which you won't be able to, and anything short of that line, you'll still be coming up with one excuse after another.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: As long as it is used for the purpose the Obama administration is claiming it is being used for, and as long as they continue to ask for information rather than names, it is serving a necessary function (I.E. letting honest people fight the lies of lying liars).
And if Obama is the lying liar? This plan will obviously lead to rationing health care, just to give a simple example. But Obama and his cronies don't want people focusing on that, so they're insisting that the plan doesn't say let's ration health care. Therefore, to them, saying that the plan will lead to rationing health care is viewed by them as misinformation or disinformation or malinformation or whatever the hell you want to call it.
And by law, correspondance to the White House must be saved. If they don't keep the names of the people who make the claims they consider false, they'll be engaging in criminal activity.
And it goes far beyond the rationing issue. People who are smart enough to look at the obvious repercussions of provisions of this insane plan are pointing them out. Do you disagree with them about this? Fine. But don't call it disinformation, and don't call them lying liars, and don't try to defend an administration which wants to collect a list of people saying such things.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: ... It's assuming that everything the White House says about the plan is true and correct, and anything that disputes the White House view is "misinformation" and "fishy".
That's not American...
I dunno, three terms and counting. It is starting to seem pretty American to me
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Please do. In fact, if you don't mind, can you send it a few thousand times?
I'm fairly certain that if the Obama Administration correctly anticipated that they would be able to silence Americans by threatening them by putting them on a list, they would have also anticipated the upcoming need for an industrial-strength anti-spam solution for their email hotline.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yeah, but the thing is, Lisa, a lot of those people *are lying*.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I'm pretty sure "They're going to set up Death Panels that will kill off the elderly and retarded children." isn't really a matter of different views. It's just a lie.
And I disagree. Clearly, they're not going to do Nazi style "selections". But it's going to eventually amount to the same thing. Someone is going to have to decide whether to pour money into keeping someone alive, and if you think their "value to society" isn't going to enter into it at some point, you're delusional.
There's only so much money, regardless of how much Obama runs the printing presses. The government is going to have to place a limit on payments for medical treatments. When an insurance company does that, it's possible, at least in principle, to find different ways to obtain the care. Under Obamacare, it won't be.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Yeah, but the thing is, Lisa, a lot of those people *are lying*.
In your opinion. Give me an example of an actual, factual lie.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Please do. In fact, if you don't mind, can you send it a few thousand times?
I'm fairly certain that if the Obama Administration correctly anticipated that they would be able to silence Americans by threatening them by putting them on a list, they would have also anticipated the upcoming need for an industrial-strength anti-spam solution for their email hotline.
Sheesh. If the Obama administration was capable of seeing future repercussions of present actions, there would have been no bailouts, no cash-for-clunkers, and most certainly no Obamacare.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Lisa -
quote:And if Obama is the lying liar? This plan will obviously lead to rationing health care, just to give a simple example. But Obama and his cronies don't want people focusing on that, so they're insisting that the plan doesn't say let's ration health care. Therefore, to them, saying that the plan will lead to rationing health care is viewed by them as misinformation or disinformation or malinformation or whatever the hell you want to call it.
Explain the rationing of health care mentality. I've heard this problem pointed out a lot, and every time I hear it, it always comes out as this "if we give all these poor people healthcare, then those of us who already have it will have to compete with them for resources, and we might not get ours when we want it."
I'd love to hear it put a way that didn't sound selfish.
If it was done right, a lot of unnecessary testing that gets done would be eliminated, which would free up a great deal of health care resources for the people who'd be given new access to the system. But anyone who argues that providing universal care is unfair because it will limit access is, to me, basically just saying that the poor can't have knee replacement surgery because the rich would be put on a waiting list. According to their free market principals, in the face of such a need, wouldn't the number of surgeons performing such a surgery increase to make up the difference? I guess that argument falls apart since the supply of livers and kidneys is finite, but I guess that just means the poor lose out again. The argument against rationing care starts to sound a whole lot like nationally institutionalized darwinism.
quote: There's only so much money, regardless of how much Obama runs the printing presses. The government is going to have to place a limit on payments for medical treatments. When an insurance company does that, it's possible, at least in principle, to find different ways to obtain the care. Under Obamacare, it won't be.
How so? The plan currently in Congress outlaws buying medical services with anything other than government money?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: There's only so much money, regardless of how much Obama runs the printing presses.
I believe you've been called on this before, but I want to make sure that you're aware that actual printed money, the act of actually printing money, isn't actually the way that the government "prints money" for expenditures... right? Because you say this kind of thing like you're not using a figure of speech, and I only notice because you've said it more than once, and used specific terms about actual paper money. That isn't the way it works. Just so you know.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Speaking of stupid free speech.
Don't try to chill me! I'M ONTO YOU CHILLER!
No, that would only be true if I were President and called you stupid from the bully pulpit.
Of course, the President would NEVER do that...
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: That's not entirely true.
Arguing cause and effect is one thing, making crap up that isn't in the bill and saying that it is, is a lie.
Give an example. Or stop making this claim.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Lisa, did you see the "Here's what's in the Obama health care bill" email that made the rounds a while back, sourced to the Free Republic? It was basically nothing but a mass of lies and half-truths?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I'm fairly certain that if the Obama Administration correctly anticipated that they would be able to silence Americans by threatening them by putting them on a list, they would have also anticipated the upcoming need for an industrial-strength anti-spam solution for their email hotline.
Sheesh. If the Obama administration was capable of seeing future repercussions of present actions, there would have been no bailouts, no cash-for-clunkers, and most certainly no Obamacare.
Hold on, so the Obama administration is incapable of anticipating the future *except* when it comes to ways of intimidating Americans?
(If anything, my criticism of the bailouts would be that they knew about the likely consequences and went ahead and did them anyways.)
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Oh, good. God forbid the President use his position to *do* things. Crisis averted there. Now if only he'd just take more vacations.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Lisa, did you see the "Here's what's in the Obama health care bill" email that made the rounds a while back, sourced to the Free Republic? It was basically nothing but a mass of lies and half-truths?
Although this isn't directed to me, and I haven't seen the Free Republic thing you speak of here -- my question for you, Tom, is whether you've checked the bill yourself to confirm they are lies and half-truths?
From the bill text that I'm plugging through, I can see where BOTH sides can say it says, or doesn't say, things, because it's so general and unclear that it doesn't really address specifically whether certain things CAN or WILL happen. In other words, what they say might be truth (if the bill is unclear one way or another on it, or doesn't even address it to prohibit it). There is so little actual detail, it is like everyone is interpreting what can happen in all the loopholes.
(I'm not for or against at this point - I'm asking)
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: When an insurance company does that, it's possible, at least in principle, to find different ways to obtain the care. Under Obamacare, it won't be.
Could you elaborate on this? In particular, if an insurance company denies coverage what courses of action are open to me that would not be under the proposed plan?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Farmgirl, Do you agree that the bill can be read to have sections in it to set up Death Panels?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: That's not entirely true.
Arguing cause and effect is one thing, making crap up that isn't in the bill and saying that it is, is a lie.
Give an example. Or stop making this claim.
quote:From Sarah Palin: The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.
If you can find the part of the bill that lays out the death panels, and that the criteria they'd use in deciding who dies would include the "level of productivity in society" of the citizen, then I'll withdraw the charge. Otherwise, there's Sarah Palin front and center.
By the by, what or who is she quoting there? There was no source linked at the end of her statement, so I'm assuming we're meant to believe she is quoting the bill itself.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: What is it that people are afraid that the Obama administration is going to do with this information?
God, you sound like Joe McCarthy. "If you're innocent, you have nothing to fear." Garbage.
It was a question, not an assertion, for one thing. I was not stating "you have nothing to fear" (in the sentence you quoted, anyway). I was asking what you fear.
Second, there's a clear threat implicit in the "if you're innocent" condition in the McCarthyist quote you compared my question to. I have no authority, and was making no implicit threat.
This flag thing is at least COMPATIBLE with thought policing, but I see no indication that there's any such intent, partly because it'd be a laughably craptastic way to implement that kind of policy. To adapt a line you've used in this thread, find someone who feels intimidated.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"No, Paul, you won't. Because there's a line past which you won't be able to, and anything short of that line, you'll still be coming up with one excuse after another."
Right. I forgot. Lisa knows me better than I know me.
Of course, I wrote teh following email to my brother on april 19:
Not voting for him in 2012 unless he gets his head back out of his ass."
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
This flag thing is at least COMPATIBLE with thought policing, but I see no indication that there's any such intent, partly because it'd be a laughably craptastic way to implement that kind of policy. To adapt a line you've used in this thread, find someone who feels intimidated.
Political donations are in the public domain. That's probably a much more meaningful measure of enmity.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:While I don't disagree with you, Katie, I find myself wondering: let's say that you, as the President, find your policies opposed by a massive, hydra-headed disinformation scheme. You wish to respond to the most important pieces of disinformation in a timely way, before they become part of the national intercourse and thus accepted as "true" by default among people who are inclined to believe that sort of thing.
Tom, one very simple way he could do that is by asking people to copy and past the talking points onto his website. Or he could address the points that Congress debates. Some republican congressman have parroted the Right's illegitimate talking points. Some have given fantastic concerns, like Michelle Bachman.
What I find disconcerting is the Democratic Parties push to tie the protesters to the Timothy McVeighs of the world. Not all critics are out of control hillbillies who ironically don't even have insurance. There is a masterful job of lumping us together.
That disturbs me on a mild scale. Having a forwarded email to the executive branch that might contain citizen IP addresses seriously disturbs me.
I think it is benign in intent but ominous in scope. By the very fact that everything is archived for the white house, they have created an opposition database. The mere existence of such a database will quell free speech.
There are less threatening ways to deal with opposition. There is so much power in the executive branch, particularly after the patriot act, that the the psychological effect for a significant portion of the population in having their identity reported to the executive branch should be enough to discontinue the program.
This makes me think less of Obama as an effective uniter or communicator. I see the concerns over the website as very legitimate. Tho I am anti Republican, particularly during the Bush years, I am glad they are opposing the "flag" reporting.
EDIT: Linking to one of Michelle Bachman's speeches is not an endorsement of her. I find it reprehensible that she called on members of congress to be investigated or her "anti-Americanism" accusations. Her usual tactics is one of the reasons I dislike the republicans; I just found this speech as being reasonable.
[ August 11, 2009, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: lem ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I assumed you meant "fantastic" in the "based on fantasy" sense.
[ August 11, 2009, 07:48 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
Do you mean she is taking the quotes out of context, or that the quotes and who said them should have no relevance to the discussion, or that the advisers are standing on morally superior ground and offer good reasons to go with the health care plan?
For example, I could see someone saying, "So what?" to doctors being required to think about social justice and how money might be spent better on some one else.
My mom, a nurse, has talked about how many times she has seen old people being given hip replacements when they are in dementia, are bed bound, and have a year to live. The doctors did it because medicare will pay for it and they make good money.
I can see a case being made to just give them pain pills and use those resources in a more socially effective manner. Is that your position? Or are you just dismissive because it is Bachman, a republican, or not in support of the agenda?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Wow, thanks for posting that Salon article, Paul. That is the sort of thing the "mainstream media" is shirking its duties by not covering.
Unfortunately, it's not the sort of thing Trig Sixpack wants to hear about in his no-spin zone either, so it just goes largely un-covered.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Oh, stop with the strawmen. No one has suggested jackboots at the door. But this is a blatant attempt to intimidate people who disagree. And even if we aren't at jackboots right now, the government should not be allowed to gather lists of people who disagree with them.
No "strawman"; I don't know what it is your side is afraid of, and up until recently, you've been incredibly vague, so I'm forced to speculate. Actually, as far as I can see, the opposition still kind of vague- the context under which we're supposed to blithely accept that this is the Spawn Of Satan seems to switch back and forth between "it's mis-use of public resources" and "its intimidation of those who hold to these positions" as either side gets refuting arguments.
Now, credulous and naive disciple of the Cult Of Obama that I am, I am actually willing to countenance the possibility that getting e-mail from supporters of the health care plan about mis-information may actually be nothing more than it says it is: an effective way to see what's out there, where it's coming from, and where particular ideas show up most densely so that responders in town hall meetings and press conferences can effectively address their energies and possibly reduce the amount of being shouted down by out-of-district firebrands and hung in effigy, both of which I find significantly more sinister than the slight possibility that Obama's administration might actually be collecting names for some other purpose.
I might be wrong about that. But I'm also not taking seriously statements from people like Sarah Palin who misread things about hospice care so badly that they start seeing elite liberal star chambers that decide whether people's parents and children will die. And given the choice, I tend to find more credibility in the people who are calm about the subject.
Is it really likely that the government is going to waste its increasingly sparse resources on harrassing people who spread misinformation about their policies? And since you guys seem perfectly happy to define our reality for us in such hysterical terms, let me fill that one in: the answer is no.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Lisa:
quote:There's only so much money, regardless of how much Obama runs the printing presses. The government is going to have to place a limit on payments for medical treatments. When an insurance company does that, it's possible, at least in principle, to find different ways to obtain the care. Under Obamacare, it won't be.
You're referring, I presume, to out-of-pocket payment for treatments. That will still be legal under Obamacare.
[ August 11, 2009, 11:05 PM: Message edited by: Destineer ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Oh, stop with the strawmen.
You first:
quote:I'm kind of wondering what the "Obama can do no wrong" excuse-makers will have for this. "If you hear of anyone saying that Obamacare isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread (whole wheat, natch), let us know. We won't really collect the names <wink, wink>."
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
What's funny to me is that those of you who honestly think this is some kind of Big Brother spy scheme don't think the government already knows exactly who you are.
Have you been under the radar up until now, and you would have gotten away with it, if it weren't for those nosy kids and their Interwebs?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
This program to me seems to be a system for informing the government as to what is being said, not who is saying it. Obama did have a similar system setup when he was running for office so that he could put all the prominent misstatements in a simple easy to read page that supporters could link to opponents who had been suckered.
Paul: Thanks for that link, that definitely worries me and I wonder why the Obama administration seems to have taken that line for prisoners in Bagram. I know it's a nightmare situation, but I think the administration needs to be open about what it's thinking.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Farmgirl, Do you agree that the bill can be read to have sections in it to set up Death Panels?
I can only agree that it doesn't exclude some possibility of someone in the future deciding who will/won't be covered. So much control (in the bill) is given to some mythical "Commissioner" that will oversee all of these details, and said person doesn't exist yet, or his/her staff. We have no idea what details they will decide, especially if the system begins to lose money big time.
Trusting soul that I am, I certainly hope no one would lord that kind of authority over us.
See? This is the whole CORE of the debate! The Democrats are saying "this is the way this plan is supposed to work, how we are designing it, setting it up" while the Republicans are screaming "but -- worst case scenario -- this is how this bill/plan/power can be abused... what it possibly could allow to happen!"
Too much open space
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
quote:I certainly don't want the president bullying people to shut them up, but I want Americans to start paying attention to the quality of the information they believe...
This has me wondering. What type of person is not only going to receive but read and also report an email forward full of disinformation? Probably someone who doesn't regularly concern themselves with quality anyhow, so how are they supposed to recognize the quality or lack thereof of information, presentation, etc. of an email that does not advocate health care reform? (Put another way, who still reads email forwards, whether they hold them as truth or not? Those are the people who will be getting these and forwarding along the disinfo to Flag.)
quote:Are you aware that I am capable of sending both this post, along with your forum name and posting history to the website? Has this chilled you so far? Are you sufficiently chilled? Are we witnessing the effect of this move on you at this moment?
Perhaps not, but one person refusing to keep silent despite the 'threat' does not mean that others won't be quelled by it. It would be a shame to have what a great deal of you are saying is an opening for dicussion and revelation of disinformation be turned into an opportunity to threaten and silence some. That's a total supposition, but at least a possible outcome.
quote:But anyone who argues that providing universal care is unfair because it will limit access is, to me, basically just saying that the poor can't have knee replacement surgery because the rich would be put on a waiting list.
Frankly, the poor can have knee replacement surgery NOW. A woman from my church did prior to attending, and she and her teenage son were homeless until our congregation started helping them out (yet not in paying any bills for said surgery).
quote:Oh, good. God forbid the President use his position to *do* things. Crisis averted there. Now if only he'd just take more vacations.
Um....I think perhaps kat may be referring to when he actually DID use the word "stupidly" a few weeks ago.
quote:What I find disconcerting is the Democratic Parties push to tie the protesters to the Timothy McVeighs of the world. Not all critics are out of control hillbillies who ironically don't even have insurance. There is a masterful job of lumping us together.
That disturbs me on a mild scale. Having a forwarded email to the executive branch that might contain citizen IP addresses seriously disturbs me.
I think it is benign in intent but ominous in scope. By the very fact that everything is archived for the white house, they have created an opposition database. The mere existence of such a database will quell free speech.
There are less threatening ways to deal with opposition.
lem, I think you put it well.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
And yet, we already have Death Panels. And the only question that drives their decisions is "How can I make more money?"
The worst case scenario under this section of the bill is STILL better than what we have right now.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: And yet, we already have Death Panels. And the only question that drives their decisions is "How can I make more money?"
I disagree with that statement. Yes, insurance companies do limit what they cover, so you could interpret it like that. But currently we still do have private-pay option, or options of changing insurance companies. I don't know that we will have those options any more, which would make this plan's decision quite final.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Yes, insurance companies do limit what they cover,"
They also delay payment for expensive procedures, stop your insurance if you get an expensive condition, etc.
This bill does not remove private pay options, nor does it ban insurance companies. Its not even a worse case scenario with this bill. Comparing the worst case scenario with what is in the various forms of this bill, there is less to fear in terms of death panels, than with what exists right now.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Traceria: Perhaps not, but one person refusing to keep silent despite the 'threat' does not mean that others won't be quelled by it. It would be a shame to have what a great deal of you are saying is an opening for dicussion and revelation of disinformation be turned into an opportunity to threaten and silence some.
It's a shame that we need police despite their opportunities to beat suspects and abuse their positions. People are flawed, I'm not shocked by it and I'm not more concerned than prudence demands. These other people- I don't know who they are. Its their supposed fear and susceptibility to intimidation that is meant to scare and intimidate me, but I'm not afraid of any of it. I have yet to see something that concerns me, and I won't chase specters in the insecure fright of a person who thinks that he's not going to see trouble when it does come. I have a little more faith in myself and others than that.
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Comparing the worst case scenario with what is in the various forms of this bill, there is less to fear in terms of death panels, than with what exists right now.
I think the important difference between now and what may be is that now the power is divided among many whereas it may be more focused in future.
I hope that makes sense. I'm in the post-lunch-need-a-nap phase.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
made sense to me.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I want to point out that the "Switch insurance companies" is not a viable choice once you are diagnosed with a serious disease, in the hospital, or awaiting treatment--with our committing the crime of FRAUD.
You are asked up front if you have a "Pre-existing condition." If you lie you are committing fraud. They then have the right to not serve you, or set premiums so high that you can not meet them.
I heard a Radio announcer say the same thing the other day. "Today I have a choice, to choose the insurance I think fits me best." In truth I have the choice of going with my employer subsidized health care, or paying at least four times as much getting private insurance which, since I am alone and not with a big group, is always more expensive and with less benefits. So I am stuck with what ever my wife or I can get through our employer, or something worse.
Further, this bill will in no way stop private pay, or charity work.
Kat, you are reading the bill saying, if it doesn't say they won't do it, you bet they will. This is a democracy, (or a republic). Do you honestly think that if a government backed health care plan started killing off grand parents and we'd remove whoever was in power and replace them with sane people?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Darth Mauve, you have completely, completely misread what I was objecting to.
I am not actually Sarah Palin, you know.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: I want to point out that the "Switch insurance companies" is not a viable choice once you are diagnosed with a serious disease, in the hospital, or awaiting treatment--with our committing the crime of FRAUD.
I'm aware of that. I was speaking more of elective procedures, not serious diseases/conditions.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Traceria -
quote:Frankly, the poor can have knee replacement surgery NOW. A woman from my church did prior to attending, and she and her teenage son were homeless until our congregation started helping them out (yet not in paying any bills for said surgery).
It was a random example, but you get the principle yes? Expanding coverage is going to mean more people have access to the system, and the more people that have access means more people using a finite amount of resources. Isn't that the idea behind rationing? If not, then what is anyone worried about?
Once things smooth themselves out, I don't think that'll be as much of a problem, but whenever I hear the argument against rationing care, it sounds like they want to exclude people from partaking in the system in order to protect those that already have access.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Wow, that's a particularly uncharitable interpretation.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Not really- you've made a number of statements where you've clearly stated that an interruption of your access to care is unacceptable. That has been at the forefront of your objections, at least in appearance. Perhaps you can elaborate on why your care should be unaffected (you are, after all, a supporter of reform in the end), or if it is acceptable for your care to be affected, what would be acceptable, and what not, and why?
As a corollary to that question, since you support health care reform in principle, what are you willing to sacrifice of your current personal circumstances in order to attain that goal? What do you feel is an acceptable average sacrifice on the part of those currently financially in a position to contribute to universal care? Becuase so far I've seen you say you want UHC, but also that you aren't apparently willing to accept any temporary changes in your situation. Do you feel that you simply contribute or have contributed too much already to make further contributions? If so, who should be responsible for those contributions, and why?
For my part, I'm willing to contribute more in taxes, and to endure prudent rationing of care, if the system set up is resilient and aggressive enough to ameliorate shortfalls in the longer term, and is held to a rigorous and high standard of outcomes, and duly supported financially, legislatively and logistically. I know there are people working around the clock to retard the progress of reform so that I will find it unpalatable. It disgusts me, but I'm still airing on supporting reform as a means to further reform. I'm not so blithe as to believe we could get where I want to be in one step, no matter how attractive an option it is.
But really, this is not a question that will affect me much. I'm in my mid twenties, make around 22,000 dollars a year, pay absolutely no U.S. (living abroad), and already have access to state subsidized care in my country of residence. So me asking anyone to contribute more than they do already may be reasonable, but it is still slightly unfair.
[ August 13, 2009, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Nonsense. You are demonizing those who disagree with you by pretending they are monsters.
Nancy Pelosi? Is that you?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Kat, your earlier response to the idea of paying any more than what you're currently paying for entitlements was "that is not acceptable." I'd love clarification on exactly how far that goes, and how many caveats there are for you, if any. You said it, not me, so don't let me use it against you if you don't think I'm being fair. Respond like the grown up you claim to be when lecturing me about exactly the same things.
Kat, your skills at deflection are in top form, but your actual willingness to communicate needs to be there for people to take you seriously. A series of prescient questions, the answers to which would do wonders to enlighten the several people who are no doubt terribly confused as to your position on this whole topic, gets a one line ad hom from you. You know what ad homs are... we talked about this before, but I still think you don't really know. Your scatter shod and inconsistent engagement with this debate helps nobody to understand what you're actually in favor of, much less does it convince anyone you're actually right about anything. Now post about how I'm condescending to you, despite the very pleasant and open post I had just made, for which you slapped my hand away and spit on my shoes.
:and with that, Orincoro imploded into subspace, and disappeared from space-time forever, having discovered both the meaning of, and meaninglessness of his existence as an online identity:
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote: while the Republicans are screaming "but -- worst case scenario -- this is how this bill/plan/power can be abused... what it possibly could allow to happen!"
I don't think that that is an accurate description of what the Republicans are screaming. That may be what you want them to scream, but I'm not seeing it.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
FG--what you are saying is that now, if I wanted reconstructive surgery over a burn injury I have the choice of having it covered under my insurance, or if they turn me down paying for it myself.
That is still possible under the proposed health care reform, as is having my church take up a collection to pay for it.
It seems that those opposed to health care reform want opposing things.
They don't want what we have now, but the shoot down any proposed changes.
They don't want it to cost to much, but every step made to limit costs is met with overblown disaster predictions.
Finally some of the opponents are starting to vilify those who get sick. I keep hearing, "Why should I have to pay for those who got sick." as if the ill and maimed decided, "hey, lets go rob some other folks by getting ill and making them pay for our coverage."
There is a morality I see here that says, "I shouldn't be billed for other peoples illnesses, because those ailments were not my fault." This implies that those who are sick are at fault.
For the majority of people, ailments are not their fault either.
Sure, smoking, bad diet, no exercise all contribute to diseases, as does promiscuity. However, Genetics, accident, and random variables account for the majority of it.
What roll does luck have in our society? Do we see it appropriate that those who are unfortunate enough to be in need of medicine should pay all the costs while those fortunate enough not to need it should consider that fortune, that luck, as untouchable?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Wow, that's a particularly uncharitable interpretation.
What's a fair interpretation?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well put, Darth Mauve.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yes. I should have said that. Damn you Darth and your eloquence and even temper. You don't deserve it! Since I was born with less, you have to now give me some of yours because I'm not willing to work on anything for myself, develop my own opinions, or speak civilly to others.
... I got lost there for a second and forgot what I was mocking... well, anyway, I still think you're lucky in the brain department.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote: while the Republicans are screaming "but -- worst case scenario -- this is how this bill/plan/power can be abused... what it possibly could allow to happen!"
I don't think that that is an accurate description of what the Republicans are screaming. That may be what you want them to scream, but I'm not seeing it.
Honestly, I'm seeing less than that. That would imply an engagement with the people on the other side of the aisle. What I am seeing is what appears to be a heavy use of scare tactics and easily remembered, simplistic phrases, aimed at the citizenry with an eye towards causing them to pressure their representatives into compromising or voting against any kind of reform.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
So can you sign yourself up for this list? "Hi Big Brother, you better mark me down at the top of your list, because I will gladly support my fellow citizens in their peaceful protests to any government proposals they disagree with."
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
"Dear White House personnel,
I would like to sign myself up for your list of rebels and rabble-rousers. I do not approve of using the power of the United States Executive Branch to collect information about people exercising their right to free speech. Each citizen has the power and responsibility and (at this time) the freedom to decide for him or herself what information to read, distribute, and BELIEVE. If the President and his marketing team are unsuccessful at selling their plan to the American public, then it is time to humbly step down and allow our citizenry to go in the direction they choose. Even if it isn't what he or they want, even if you think it is unhealthy for our country. People have the right to choose whether or not they want the government to take over health care. Even if they ARE sheep following a different shepherd than the one the President set himself out to be. I am no sheep. I support the rights set out in our Constitution to my dying breath. While I am not active in this health care debate, and I tend to quietly vote my conscience in political matters, I will indeed speak out against abuses of power. Kindly address your concerns and those of the American public with more sensitivity and respect in the future. Right now, you are coming across as Big Brother, and not as someone to be respected.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
You don't have a constitutional right not to have the government govern because you don't like it. I'd pay a lot more heed to these complaints if they weren't so infantile, and I suspect Obama would as well. Spouting off about your rights as if you understand them, along with the governments role as if you understand it, though you demonstrate a lack of insight into the roles of either, doesn't help your case. And I don't think you're at all a dim or uninformed person- you're just not putting any of your smarts into an argument, and anyway you're arguing from really the entirely wrong footing.
Write Obama a letter and tell him you're against the plan. Don't write Obama a swan song and weakly insist that you have a right to be against his ability to make plans. There's really no reason why arguing from such a position will ever help your case in the least, whereas simply stating your position on the actual plan, and doing so thoughtfully and concisely, might do something you'd be proud of having done. It's these half-apologetic, half dejected dear-Obama letters and oblique ramblings about rights and the spirit of our constitution that make the general opposition to reform (which is still a vocal minority to me unless shown to be otherwise), so limp-wristed and pathetic.
Do you think George Bush blinked at suggestions of power madness and overreaching his intended authority in his first term in office? And I mean, this guy launched two wars and helped kill a couple of hundred thousand people at least in the process. We're talking about an entirely different problem, but interestingly enough, despite the massively smaller scale of Obama's plans in comparison with Bush (think in terms not just of dollars, but of global political fall out and international trade relations, to name a few spheres of effect), the fact that they might actually find some real contact with the daily lives of Americans scares the ever loving shit out of the same people, some of whom were in favor of nuking various middle eastern countries 6 years ago.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Why is it weakly insisting?
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
Actually, I am not that bothered by this healthcare plan, not like I was bothered by the warmongering of our previous Administration. What I don't like is the attempt to demonize the opposition. Everyone is spinning their own stories, including the White House. But it does bother me that people would be encouraged to report on their family and friends who might be forwarding emails that support their opinions. Most folks, I agree, are woefully ignorant of the actual texts of proposals in bills and the greater ramifications of their language. In my own house, my hubby and I come away with fiercely different ideas of what is being said in source material. I think, Orincoro, that encouraging people to state "your position on the actual plan, and doing so thoughtfully and concisely," is wonderful. Encouraging people to read the plan for themselves, and to learn about the issues involved is healthy. But only getting information from the White House is not healthy, because as we have seen throughout history, people in power DO have their own agendas. It makes sense to glean as much information as you can from a variety of sources, and to evaluate your sources for reliability. Raw data and statistics are wonderful, if you know how to read and interpret them. Unfortunately, those skills aren't taught much in schools. But I thought this thread was about the government's appeal to citizens to forward to them information that is unfavorable or misleading about their plans. It comes across, since the government does take a "parental" role in deciding what's best for the country, as an experiment in being Thought Police. For my part, a better way to approach this issue would be presenting the data they have to support their positions and also offering basic, neutral instructions in interpreting data so that the citizens could become informed and then make their own decisions. Links to articles and data put forth by the dissenters might be too much to ask, but it certainly would give people the opportunity to compare and make informed decisions. And I don't appreciate language such as "limp-wristed and pathetic" or implying that dissent is due to partisan resistance. It shouldn't be about choosing the "right" side, because all the plans I've seen put forth have their problems. That's reality. I do appreciate the attempt that the White House is making to clarify their positions...it's just clumsy in my opinion, and somehow whomever is coming up with these flag plans and writing the text needs to understand how their work is coming across.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Jenny, I don't know how much you've been paying attention. But the opposition in question is pretty busy trying their absolute best to make Obama into the devil, and anything and everything he does into the devil's spawn, and anyone who supports him into his demons.
He's being called Hitler, by prominent conservatives - including those in congress. Members of congress are being shouted down and not allowed to speak by a small minority at their own town halls. There are so many obscene lies and ridiculous falsehoods being thrown around by the right - many by the Republican party's prominent leaders both in and out of congress - that it's almost impossible to filter out the truth.
Obama's not asking you to report on the people propagating the opinions. Only the opinions themselves so that he can debunk them and answer the fears fueling them. He's trying to speak the truth in a storm of lies, fear and propaganda. And he's asking us to tell him what truths he needs to speak.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Why is it weakly insisting?
Are you kidding? I just wrote a whole post about how it was a weak way of framing the argument, turning it more into a swan song than an actual position. Honestly, do you read my posts or just spot check for phrases and then contradict them with no explanations? Because if it's the latter, I'll just remember that you aren't reading what I'm writing. This is at least twice in a row that you've posted a one line virtual non-sequiter with almost zero follow up to one of my rather longer posts. Are you doing it just to be a pain? Because it's more confusing than annoying.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
I seem to hear the same sorts of speech from liberal/democratic people, too. Conservative opinions are put down as uneducated, uninformed, selfish, and biased by religion. It's just as ugly to belittle informed conservative positions as it is to demonize liberal opinions. I find both extremes rather ridiculous. Where do we find the balance, where people realize that the President is neither a savior nor a devil, but only a man who is trying to do his job the best he can, and sometimes he goes about things well and sometimes poorly? And people will get riled up about issues they feel are important. I think a little more grace is needed all around, giving others the benefit of the doubt that their intentions are good and that their concerns matter. Not assuming they are uneducated or unkind or unwilling to look at other perspectives. And even if you are unable to convince someone through your logic and data, embracing that person as a fellow citizen and neighbor, and modeling healthy public discourse in your own behavior.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I'm sure there are informed, intelligent people who oppose the health care plan, or portions of it. I'm sure there are legitimate questions about the long-term costs, or how to deal with real problems in the deficit of primary health care providers and the skyrocketing malpractice costs of those who perform important services. I would delight in a strong and informed debate on those issues, particularly in the halls of power where compromises must be worked out. The problem is that the loudest and most vocal are not the informed, but the people shrieking about "socialism" and "death panels". They aren't contributing to the discussion; they're disrupting it, and trying to destroy it. And more disturbingly, it appears that some of the people who are part of the decision-making process are only too happy to help them to do so.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
True ^
I'm not happy with a lot of what I've read about the health insurance issues and I think that we need a serious conversation with many viewpoints represented about what we are going to do. However, this does not seem to be coming from the GOP party proper, their news apparatuses like Fox News, or the protesters. They seem more bent on passing out false information and disrupting any sort of real discussion of the issue.
edit: Speculating, I think the GOP higher ups realize that health care reform is needed and that some sort of expanded government role is the way out of the mess we're currently in, but find themselves in a situation where making the country better is going to harm their party. Thus, they are choosing to try to disrupt and distort any effort towards health care reform, hoping that what ever form that gets passed is a disaster, instead of working towards a version that includes government participation that, through being successful, would give the lie to some of their rhetoric and upset some of their base.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
And in the meantime, making the policy proponents fear sharing any of their actual intentions or information for fear of being used, exactly in the way that Obama's statement was just used here. It's entirely valid to discuss what Obama is saying, but it's rather less valid to take a small portion of his statement referring in general to a concept related in appearance to the "death panel" rumor, which itself seemed to spring entirely from nowhere in the interwebs, bouncing off of Sarah Palin's brain, and call that a confirmation of concept. It's rather like alien conspiracy theorists taking some general statement from the president about the possibility of ET, and using that as ammunition in favor of their vast conspiracy mythologies. Not as direct an analogy as they come, but the former act is no more straightforward or useful than the latter.
Unrelated to this, I'm happy to share my own view on the "death panel" concept, and what I think Obama's point is about allocating resources in the proposed system. Considering that alternatives to public care will remain available as they are today (for the moment ignoring the possible effects on cost of those alternatives, which could as well be more favorable in the future, not less), I'm entirely, *entirely* on board with the idea of the government laying out, in broad terms, the purpose of expenditures in a government program, as well as their limits. That should be open to public input, and we should find a balance in the system being offered. Personally, I'd prefer to see a system that allocates money almost entirely according to the direction of physicians, with limitations only on expenditures involving cases where quality of life is severely diminished or nonexistant, and expenses are extremely high. The government should have some line at which it is not responsible for providing care, which is how things already are with our current setup, only with insurance companies deciding when to pay in the end. More importantly, the government should not have overview of individual cases at all, but rather overview of expenditures from medical care providers, to be sure that money is being spent efficiently and wisely according to the overall needs of patients, and with an eye towards sustainable and preventative care. If the providers make unreasonable and continuous requests for funds, they should be audited, and their patients given an opportunity to be treated elsewhere. This way we can at least try to avoid the corruption inherent in the current system, where doctors are persuaded to undertake expensive treatments, or prescribe expensive medications, when those decisions run against their judgment as physicians, but not as businessmen. All the while, private insurance options should remain available and widespread, with their services regulated by the government to ensure they honor their commitments to customers and maintain their own stated standards of care.
The fact remains that we spend more, a LOT more, than other industrialized nations on health care per capita, and we get inferior average outcomes. I'm not looking for perfection, but I want to see us level out and tip upwards quite a bit in that department. With careful shepherding of our expenditures and honest and open dealings with the public about their options and their needs, that 16% of GDP that we spend in health care, more than any other country, could be going a *really* long way towards general public health. But general public health has been largely ignored here. Why? We are human resources. We are the wealth of the nation, and we have a very poor and patchy net underneath our high wire as a world power. Let's patch the net. Let's try this thing, and see what happens. I realize we can't guarantee the same outcomes as every single other industrialized country with UHC, but we should be fairly buoyed by the fact it's being done better than we're currently doing it. The American exceptionalists ought to be chomping at the bit to show the world how you really run a UHC system.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: edit: Speculating, I think the GOP higher ups realize that health care reform is needed and that some sort of expanded government role is the way out of the mess we're currently in, but find themselves in a situation where making the country better is going to harm their party. Thus, they are choosing to try to disrupt and distort any effort towards health care reform, hoping that what ever form that gets passed is a disaster, instead of working towards a version that includes government participation that, through being successful, would give the lie to some of their rhetoric and upset some of their base.
This is the death knell of the Republican party if I ever heard one. When you've become so lost as to your real long term objectives that you're willing to let such a mess as our health care system slip into continual decline and ruin so that you can win a short term gain against an advancing opposition, you've lost the objective. But then, I think the Republican party itself, if not the conservative movement, began losing ground in America some years ago. Proof that a wounded animal can still fight, and still kill. And desperation breeds desperate acts.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: It seems that those opposed to health care reform want opposing things.
They don't want what we have now, but the shoot down any proposed changes.
They don't want it to cost to much, but every step made to limit costs is met with overblown disaster predictions.
Well, I'm a conservative, and I DO want some degree of health care reform, but I don't like being lumped in with "you want change, but are working against it"
I think we need health care reform, I'm just not convinced that this particular proposal is the best answer. I would like them to take more time, give us more details, not rush in -- get some good feedback from real experts (not politicians) to clarify things. More communication about specifics and less about ideals, etc. I'm not opposed to all reform -- I just don't want "Fools rush in.... etc."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm just not convinced that this particular proposal is the best answer. I would like them to take more time, give us more details, not rush in...
Believe it or not, I agree with you completely. But I'm also aware that we've been waiting for health care reform for thirty years, so I can understand the desire to rush in and do something the first time an opportunity presents itself; I believe -- and this is probably much to the consternation of the true libertarians on this board -- that the bill is seen as an opportunity to acclimate people to the concept of a single-payer system, so that an actual single-payer system (which will work much better than the Frankenstein's monster they've grafted together here) can be presented as an incremental reform some time down the line.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I'm in favor of rushing in as fast as possible. I'm not joking- I think if we slam some kind of reform through, we can get our foot into the door and never let it back out. As you said, we've been waiting 30 years while things got more and more dire in the private sector. Obama knows that trying this in his first year, even if it does fail, is going to give him an out in 3 more years to say: "let me keep working on this." Bush did the opposite with Iraq, pushing it near the end of his first term for the same reason. (Not saying that was the only cause of the timing, but it helped). Obama has to get things started now, even at a high cost, if he hopes to have any kind of leeway when it comes to later expectations. What was he going to do? Make it a major part of his platform, and then slowly pick away at it through a whole first term? Was he then going to claim it as a major part of his second term platform, when everybody would look at what he said in 2008 that never got done? He got elected because he was bold, and he's going to be reelected for the same reason, if at all. Much better to take the hit on what he knew would be an utter crapstorm in his first year, spend some of his goodwill up front, and then actually have 3 years to get to work on it. He could well be ousted in 2012, and he actually wants to get things started on this, so that it has a shot at working down the line. I'm on board with that.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I'm just not convinced that this particular proposal is the best answer. I would like them to take more time, give us more details, not rush in...
Believe it or not, I agree with you completely. But I'm also aware that we've been waiting for health care reform for thirty years, so I can understand the desire to rush in and do something the first time an opportunity presents itself; I believe -- and this is probably much to the consternation of the true libertarians on this board -- that the bill is seen as an opportunity to acclimate people to the concept of a single-payer system, so that an actual single-payer system (which will work much better than the Frankenstein's monster they've grafted together here) can be presented as an incremental reform some time down the line.
Me three. And the problem is, if this does NOT pass, it will be a minimum of 8-12 years before real health care reform is back on the table.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I believe -- and this is probably much to the consternation of the true libertarians on this board -- that the bill is seen as an opportunity to acclimate people to the concept of a single-payer system, so that an actual single-payer system (which will work much better than the Frankenstein's monster they've grafted together here) can be presented as an incremental reform some time down the line
It is because this bill is widely as seen as "first step" to a very different system that the fears of "death panels" and people losing the health care they like just fine now are not irrational fears. What is explained here is exactly what is opposed, so the fact that it isn't mentioned in this particular bill is not convincing that it won't happen later and this is the first step towards it.
If supporters want to be able to convincing counter opposition based on the worst-case-scenario, then getting the bill right the first time is essential.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If not "right," then at least not "unholy mess."
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
To put it politely, the rhetoric that is coming out of the more vocal opposition to health care reform makes it extremely difficult to believe that the real objection is to having health care reform that's anything less than perfect. And if the "real fear" is not that the reforms themselves include death panels, but will lead to them somewhere up the line, that's not coming through at all.
Again, perhaps what is needed is for cooler heads to prevail. It's not appropriate to expect one side to provide all the impetus for rational discussion, though. If one side wants to talk and the other wants to scream, the side fronting the screamers shouldn't be surprised if eventually the opposition would rather dismiss them and work around them than keep trying to bring them back to the table.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
(second last post): Again, uniquely American mess
You have to keep up with the lingo, "overseas contingency operations" and the like.
But more seriously, I did read something interesting, a bit of speculation on what the left in the US is planning.
quote: 1) private health insurance is hyper-regulated, underwriting standards are eliminated, and premium costs rise astronomically
2) employers, especially smaller employers, drop coverage and push employees to the “public plan”
3) the resulting dislocation of coverage and expansion of the public plan becomes a rationale for single payer – “see, we told you so” by the left
Personally, or rather "personally (if I was an American)", I would be cheering for such an eventuality. However, I don't actually think that the Democrats have demonstrated the foresight and planning for such a plan. But I think its something interesting where I can sympathize with the conservatives a little in wondering if this is just a "first step."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
This proposal is not much of a solution, especially not without the public option. Our current healthcare system is a husk with a very flimsy foundation. Obama clearly wants a single-payer system (and a single-payer system would work) but knows he cannot achieve that presently with his current political capital, and still wants a way to stop the sustained double-digit inflation and spiraling quality issues of our medical care.
To paraphrase a speaker on npr, the way the current plan seems like it is trying to fix our healthcare system is equivalent to trying to fix a weak foundation by adding more floors.
I see it as nothing more than a 'gateway drug' trying to pinch-hit the american health care system into providing democrats (because the republicans are a blanket antagonist to reform at this point, unfortunately, leaving the democrats with the sole responsibility for providing our reform) with the future viability of a real UHC plan.
At present, the american political environment is too deluded with a toxic and misinformed branch of the public, who WILL derail any serious reform.
Essentially, we're too stupid to have nice things.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: It is because this bill is widely as seen as "first step" to a very different system that the fears of "death panels" and people losing the health care they like just fine now are not irrational fears. What is explained here is exactly what is opposed, so the fact that it isn't mentioned in this particular bill is not convincing that it won't happen later and this is the first step towards it.
If supporters want to be able to convincing counter opposition based on the worst-case-scenario, then getting the bill right the first time is essential.
The thing is Kat, this kind of paranoia is simply unreasonable.
Every piece of legislation is a means to an end. No law is expected to be perfect, and no system adopted is *ever* expected to work exactly right the first time. You're expecting the administration and senate to choose a path together, though they are still highly contentious and faced with a lot of public pressure to compromise, and you expect them to stick to that agreement forever and a day after it is made? How all or nothing can the senate be? Plus, were it not for the inane conspiracy wailing from the right, they could come up with such a bill on the first try.
And why exactly do you think that it would be easier for Obama to do something plainly wrong and unethical tomorrow, when he clearly wouldn't get away with doing it today? How little faith have you got in this country and its people?
So you're shouting about conspiracies on the one hand, then seeing the effects of your conspiracy mongering, and calling that proof of the likelihood of a conspiracy. Do you think that if no one was seriously opposing reform, Obama would try and pass a bill like this one, which is clearly one that will need further revision down the road? What exactly would be the point of that?
Obama wants to achieve something: he wants to achieve something that even you want. But this really just comes down to you not believing that Obama is a right thinking person. Which is terribly sad and ironic, because our healthcare dollars and many of your medical decisions, including, I expect, yours as well, are *already* subject to a great deal more financial consideration and cost saving than you actually fear. You're acting as if you aren't aware of that, but I suspect that you really are.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Apparently they wisely listened to Kat and shut down the e-mail mailbox.
(although they are still garnering input via a different page/portal -- I didn't check it out to see what it was)
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Katherina, several times (in a few different threads) I have seen someone specifically address to you the point that "Death Panels" already exist now and are motivated entirely by financial gain as opposed to any kind of ethical oversight. I may have missed it but I haven't found a post of yours addressing this point. What exactly makes a government run death panel worse than a corporate run one?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
"Rationing" by money - the same way iPods, houses, food, cars, and clothing is "rationed" - is very, very different from a government buerocrat denying a procedure.
In fact, calling the rationing by money "rationing" is violation of the English language. It isn't the same, and for those who love the idea of a government buerocracy doing the rationing, I haven't yet heard a good reason why health care is different from food and shelter.
If you mention the very poor, then you must also take into account Medicaid.
-----
That's awesome the White House shut down the mailbox. I have seen several editorials condemning the thuggish tactic, so clearly someone got through the them.
I think in the past four or five days, the White House has realized that this will not be a walk, and that they are finally being held to a human standard where people will criticize them for shoddy work, which is what the current proposals and crap like the email address is. A win for free speech, the democracy and the press. No matter how promising a candidate is, the dance is not over once they've been elected.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Plus, were it not for the inane conspiracy wailing from the right, they could come up with such a bill on the first try.
Absolute nonsense. The Democrats have 60 in the Senate, a majority in the House, and the White House. If they fumble this one, they have only themselves to blame for being incompetent.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:"Rationing" by money - the same way iPods, houses, food, cars, and clothing is "rationed" - is very, very different from a government buerocrat denying a procedure.
In fact, calling the rationing by money "rationing" is violation of the English language. It isn't the same, and for those who love the idea of a government buerocracy doing the rationing, I haven't yet heard a good reason why health care is different from food and shelter.
If you mention the very poor, then you must also take into account Medicaid.
While I have some quibbles with various pieces of that argument, the main issue I have is the insistence of calling a government run version of something that already exists a "Death Panel," as if it's somehow a fundamentally more scary thing than what we already have. Could the government hypothetically fix the system to prevent key political figures from getting liver transplants? I guess, but major financial backers of a hospital could hypothetically do the same thing.
As for what separates health care from food and shelter - basically, there's overwhelming evidence that our current system wastes huge amounts of money for various reasons which having a single centrally run agency would eliminate. Other countries have systems which are more effective for both poor AND rich people. People bemoan the control of health care by inefficient bureaucrats, when it's already under the control of bureaucrats that are not only inefficient but have no way to be held accountable. There's no way to vote with dollars when you already have terminal cancer and no insurance company will take you. If you can make something more efficient for people at every end of the economic spectrum AND more accountable (even if only slightly), does it matter whether there's some fundamental thing separating health care and food/shelter?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Why would the option of paying out off pocket for a service the govt refuses to pay be eliminated in this plan? Especially since, for major surgeries, if your insurance refuses to pay, it is cheaper and just as good to go to go to a foreign country now.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: "Rationing" by money - the same way iPods, houses, food, cars, and clothing is "rationed" - is very, very different from a government buerocrat denying a procedure.
The government bureaucrat would be denying paying for a procedure. Just like insurance companies do.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The difference between the actions of insurance companies and the actions of the government is recourse and the free market. You can sue an insurance company, and a company that violates its responsibilities can be fined and customers can go elsewhere. There are things to be done on a micro level and a macro level.
When the government runs everything and says no, you are out of luck.
quote:As for what separates health care from food and shelter - basically, there's overwhelming evidence that our current system wastes huge amounts of money for various reasons which having a single centrally run agency would eliminate.
This argument does not show 1) that it is particular to health care (imagine all the inefficiencies of having different contractors out there!) or that 2) a government-run company would do better.
To make it clear, I am in favor of a single-payer system. I think we should do whatever Germany is doing. However, advocates for it have not made a competent, decisive argument nor formed a good bill.
This tendency to demonize those who oppose it is reprehensible. I don't want to be associated with people who declare that anyone against socialized medicine is a selfish bastard who would shove people off the lifeboat. That's a poor argument and uncivilized behavior. Giving some respect when people have points would go a far away to showing that they deserve some.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:"Rationing" by money - the same way iPods, houses, food, cars, and clothing is "rationed" - is very, very different from a government buerocrat denying a procedure.
In fact, calling the rationing by money "rationing" is violation of the English language. It isn't the same, and for those who love the idea of a government buerocracy doing the rationing, I haven't yet heard a good reason why health care is different from food and shelter.
Government bureaucrats won't be denying any procedures, even under a single-payer system. They'll just refuse to pay for procedures. So the result, if your care gets denied by the government, is just "rationing by money" -- something you clearly have no problem with.
Nothing, especially in the US, is ever going to prevent people with millions to spare from paying their own millions for an extra six months of life with pancreatic cancer. Nobody is ever going to stop you from paying out of pocket for your own health care.
quote:If you mention the very poor, then you must also take into account Medicaid.
What if we mention the slightly poor? They're the ones who get neither employer insurance nor Medicaid. Or at best, have to make tough decisions about whether to send their kid to college or get private insurance.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:When the government runs everything and says no, you are out of luck.
You can sue the govt. Many people do that successfully.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
katharina:
quote:The difference between the actions of insurance companies and the actions of the government is recourse and the free market. You can sue an insurance company, and a company that violates its responsibilities can be fined and customers can go elsewhere. There are things to be done on a micro level and a macro level.
When the government runs everything and says no, you are out of luck.
You're not mentioning the fact that a government bureaucrat won't have the same incentives as a private insurance employee. Private employees are actually given bonuses, both for hitting certain rejection margins, and creatively finding ways to reject difficult claims.
It reminds me of the scene in The Incredibles where Bob has a fight with his boss for helping his clients dodge all the obstacles. I've spoken to friends who have worked for insurance companies and they argue there's more truth than exaggeration in the scene.
Now granted a government agency would have a rigid budget that it could not overspend, and if things got tight you might see similar things, but it would still be less adversarial than a person who wants a boost to their pay check and is being encouraged to seek it.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:When the government runs everything and says no, you are out of luck.
I think it's quite the opposite. You can't sue a company for charging more money than you can afford, nor can you sue a company for disqualifying you when you have a pre-existing condition they know would be too expensive to treat. And even if you could, the legal fees, risks and effort required to sue a company when you're in the process of dying is something many people can't deal with. By contrast, with a government run system you at least have the ability to vote people out of office. You might not be able to vote out the bureaucrat who denied you coverage, but you can vote out the people that sign those people's checks. It still wouldn't be perfect but it would at least hold individuals somewhat accountable.
I don't intend to demonize people who are inherently opposed to health care. I know that economics is complicated (more complicated than I have the time to fully understand) and I am sure there are plenty of legitimate reasons to dislike the plans currently under discussion as well as various other hypothetical plans.
What I don't have much respect for, however, is decrying a government run program as inefficient, unaccountable and Death Panel™ laden, when that's exactly what we already have.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You can sue the government when they act improperly. The point of the entrenched rationing panels is that by denying care, the panel would be acting properly.
For suing to become successful, then the panels would have to dismantled and powerless. Then...why set them up in the first place? That they can be dismantled the first time they carry out their prescribed function is not a good argument for setting them up in the first place.
BB: Sure, there's no financial incentive for individual workers. You don't need incentives when there is the power of the state behind you.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
The power of the state to do what, exactly? What are you afraid of happening that does not (or could not) already happen?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Or could not? I need to make sure the possibility doesn't exist - even if it presently doesn't exist - in order to oppose this?
The power of the state in general when it comes to providing the service itself - not regulating it, but being the source - is something I think should happen only under extreme circumstances. For instance: space travel.
In general, most of the problems people have mentioned with the current system have alternatives that do not require the government to become a health insurance company.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
The difference with food and shelter is that there are many options to obtain food/shelter compared to healthcare. When I need shelter I can get by, if necessary, with a tent. When I need food, I can get by on inexpensive staples which are available from a variety of sources. There is no "castrophic" shelter or food need what will bankrupt me if I attempt to satisfy it with death or severe disability being the alternative.
With healthcare my needs will vary based on any number of chance occurances - I can't get the "live in a tent" version of heart surgery, or the "beans and rice" version of chemotherapy. Healthcare of the sort that insurance is needed for is not a commodity item and the healthcare system that came to exist in the free market shows that free market principles do not inevitably lead to competitiveness, improved quality, and decreasing prices.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
MattP, thank you. That's a very good argument. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: You can sue the government when they act improperly. The point of the entrenched rationing panels is that by denying care, the panel would be acting properly.
For suing to become successful, then the panels would have to dismantled and powerless. Then...why set them up in the first place? That they can be dismantled the first time they carry out their prescribed function is not a good argument for setting them up in the first place.
BB: Sure, there's no financial incentive for individual workers. You don't need incentives when there is the power of the state behind you.
Katharina: Sure, but if you were working as a government health care employee, what would be your reason to deny somebody care?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
So you believe the government being responsible for health care is inherently bad regardless of whether there are negative consequences to it?
If there are non-government run solutions that would be effective and accountable, I'd be fine with them as well, and if they are MORE effective then the government option then obviously I'd prefer them, but fearing a government run institution out of principle just seems pointless to me.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:if you were working as a government health care employee, what would be your reason to deny somebody care?
It would be the law. Those would be the legal guidelines. There are teams of auditors that constantly monitor what government agencies are doing. It isn't like no one would know, and in my experience the auditors monitor government agencies very closely. How long do you think someone would last in their position if they ignored the guidelines?
--------
In general, non-government run of marketed goods and services is much, much better than government run. There was a whole century worth of experimentation in communism about this.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: "Rationing" by money - the same way iPods, houses, food, cars, and clothing is "rationed" - is very, very different from a government buerocrat denying a procedure.
In fact, calling the rationing by money "rationing" is violation of the English language.
Really? A government employee making decisions with exactly the same effects is very, very different? Mind you, I am not in favor of *anyone* being able to make such a decision, and I find it a bit odd for you to defend it in this way. The act itself is less abhorrent if the motivation is financial rather than... budgetary?
An I wasn't aware the English language could be "violated." Perhaps you meant, "misuse," or "misapplication?" If so, I think you're dealing in semantics when the point is quite clear to everyone here.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Of course, as the government would still just be one of several insurance companies, people would still be free under any plan that's been proposed in Congress to pay for the care out of pocket.
That said, I vastly prefer solutions where the government is neither an insurer nor a care provider, and think there are several viable ones. Note that this does not mean I don't think the government should reform the current system (a lot of the problems in which can be soundly laid on the government's head).
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:if you were working as a government health care employee, what would be your reason to deny somebody care?
It would be the law. Those would be the legal guidelines.
You have no basis in fact that I am aware of to support such a claim. Claims that this "will" be the law, and that there "will be" such policies is not a valid argument against either the proposed system, nor against reform, especially considering that such hypothetical laws and policies are not yet law or policy, nor have you presented clear evidence that they are about be such. You're beating up on a worst case scenario- and one that is still nowhere near as bad as you think it is. People will still be able to vote, and whatever laws and policies are made, they will be subject to review by the courts, and ultimately the voters. You'll have "activist judges" on your side if your chicken-little scenario ever comes true.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Orincoro, I'm not going to answer you because I think you are nitpicking and avoiding the obvious answer: if it doesn't exist, then it wouldn't happen.
I was answering a hypothetical situation. Duh. Saying "But that's only hypothetical!" is not an intelligent response.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Be nice please- I may have missed the context for your statement. It wouldn't be the first time, for anyone.
But I'm sorry, answering a hypothetical with a supposition about future conditions is not answering the hypothetical, but rather evading the answer.
Ie:
Orincoro: What would you do if the Earth was going to be hit by a comet?
Katharina: I'd have super powers, and I'd just go and roundhouse kick it like Chuck Norris... duh.
See? You never really answered the question about what *you* would do in such a situation. The point of the question was not to hoist you on your own petard, but to make you think critically about your very broad suppositions about what other people would do. You failed, I think, to really consider that.
Orincoro: What would happen if Superman and Batman fought??
Katharina: They wouldn't fight because Batman wouldn't reveal his secret identity, and Superman would fear the use of Krypton.
Ignores the part where the hypothetical asks you to dismiss certain mitigating factors which make the actual situation unlikely, and consider the question as a matter of principle, rather than detail or point of fact. You don't answer those, pretty much ever.
Now to say that the law would prevent you from acting your conscience, if the law was so written, is valid, but first answer the question. And don't "duh" me- not if you're also going to lecture me on being nice to you. I'll take the ticket or the lecture, but not both.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: In general, non-government run of marketed goods and services is much, much better than government run. There was a whole century worth of experimentation in communism about this.
It is interesting to note that while this may be true in general, this seems pretty dubious for healthcare.
Even putting away the usual suspects like Canada or Britain which show much better outcomes than the US.
Notably, while Chinese citizens are still incredibly enthusiastic about market reforms in practically all sectors of the economy, they are most worried about the privatization of healthcare. In particular, the high cost of private healthcare and the spotty coverage of it, means that healthcare is a glaring anomaly where the public has demanded for the reforms to be reversed and the government has obliged by putting a significant portion of its equivalent to the American "TARP" into re-creating a more socialist healthcare system.
Indeed, one notices that if one crosses into the most capitalist place on Eath, Hong Kong, and which regularly outranks the US in international measures of economic freedom, it still uses a universal healthcare system with a large government funded and government-run component.
The reason why is actually quite simple. If you put away the ideological objections, it makes good business sense and is good for the economy. As examples, the socialist healthcare reforms in China are applauded by American economists (curious, eh?) as an opportunity to boost the economy and both Japanese and American companies such as Honda and Government Motors have in the late 90s shifted much of their North American production to Canada in large part due to the cheaper cost of healthcare.
It is last part, which as a Canadian makes me hesitant to back public healthcare in the US. Why throw away a good competitive advantage? But in the interest of the historical record, I have to note that I find the generalization quoted above wanting.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Katharina:
quote:It would be the law. Those would be the legal guidelines. There are teams of auditors that constantly monitor what government agencies are doing. It isn't like no one would know, and in my experience the auditors monitor government agencies very closely. How long do you think someone would last in their position if they ignored the guidelines?
But why are you assuming the guidelines would be rigid or unfriendly? I've always had a pleasant time at the post office, when I've applied for a passport, when I register my car, etc.
It would be one thing if countries with government run health care were struggling and begging for relief, but instead we find America with a privatized health care system that has demonstrated a propensity for cutting edge treatment but inadequate concern for the average person.
Yes perhaps some of the blame is rightly placed on people who do not eat right, exercise right, or avoid things that can damage your health. All I can say is that in my circumstance and in many other people's they can't even get rudimentary treatment for basic problems that are not our fault. The free market has not provided the impetus for health caretakers to fix that.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Is it my imagination or has this thread completely missed the language that is being misread as "death panel," in the current legislation being proposed? The proposal includes language that people facing end of life decisions are entitled to end of life counseling by doctors, hospice workers, etc. It's a benefit being offered, not a set of rules giving government panels power to limit services. The legislation mentions these services along with a host of other services that would be covered by the program, but the crazies have completely turned it on its ear.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Glenn- hasn't this been covered- voluntary means mandatory and anytime the government gives advice, it will be the most sinister advice possible.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Glenn, I think it is more people are confused or pretending that the protesters and GOP operatives are talking about worst case scenarios and what may happen in the future as opposed to what they are saying, which is "This bill is setting up death panels that will kill your grandparents and retarded children."
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yeah, it doesn't *really* matter what language is actually in the bill, because the crazies have decided they're against it, and in order to be against it, it must be a hyper inflated caricature of an actual bill.
Just look at Kat in this thread- she has ignored every attempt by anyone to point this out, and has bored ahead with a very narrow and ridiculously unlikely set of suppositions, also ignoring all of the fairly cogent points about why the set of principles she's representing don't apply, and are even admitted not to apply by a great many people who share those same principles as well.
Ultimately I think we need this victory for reform, so that in five years or ten, all these people screaming about this now will be singing a very different tune, because it will work. That's the rub- government options work. They can be made not to work, which is the only hope of the opposition, but for that we just need to work hard at seeing that this doesn't happen.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Ultimately I think we need this victory for reform,
I actually don't think it's necessary at all. If it failed completely, then the only real consequence is that we go another five to twenty years with a medical system in progressive collapse and then revisit the issue later once it has cost us trillions more and left us in even worse shape.
All that any 'success' does at this juncture is undercut my time estimate for the inevitability of healthcare reform by making the transition *gasp* less costly and *gasp* less painful.
But we can't have nice things. At least, I don't think so. We're a petulant, recalcitrant country when it comes to things you can tag with the pejorative 'socialism' label.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Socialism only became a pejorative in the 30's and 40's. Before then it actually had alot going for it.
I hate the fact Americans use the USSR and China as some sort of example of what socialism at its best could be. Why don't we look at the Democratic Republic of Korea and say, "Hey that's what democracy looks like, it's in the name isn't it?"
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Lots of countries have a lot of socialism in the political mix and we don't think they are scary. Ireland, for example. Plenty of socialism yet they haven't painted everything scary red and grey.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Orincoro: Calling opponents to socialized and government controlled medicine "crazies" does not make you look like an informed analyst of the situation.
Calling, by implication, ME a "crazy" makes you look much worse. You are not raising the debate - namecalling like that is what is wrong with the debate.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Kat, I said "the crazies have decided they're against it." Feel free to include yourself in that group if you wish, but if I wanted to say: "opponents of socialized and government controlled medicine are crazies," then I would have said: "opponents of socialized and government controlled medicine are crazies." I don't know where you get off. Honestly.
There are crazies in this debate. Those crazies have made a decision. Not all the opponents are crazies, but the crazies are clearly piloting the ship right now. I have every right to call it as I see it, and you have every right to disagree. What you don't have a right to do is dictate my opinions to me, so if you'd like to do that, save it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Ultimately I think we need this victory for reform,
I actually don't think it's necessary at all. If it failed completely, then the only real consequence is that we go another five to twenty years with a medical system in progressive collapse and then revisit the issue later once it has cost us trillions more and left us in even worse shape.
All that any 'success' does at this juncture is undercut my time estimate for the inevitability of healthcare reform by making the transition *gasp* less costly and *gasp* less painful.
But we can't have nice things. At least, I don't think so. We're a petulant, recalcitrant country when it comes to things you can tag with the pejorative 'socialism' label.
I think perhaps our definitions of "need" are in slight contradiction.
I need to have my tonsils removed. I can't afford it in the states, so I'm having it done where I live, for next to nothing (of course I pay my health care contributions). That's a pretty nice incentive for me to just continue living here.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Well, I mean, I would want it. It would save us gobs of cash over the next few decades, save millions of lives from the real and existent death panels, leave our country happier, longer lived, and a wee bit more prosperous.
But that would be the easy way. We can't do this the easy way. I'm just glad I'm so young because anyone who is in their 30's and 40's today are the most likely to get screwed over by our undying aversion to fixing these problems.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I'm just glad I'm so young because anyone who is in their 30's and 40's today are the most likely to get screwed over by our undying aversion to fixing these problems.
>_<
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Regarding Medicaid- it should be noted that Medicaid and Medicare both underpay providers for services. This generally means that everyone else who goes to that provider gets charged more; it also means that an increasing number of providers simply aren't accepting new patients under those plans, saying that they can't afford them, that they amount to charity care. And on that note, the number of clinics offering free or pay-as-you-can isn't exactly booming either.
To make the fear of rationing a compelling argument, one needs to recognize that we are, in many ways, in a state of rationing now. There are a very large number of people in this country for whom going to a doctor simply isn't an option. Many of those who are fortunate enough to have insurance pay large co-pays and deductibles, and any procedure that requires a specialist or surgery is usually already going through a string of bureaucrats, just ones for whom profits are the deciding factor. The same goes for prescription drugs; doctors often go into the room knowing that the insurer simply will not pay for certain medications, however more effective they may be.
As Polyanna as the sentiment may sound, a government system at least has some accountability to the people it serves, and has an incentive to make favorable patient outcomes its primary measure of success. For for-profit insurers, favorable patient outcome is only one in a mix of variables leading to success measured in money, and the people it's most accountable to are its investors.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
That just leads us inexorably back to the fact that everything the naysayers (and the crazies) are protesting against the possibility of is already happening to a large number of people. Rationales as to why things should remain this way range from the blatantly selfish: "I deserve what I have, and more importantly *they* do not deserve what I have," to the petulantly contrary: "It doesn't matter that every other industrialized nation does it better than us in one form or another, none of those solutions, or anything like them will work for us, the free market is always better despite all of these very clear examples of that not being the case, and the absence of examples that it *is* the case, and besides Obama is a Muslim."
I'm aware that's a straw man. They are all stuffed with straw, as far as I am concerned. For as many allusions to actual arguments against reform that I've seen so far, I've seen very few actual points, let alone compelling points, against reform.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
And yet despite the lack of new points, this issue warrants another new thread. How many is that, now...? Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm just glad that the argument against health care reform — on this forum as well as off — is ably showing itself to be little more than a hysterical display lacking any measured apprehension of what UHC would be in practice.
You know, as opposed to a sane counterargument or anything with more meat than, say, a newsmax article.
Some days, I don't even have to try.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Hitler looks so giddy to be meeting him. Too bad Hitler is about to be subject to DEATH PANELS!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
DEATH PANELS
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
DEATH. PANELS!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Sam,
It is very probable that the reason you have not heard a carefully laid out opposing argument against universal health care is because those who are willing to type it out are not willing to waste it on you.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Uhuh. Where have you typed it out then? Anywhere?
Oh but no, yeah, no, yeah save it from us uncaring cynics- don't waste your reasons! If you use them, they run out!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Sam,
It is very probable that the reason you have not heard a carefully laid out opposing argument against universal health care is because those who are willing to type it out are not willing to waste it on you.
This is the quintessential "I can't put up, but I sure ain't going to shut up" strat. Tired allusions towards casting pearls before swine are surely inches behind.
Apparently, according to your logic, if I'm on a forum, my mere presence means that it becomes a waste for ANY anti-reform arguers to put up ANY reasoned and sustained defense of their position anywhere on the forum at all in response to ANY prevalence of the issue. Because I'm there. That automatically makes it wasted, because I would then see it. They can only engage in these arguments very very far away where people like me can't see it and they can trust it is not subject to that sort of critique.
of course this is all a sidetrack. What I noted was that while I see plenty of debate happening here, just debate with a massive, MASSIVE quantity of the opposing side lacking a measured apprehension of what UHC would be in practice and they seemingly can't accomplish more than sniping reliant on these amazing leaps of hyperbole and paranoia.
You have so far been no exception, so apparently your stunning finale is to invoke the notion that the only reason why the rallying effort of your side caps far short of a "carefully laid out opposing argument" is because I'm not worth it.
And, by extension, neither are anyone anywhere I'm in any way associated to it via exposure.
Apparently.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm amazed at how much empty talk people can throw up when they are against something they know very little about.
But then, that was Sarah Palin's campaign in a nutshell. It's just pretty remarkable how much and how long people can go on with canned statements and playing a victim when they don't have any substance.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Fear is the mind killer.
To make the electorate brain dead, throw anything that will scare them.
When you look at the logic behind Death Panels, End Of Life Mandatory Meetings, and other fear laced objections you realize that they contain more fear than fact.
Its been argued that they will do X where X is bad because it doesn't say they won't do X. Yet the logic behind doing X is not there? Why do they think anyone would do X? Because that is the scariest thing they can think of. Fear kills the thought process. So dead minds don't question, they react.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Sam,
It is very probable that the reason you have not heard a carefully laid out opposing argument against universal health care is because those who are willing to type it out are not willing to waste it on you.
If just a few people making derisive comments is now to be considered a good reason for not offering a rational argument at all, the "town hall" meetings really should have stopped weeks ago.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Apparently now they are telling people that the plan will force people to give the government access to their bank accounts.
Why aren't people on that side doing something about this? There's still got to be a lot of people left in the Republican party who want to have an actual debate about how we move forward here and would be ashamed to use such tactics.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
It could be because a lot of the rational folks in the Republican Party don't like our present health care system any more than the rest of us. They want change, but don't want to speak out in case that would be abused by the Democrats Propaganda machine. The minute they say, "Well yes, our system has its problems..." their friends will attack them and their enemies will gleefully use it as fuel to rush through a system they are not sure is good.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm not talking about that though. What I'm wondering is how they can stand by while the Republican face on this issue is "We will disseminate whatever lies we can to get people to oppose this."
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Because the absurdities of the lies are harder to see when they are on your own side. Even if there are obviously no "death panels", when one is politically aligned with the opposition that generates such lies, one will tend to make some effort to see the absurdity as a reasonable conclusion, even if you don't personally believe it's likely. You start coming up with things like "well there's nothing in the bill that says there won't be death panels!" while ignoring that last month's agriculture appropriations bill ALSO didn't contain any language that promised there would be no death panels
This does happen on both sides and I'm sure I'm not immune, though my trying-to-be-objective self still thinks the republicans are bringing a lot more crazy than the democrats generally do. This might have something to do with the virtual monopoly that conservatives have on charismatic talking heads. Something about the Palins, Glenn Becks and Hannities of the world really resonate with the vocal conservative base.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
The moderate Republicans should really speak out against their extremist counterparts.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Just FYI the Republican Party has shrunk pretty dramatically.
The latest Pew and Research 2000 polls put the party's membership at 22% of Americans, and a WaPo poll found out that only 20% of Americans still self-identify as Republicans.
When you are asking 'how can they stand by while the Republican face on the issue is ...' the answer is that they aren't just standing by. They're actively drifting away from their party because of it. As conservatives they are actually being unfairly represented since their voice has been overcast by the voices that drove them off in the first place. They're not the ones running around calling Obama's plan a nazi hitler death program, but you don't hear them because the ones still in the base are yelling it at the top of their lungs.
quote:Most fundamentally of all, the McCain campaign radically overestimated the importance of appealing to the base. House Republicans may be replicating their mistake. Self-described conservative Republicans represent only about 20 percent of the population. This base is not necessarily becoming smaller; it's still alive and kicking. What is true, however, is that the (1) base has never been sufficient to form a winning electoral coalition, and (2) that there are fewer and fewer non-base (e.g. moderates, libertarian Republicans, Republican leaning-independents). As these moderates have fled the GOP, the party's electoral fortunes have tanked. But simultaneously, they have had less and less influence on the Republican message.
Thus the Republicans, arguably, are in something of a death spiral. The more conservative, partisan, and strident their message becomes, the more they alienate non-base Republicans. But the more they alienate non-base Republicans, the fewer of them are left to worry about appeasing. Thus, their message becomes continually more appealing to the base -- but more conservative, partisan, and strident to the rest of us. And the process loops back upon itself.
So, essentially, what you are seeing is the outcome of the spiral, where we get the concentrated conservative-partisan-strident message predicted by the process.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:The moderate Republicans should really speak out against their extremist counterparts.
There's also the element of "don't argue with results." If, for whatever reason, you don't want democratic health care reform, and the lies are causing it to crumble, then why get in the way of a good thing? You don't have any responsibility for correcting someone else's lies, right?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:The moderate Republicans should really speak out against their extremist counterparts.
There's also the element of "don't argue with results." If, for whatever reason, you don't want democratic health care reform, and the lies are causing it to crumble, then why get in the way of a good thing? You don't have any responsibility for correcting someone else's lies, right?
Assuming you care zilch about personal integrity.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Or you're willing to take a hit on personal integrity for the greater good.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Or you're willing to take a hit on personal integrity for the greater good.
A problem with politics as I see it is that politicians rely on that philosophy far too often.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
For what it's worth, BB, a lot of us where wondering where "let's not tell blatant lies about things" LDS were during the Proposition 8 commercials.
---
I know that the rank and file are feeling pushed out (although it may be more severe than I think). That's why I left the party. But there are supposed to be up and coming Republican "stars" whose image at least is against things like this.
In a way, I'd see it as an opportunity for say a Bobby Jindal. I don't think most of the people who left or whose support is waning because of the Republican's embrace of being liars for stupid people are happy with their options. Someone could pull a Barack Obama by taking the Republican lead on health care reform in an honest, responsible way. It'd be a huge win and an intelligent conservative spokesperson of actual integrity would bring in a lot of the people who the Rush Limbaughs, James Dobsons, and Sarah Palins have pushed out.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Or you're willing to take a hit on personal integrity for the greater good.
A problem with politics as I see it is that politicians rely on that philosophy far too often.
Perhaps a bigger problem is what it seems to take to get to the position of being a successful professional politician in the first case. You might have real qualms with some of the positions and tactics of, say, certain fundamentalist Christian groups or organized labor groups, but turning down the money and the easy access to a large number of people is really difficult. In the early stages of a campaign, you need to pull ahead of challengers within your own base, at least some of whom are going to be willing to put aside their own qualms; in the later stages, you need to remain in view and on people's minds and tongues on a daily basis. And by then, slamming a door on the groups that helped them out in the beginning makes the candidate seem to lack integrity, even though that isn't necessarily the case.
And of course, somewhere along the way "the greater good" usually seems to get conflated with "what will get me elected", since people who don't believe they personally will be the most effective servants of the greater good don't tend to turn out to run for office in the first place.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mr Squicky: I think you will find the videos the LDS church actually sponsored did not tow the line that the videos you are likely complaining about laid out. If you can find one that does not I would be interested in seeing it. From what I have heard (and this is hearsay) there is alot of discussion going on within upper echelons of church leadership taking place regarding the gay issue.
To be honest, though I found myself in the anti-proposition 8 crowd, I don't find much comradery here.
--
Sterling: It's certainly a huge problem in politics, one in which I am unsure of the solution. I honestly at one time thought the internet would do away with the need to be plastered all over television and on every city street, and therefore ideas would be discussed rather than the candidate with the best financing winning, but I was naive.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I think you will find the videos the LDS church actually sponsored did not tow the line that the videos you are likely complaining about laid out.
I thought this as well and even argued that point to a pro-Prop 8 LDS friend of mine in an attempt to get him to acknowledge the falsehoods in the campaign, figuring that if there was no clear link from the church to those videos then he could comfortably disavow them. In response he pointed out a link from the church web site to a site hosting the videos (implying an endorsement of that site and it's content) and even more damning he pointed to a PDF document hosted on the church's web site that repeated many of the same arguments about, for instance, churches being forced to perform gay marriages.
HOWEVER, even if this wasn't the case, the church would have been in the role of the moderate representative of the position which, according to your earlier statements, was obligated to correct the deceptions of the more extreme elements or sacrifice integrity in their silence.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
MattP: Maybe so, but I wouldn't give the church extremely high marks for effective use of political weaponry, they simply do not have a lot of experience. I think it would have probably been wise to distance the church from the extremist points being made, but I'm not so sure the church had an effective plan for supporting the legislation. It's not hard for me to imagine the prophet directing the church to support the legislation, but in the execution mistakes were made. Brigham Young directed the saints to move west and to not mix with the other settlers who were also heading west. Some of those members took that to mean they were justified in murdering some travelers at Mountain Meadows.
edit: I have to concede though that to my knowledge the church has also not sought to clarify it's ties to groups that where making some of those inflammatory claims after the fact.
Perhaps in attempting to apply the brakes and temper the overreaching comments, the pro proposition 8 message would have become muddled and the supporters would appear split, and therefore votes for the bill would have been inadequate.
--- I'm not entirely sure why my church is even the topic of discussion on this point. I don't hold my church to a different standard, I would love to have occasion to discuss the matter with somebody in the know.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Perhaps in attempting to apply the brakes and temper the overreaching comments, the pro proposition 8 message would have become muddled and the supporters would appear split, and therefore votes for the bill would have been inadequate.
I'm sure that was a major issue. A slight variation of the "don't argue with results" principle I mentioned earlier. It's very hard for even the most principled political actors to proactively take steps which might harm the position that they advocate for even if taking such steps might appear to be an ethical imperative.
[ August 21, 2009, 02:17 AM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Perhaps in attempting to apply the brakes and temper the overreaching comments, the pro proposition 8 message would have become muddled and the supporters would appear split, and therefore votes for the bill would have been inadequate.
That's pretty much the point. Even if the LDS Church wasn't supporting these groups and their arguments, which, as Matt pointed out doesn't look like the case, they clearly were willing to let the campaign of fear mongering and lies go on by members of their religion. And this being a centralized religion, it would have been very easy for them to specifically say "Hey, the lying in these ads, knock it off." I can only speculate as to the reason why they did not, but (and this is assuming they weren't happy with and supportive of this effort) I think it's a pretty good bet it was something like what you said.
Which is pretty similar to the case we're talking about here, no?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
MrSquicky:
quote:Which is pretty similar to the case we're talking about here, no?
Perhaps, but I would not say Proposition 8 is a good indicator of the church's general philosophy on right and wrong.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Why? Should we not judge the institution, if not the individuals, according to the outer limits of its behavior? I wouldn't know where the moral center of the LDS church is, but I do know that the church encompasses actions I consider to be unethical, and immoral. Perhaps you are right to say that this case doesn't define the church, and certainly doesn't define the moral center of the many people involved in it, but it speaks loudly of the institution that it was unable to muster itself to squash the very dishonest behavior of some of its members, undertaken in its name. The philosophy is of course one thing, and the actual adherence to that philosophy, let's call it the "unspoken" or "working" philosophy of the institution is something else. It's like the priest at my high school who espoused a philosophy of selfless charity and asceticism, but also drove a Lexus. A priest driving a Lexus, I crap you not.
Tell me if you find that to be unfair. It's not an admonition I would apply only to the LDS church. Most or all churches, in my opinion, are corrupt institutions, and the larger and richer they are, the more susceptible they are to corruption. LDS is rapidly becoming a wealthy and influential church, and this is the kind of thing I expect from it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BB, I'm not sure I understand why you mean by that. Could you explain?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Orincoro: By "not good" I don't mean it has no meaning or importance. Rather it's one event, so it does not do a good job of shading the entire church as a whole. The church has been involved in many states all considering legislation dealing with SSM. That, to me, is a better indicator of how the church approaches the subject typically.
Personally I feel whoever the church was relying on for political advice failed them quite significantly.
I don't think you are being unfair, from your perspective I can understand your criticisms of the church. The leadership of the church however do not live very wealthy. While the church does bring in alot of money, I'd wager (ironic choice of verb) the majority of the money brought in is used towards charitable causes.
edit: I don't think we are going to see a sustained increase in the church getting involved in political matters and using church funds to do so.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: While the church does bring in alot of money, I'd wager (ironic choice of verb) the majority of the money brought in is used towards charitable causes.
Is there anyplace you can find out?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
In an effort to be comradely, BB, I am embarrassed by my church's official policy on ssm as well.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Is there anyplace you can find out?
The majority of income is used for constructing and maintaining facilities, from what I understand. Chartible causes are next.
[ August 21, 2009, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: While the church does bring in alot of money, I'd wager (ironic choice of verb) the majority of the money brought in is used towards charitable causes.
Is there anyplace you can find out?
Not currently no. The church employs an independent auditing firm that issues reports in conference, as far as I know that firm does not publish its church related work. If you worked from within the firm or knew a former employee they might be able to illuminate your understanding.
---
kmbboots: United in embarrassment? I suppose baser emotions have brought people together. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I have people who tell me that they spend over 15 times as much money on building shopping malls as they spend on the poor.
I just want to know more or less what percentage of the money that gets tithed to the LDS gets spent by the church on real estate and other profitable enterprises.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I have people who tell me that they spend over 15 times as much money on building shopping malls as they spend on the poor.
That may be both true and misleading. The church owns a number of private businesses from which it derives taxable income. Building a shopping mall is very expensive, but the goal is to generate profits which may very well support charitable activities.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
That's rather coy. If the church is continually plunging cash into profitable business ventures, from which many church members doubtless earn their livings, then the incentive is to take the profits and invest in yet more cash businesses. Perhaps a percentage of the profits is going to charitable causes, however this has not be established. I'm not so credulous of the idea that the church has an endgame goal of funding charities, rather than simply building a business empire, of which charities are a nice public benefit. Bill Gates gives to charity, a *lot* and nobody is under the illusion that Microsoft was set up to help the poor.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I'm not so credulous of the idea that the church has an endgame goal of funding charities, rather than simply building a business empire, of which charities are a nice public benefit.
I'm no defender of the church. I'm not a member and am frequently irked by their activities, but they do have some substantial humanitarian/charity organizations. I don't know what percentage of the budget they represent but if there's a disaster pretty much anywhere it's all but guaranteed that there are a few cargo planes worth of relief supplies (food, clothing, hygiene kits, etc) on the way on the church's dime. This is on top of a number of ongoing charity/humanitarian programs that the church operates.
I'd love to see more transparancy and have little doubt that full disclosure of the church's financial activities would produce some embarassment, but it's hard to argue that they aren't doing a lot of charitable work, regardless of what portion of the total wealth of the church that it represents.
quote:nobody is under the illusion that Microsoft was set up to help the poor.
As is the case with the LDS church (and many others). The church's primary goal, which it doesn't attempt to hide, is to become a bigger church. This is the stated goal of many churches, particularly those with active missionary programs. Charity is a secondary activity, which they hope will support the primary one.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: While the church does bring in alot of money, I'd wager (ironic choice of verb) the majority of the money brought in is used towards charitable causes.
Is there anyplace you can find out?
You can try deciphering their financial statements to the Canadian Revenue Agency.
According to their rough breakdown, roughly 50% of time and resources are spent on buildings, 20% on missionary work and evangelism, and 30% on social outreach, religious fellowship, and auxiliary organisations (which would seem to put an upper bound of roughly 30% on what you and I would probably consider charitable causes).
Other interesting bits are that of a total of 185 million in expenditures, roughly 74 million goes toward supplies and assets, 15 million to salary, 3 million for travel (there is no breakdown for what portion of these amounts are considered charitable programs).
Total expenses before "gifts to qualified donees" comprise about 67% of expenditures. Qualified donees can actually be found in a list which seems to include other LDS organizations which makes it difficult to breakdown how those funds are being used in the end.
Doing the math, it seems like compensation is an average of $5000 for part-time/part-year employees. Full-time employees seem to make an average of $70,000 if you take the total salary expenditure, subtract the total for part-time employees, and divide by the number of full-time employees. The top employee makes some unknown value higher than 119k while the next four make between 80k and 119k.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
The picture may be somewhat different (or not!) with the US finances - the private businesses are probably mostly held by the US organization and the global humanitarian organizations are headquartered in SLC.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I don't know.
It seems that the investment income that they are reporting are too high to be accounted for by just the amount of short-term investments that they have, but I can't figure out what else (that is recorded on the statement) they have that might return investment income.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
The Canadian disclosure shows $600 million in assets. Estimates of the total church's worth is something like $30 billion, making the Canadian piece relatively small. The percentages may be similar to those for the church over all or they may not be.
In other words, I don't know how informative a financial statement representing 2% of the church's wealth is when trying to determine their overall pattern of spending.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Um... I missed a few days of this thread.. but how did we go from a discussion of the flag mailbox on health care to a general thread of slamming the Republican party/Sarah Palin and then morph into slamming the LDS church and its finances?
I mean, really -- can we get back on topic, please?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Thread drift happens. *shrug* If you've got something "back on topic" to say, then by all means say it.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Slamming?
I thought at the two of us (MattP and I) were being pretty dispassionate about the whole thing.
MattP: Kinda yes, kinda no.
They're actually "supposed" to be informative, albeit only for Canadians. These pages were launched by the CRA to give Canadian donors an idea as to what they're donating to and avoid donating to charities with too much overhead.
They didn't seem to make it simple for folks to figure out whats on, but that was the idea anyways. Obviously, it won't be nearly as useful as a United States statement, but that doesn't seem to be available for reasons that are beyond me.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Speaking on MSNBC, Steele said the town hall meetings across the country are reflecting that debate. However, when asked directly about one of the most controversial statements by some Republicans -- that a House bill would create "death panels" to decide who gets treatment -- Steele refused to acknowledge that such language was misinformation.
Congratulations, Mike... You're officially part of the problem.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Anyone have an Obama "death (to subersives) panel" show up at your house in the middle of the night yet?
I'm on pins and needles for when the blowback from this heinous abuse of power. This is like warrantless wire tapping, but passive and not an actual abuse of power!
They've had lots of time to collect data on their enemies, someone has to have something to report. Some anti-healthcare advocate got a suspicious parking ticket or a library fine for a book they know they returned on time...
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Well, as an Obama supporter, I did receive my get out jail free card and a little sticker I attach to my license so that when cops pull me over, they know to let me of with a warning. Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
They haven't started sending out our special "supporter of the socialist regime" tax rebates yet. Can't wait for that one! Still haven't decided what I'm going to spend it on
Oh and I hear there are plans in the pipelines for special supporter job reassignment. If you support him, he'll give you any job you want in any company - at a controlled wage of course - even if it requires the company firing a non-supporter! Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am looking forward to getting my dacha!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I'm on pins and needles for when the blowback from this heinous abuse of power. This is like warrantless wire tapping, but passive and not an actual abuse of power!
I love that part of it. The best bit is that few of these people complaining about a mailbox were going ape**** over the President ordering wiretaps in express contradiction of our laws.
And it wasn't like the wiretapping thing should have even been a big deal. There was a secret court set up with the purpose of approving virtually anything the administration asked for in terms of wire tapping. It's like the cops saying: "no, no, break into any bank you want, just call first so we know not to come and arrest you," and then you going: "you know what, screw the cops."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am fascinated about the response concerning this. As if impending danger of jack-booted thugs is the only reason to oppose abuses of power.
And as if abuses are TOTALLY COOL depending on whether or not you like the person doing it.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I am fascinated about the response concerning this. As if impending danger of jack-booted thugs is the only reason to oppose abuses of power.
And as if abuses are TOTALLY COOL depending on whether or not you like the person doing it.
You're begging the question, of course. It would be fascinating if anyone said that flag@whitehouse.gov was an abuse but they were totally cool with it because they like Obama.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: And as if abuses are TOTALLY COOL depending on whether or not you like the person doing it.
Actually, I'm just thrilled that the worst "abuse of power" people can come up with is an email address, functionally and legally identical in every way to the existing email addresses people have been using to contact our elected officials for years.
As if "flag@whitehouse.gov" is abusive somehow, while vp@whitehouse.gov is not.
We're not talking secret tribunals here.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I am fascinated about the response concerning this. As if impending danger of jack-booted thugs is the only reason to oppose abuses of power.
And as if abuses are TOTALLY COOL depending on whether or not you like the person doing it.
And, yet again, TIPS.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Again... spreading mis-information about health care policies is not illegal. No one is even suggesting it be made so. The most obvious reaction within the government to same appears to be some heavy sighs and eye-rolling, and probably a lot of slumped shoulders in offices as people contemplate the accuracy of Barnum's Law.
By way of comparison, not only is terrorism illegal, the Bush administration was doing it's level best to expand the definitions of terrorism to cover, for example, sabatoging lumber-harvesting equipment. And "terrorism" was also the justification used for having the FBI investigate groups like the SOA Watch, a group advocating for closure of the School of the Americas.
If people feel differently about the two, it's probably because they quite reasonably feel that they're entirely different things!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I am fascinated about the response concerning this.
No you're not. You're livid. And you just don't get how your hysteria doesn't transfer to others.
Because let's see: on the one hand you have a President who asked for citizens to share information with the white house voluntarily, to help inform the public. And on the other hand you have a President who intentionally broke the law in order to actively spy on citizens and residents of the United States.
Uhhhh. and how we interpret those two actions has everything to do with who we like most? Really?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: And as if abuses are TOTALLY COOL depending on whether or not you like the person doing it.
Actually, I'm just thrilled that the worst "abuse of power" people can come up with is an email address, functionally and legally identical in every way to the existing email addresses people have been using to contact our elected officials for years.
Actually, if you read the link Chris Bridges posted a few pages back, you'll find that the worst abuses of power going on now are mostly the same ones that were happening under Bush. Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Well, I'm going to take it on faith for now that they're still working on finding and dismantling them.
If they're still taking place in two years I'll started feeling the outrage. In the mean time I'm going to give Obama credit for tackling a whole hell of a lot and if some of the undoing stuff falls by the wayside for now... well alright. I may not agree with his priorities, but at the moment I trust he'll get to them eventually.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No, I'm fascinated. Your logic is too fallacious to take seriously.
If you meant anything, I'd be livid.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: No, I'm fascinated. Your logic is too fallacious to take seriously.
If you meant anything, I'd be livid.
\\ Do you know what "fallacious" means? Because your argument that people find these two acts to be of different ethical merit because of who they favor politically, rather than which act is in itself seen as less ethical, is a fallacious argument. It's what you call an ignoratio elenchi, or a logical fallacy consisting of a disproof of something that has not been asserted.
Thus, we state that TAPS or warrantless wiretapping was unethical, but Flag is not. Instead of addressing that argument, you state that favoring one President's actions over another for political or personal reasons is invalid. But our personal leanings were not part of the argument put forward about the ethics of one act over another.
As an analogy, let's take a hypothetical case: Joe and Bob are two cops. Joe is my friend, Bob is not. Joe is a clean cop, but Bob is corrupt. I argue that Bob's corrupt activities are unethical, and that he is a bad cop. You counter with this genetic fallacy: I am incapable of assessing these two police officer's actions because Joe is my friend, and Bob is not my friend. That you have established that I have a preference for Joe that is apart from his abilities or ethics does not demonstrate that my argument about their comparative merits is false. You have failed to address the argument about their comparative merits.
Now, your logical fallacy is clearly laid out. Where is mine? Please point it out and I will attempt to correct my mistake, as I expect you will want to correct yours, by addressing the argument at hand, rather than the argument you want to be at hand.
Now, if I have learned anything from experience, you will respond with an ad hominem attack on my character, probably having to do with my arrogance, and possibly belittling my education, or my qualifications as a logician. You have the prerogative there, but you will lose the argument should you choose to go down that path. You may not realize you have lost it, but you will have lost it just the same.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: No, I'm fascinated. Your logic is too fallacious to take seriously.
This comes on the heels of you making a habit of judging via the genetic fallacy, specifically. You did it before as an argument to explain ideological identification within scientific communities, you're doing it again here.
Given that you are representing yourself here as firmly reliant on a fallacious proposition to begin with, you don't put much weight behind your criticism.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
The newest threat from Universal Health Care.
I switched on AM radio to see what the other side was saying, and I was warned of the biggest danger from Obama Care.
Its not death panels.
Its not a dearth of doctors.
It fits in this thread, since the threat is of a paranoid--misuse of power issue.
ID Cards.
That's right. This monster from the past that has been used to scare the right with biblical 666/revelation leading ID cards will be the result of universal health care.
Why?
Well, if everyone has healthcare then everyone will need an Insurance Card--like we all get now from our various insurance companies.
But the Public Option is guaranteed to lead to only the Public Option being available--so we will all be forced to have Public Option Insurance Cards--or Universal ID Cards.
Even if we don't do Public Option one way they keep talking about streamlining efficiency in health care is to automate records. This means--tracking all the patients. This means Universal ID Cards.
And once the feds have our ID--its all over.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Your essential premise - that reporting on possibly illegal behavior is the same as reporting political free speech - is wrong. Very, very wrong. So wrong, in fact, that I suspect you know it and are just screwing around.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
A refresher on what TIPS was:
quote:Operation TIPS (Terrorist Information and Prevention System) is a new Bush Administration proposal that will be bundled into its volunteer Citizen Corps. The White House has announced plans to begin a pilot project in some cities in August.
Specifically, the initiative will recruit one million volunteers in 10 cities across the country and encourage them to report suspicious activity that might be terrorism-related. According to the White House, it will try to make volunteers of letter carriers, cable tv installers and gas, electric and utility workers who because their work allows them inside people's homes, are well suited to recognize the unusual.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Your essential premise - that reporting on possibly illegal behavior is the same as reporting political free speech - is wrong. Very, very wrong. So wrong, in fact, that I suspect you know it and are just screwing around.
Who's premise is that? Mine? I must warn you again, that you are committing another genetic fallacy by arguing against a statement I did not make. I did not say: "reporting possibly illegal behavior is the same as reporting political free speech." My opinion is that Flag is not wrong, and I can also explain my feeling behind that.
First of all, nearly everything said by anyone is free speech. There are noted exceptions, and the simple fact that some speech is political in nature, does not imbue it with an invincible shield against recrimination. Sharing information with the government of one's own free will is also, I remind you, a form of free speech. The government at nearly any time has the practical ability to silence our right to free speech. This is even legal and necessary at times, allowing that due process of law is undertaken. This is how we try to protect our secrets, protect jurors from reprisal, protect defendants against jury tampering, protect public officials and public employees, protect children against indecency and predatory advertising, and protect students from political indoctrination or intimidation by their teachers, and this is part of how we stop public employees from abusing their positions for personal or political reasons. Flag didn't limit free speech at all. Flag refined the process by which information could be shared with the government about items of free speech. And again, private citizens have every right to share this information with the government.
Now, setting up a process whereby citizens are encouraged or given an equally easy solution for reporting suspicious behavior? Even more so, recruiting trusted colleagues and local citizens to spy in people's homes, and become active snitches for the government? First of all, we have systems in place for reporting suspicious behavior, and we have departments of the federal and local governments who collect and act upon such information. I felt, and I do feel now, that the only added benefit to the government of such an additional method would be to encourage and welcome personal denunciations and accusations that would not pass muster with existing law enforcement and national security entities. Also in classic Bush style, it was meant to side-step the government's legal responsibilities for the rights of individuals to privacy. A catch-all mechanism whereby individuals are empowered to air their suspicions with no personal responsibility for their veracity, and to do so in the stead of active criminal investigation undertaken by sworn professionals and public servants, is not a good idea. You will recall that an accused person is entitled under our laws to face his accusers directly. The Bush administration, I think you may again agree, took steps to limit that right in the case of suspected domestic and international terror.
Why are the not the same? Reporting possibly, (or certainly) erroneous free speech to the government is not in itself an accusation of a crime. As you said, the speech is by and large political in nature, and by and large not in any way illegal, unless it is slanderous or libelous. This program was not set up with the stated purpose of reporting libel and slander. It was set up to gather information on free speech. Thus, reporting free speech to the government, for any purpose, does not constitute an accusation. Aside from that TIPS, as squick points out, was intended to actually encourage private citizens to spy on each other in private homes, secretly, as informants for the government. We're talking about two things of vastly different proportions. That is just a small part of why the are different, and that is why I have different opinions of the two very different things.
So, once again, the logical fallacy has been yours. Nowhere did I, though others may have compared them, state that these two systems were the same. Nor, I suspect, did anyone claim they were equivalent. Rather, many pointed out that a complaint against flag would beg the question of one's opinion of wiretapping or Tips. You have steadfastly reserved your opinions on those things, instead choosing to project false arguments onto others. It's disappointing, really.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Thank you, Orincoro- I hadn't realized quite the depth of misunderstanding here, and you've summed things up rather nicely.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Oh well, I suppose my logic was far too fallacious to taken seriously. Cut and run might have been the best strategy.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Just to clarify, Orincoro:
You feel that because under flag@whitehouse.gov a reporting citizen isn't accusing anybody of illegal activity, and because they're not actively stopping anyone's speech (i.e. it's still free) it's ethical for them to voluntarily report the speech to the White House. And because it's ethical for you to voluntarily report it, it is not unethical for the White House to request it.
Whereas under TIPS a reporting citizen is accusing somebody of (potential) illegal activity, which makes both the reporting unethical, since 1) there already exist other mechanisms to report suspicious activity and 2) it increases the likelihood that the individual's civil rights will be violated. And since voluntary reporting of such behavior is unethical, solicited reporting is certainly unethical.
<edit>P.S.- Since there's been a lot of angst over the incivility of discussion at Hatrack recently, you might consider choosing not to taunt people. Its easy to let aggressive snideness creep into online dialog, particularly when you feel you've been attacked, but everyone will be better off if you fight the impulse.</edit>
[ August 27, 2009, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I think this was handled very badly. I understand why the White House did what it did-- they want to be able to hear all the arguments leveled at them in order to meet them face on. They want arguments, not the names of dissenters.
But someone surely should have realised how this was going to be so easily spun by the opposition. If you're going to do it at all, you need to make the purpose very, very, very clear.
And even then, I wouldn't risk it. I would instead hire an intern to go on the internet and trawl through news and forums like this one, searching for arguments the old fashioned way. It would have been safer.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:<edit>P.S.- Since there's been a lot of angst over the incivility of discussion at Hatrack recently, you might consider choosing not to taunt people. Its easy to let aggressive snideness creep into online dialog, particularly when you feel you've been attacked, but everyone will be better off if you fight the impulse.</edit>
I second that emotion.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Senoj, What's your impression of the TIPS program?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I feel that it would wrong, as in "the wrong thing to do," for the white house to request such information from individuals. But we must be careful in how we define our terms. Flag is not in itself a request, but a mechanism whereby speech can be reported, for specifically stated purposes. I happen to believe that it was what it was claimed to be, and nothing more. I haven't worked out the ethics of the thing entirely to my own satisfaction, but I am aware of feeling that this act does not threaten me or worry me in any way.
As for TIPS, we're not just talking about reporting. We're talking about the government recruiting specific people, namely government workers who do not work in law enforcement, and private citizens who are also not sworn officers of the courts or federal law enforcement, to investigate and implicate members of their communities for suspicious behavior. It is not unethical, in my mind, to encourage the reporting of suspicious behavior to law enforcement. However, for the government to request that private citizens and public employees, who are not bound by the duties and procedures, as well as the oversight of the courts, to accumulate evidence of suspicious activity in the furtherance of a national campaign against domestic terrorism is not just reporting suspicious activities. In effect, I think the ethical conflict lies in the intent of the request, as I see it, to circumvent the normal and expected privacy of individuals by accumulating non-professional and not officially sanctioned investigations, under the guise of free speech reporting of suspicious activity. The nature of the information could be the same in any case. If a mailman saw wiring devices for a bomb lying around in an open shed, and reported it to law enforcement, there is no ethical violation. If the government requests that the mailman maintain more than his ordinary vigilance, and act decidedly outside his scope of practice as a government worker, but takes no steps to train him or go through the legal process required to make him a representative of law enforcement, that's a problem.
The government uses snitches and informants all the time. But these people are recruited individually, under the supervision of law enforcement officers, to implicate already suspected criminals- the use of informants hopefully does not supplant the presence or actual sworn officers of the law, but rather makes officers of the law responsible for individual informants, and responsible also to the rights of the suspect. The informant is not intended to act on the behalf of law enforcement in investigating crime, but instead to cooperate with the police in their investigations. That informant would be required later to face the person he has helped to implicate, and that informant will be held responsible for the veracity of the information and testimony he gives. It may not always work out that way in practice, I grant you, but that is the intended order of things.
And we're not just talking about government workers. TIPS could apply to anyone. Unlike with flag, TIPS offers a fairly broad range of opportunities for abuse, and little to no insurance against it. It also seems to offer no culpability on the part of the individuals tapped to provide information- they would be treated under such a program the same as private individuals who merely report suspicion, rather than being encouraged to investigate their neighbors.
In short, asking someone to be on the lookout for suspicious behavior fairly negates that person's ability to actually be reasonably conscious of their surroundings, rather than actively suspicious. That is why cops work on investigations and law enforcement around the clock, and not simply while going about their daily lives, only acting should they happen to spot a problem. And that is why cops are bound by stricter codes of conduct than the average person. They are going out and looking for trouble- and they find it more often than the rest of us. If you ask a private citizen or an untrained government worker to go out there and do his part to search out the terrorists, he's going to, and in the process he's going to do damage to your rights, and endanger your personal freedom and privacy.
Part of all that is just practical in my mind. TIPS wouldn't work as stated- it might be *effective* but McCarthy was effective without his reign of terror actually ever doing anything positive, or making anyone much safer. Because he had chosen to persecute people who had specifically enumerated rights to engage in the activities they were accused of, the terror was in itself the only weapon needed, and the only one really intended. Insofar as that's an arm of the government acting in direct contradiction of its stated duties, and deliberately circumventing its own mechanisms for protecting individual rights, I see an ethical problem. The Bush administration notoriously and repeatedly acted in this way, exploiting various legal loop holes and grey areas of the law to accomplish its goals with no responsibility to those laws' intentions, nor to the spirit of our constitution, nor their own oaths of office. That is why Bush, a sworn public servant, flouted the constitution and the Geneva Conventions, by detaining prisoners on foreign soil. Because it was not "illegal," or more appropriately it was an issue that could not fall under the proper jurisdiction of our legal system, it was a clear and willing act of betrayal of the division of powers. Bush's philosophy seemed to be that because the opportunity for exploitation existed, the right and privilege of the executive was to be exploitative. I found that to be horrifying. I hope I always do.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Senoj, What's your impression of the TIPS program?
I wasn't aware of it until you mentioned it here. I have yet to form a solid opinion of it. On the one hand, it seems like J. Edgar Hoover-style paranoia. On the other, similar programs seem to have demonstrated success at increasing national security without raising the same red flags about federal intrusiveness. In general I think there are probably ways in which public-private information gathering can be implemented with sufficient civil liberty safeguards. Whether TIPS would have done so I can't really say.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:That is why Bush, a sworn public servant, flouted the constitution and the Geneva Conventions, by detaining prisoners on foreign soil.
Keep in mind though, the Obama administration is also asserting the right to detain "enemy combatants."
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
The name on the door is not going to change my mind about the behavior. If you think that's likely to alter my opinion of the activity, you're wrong. I realize that a presidential administration is wont to hang on with a death grip to anything that was allowed to happen in previous administrations.
That said, Obama inherited that problem, and could not very well simply release the people detained without trying to bring some semblance of legality and order to the process. In a perfect world, actually, I would hope that every single detainee were released immediately and without condition, damn the consequences. Unfortunately, the consequences may be severe, not only politically, but for the individuals who are detained, as they in some cases have no support from any other government, nor any promise of future security outside the United States or Cuba. I say bring them to the States in an orderly manner, and damn well let them go if it is found fitting by due process of law. This idiotic outcry that giving them their rightful access to a court of law will almost surely allow them to go free is just a wallbanger for me. Yes, if the US detained and imprisoned and tortured them illegally, they get to go free. It's called obeying the law, or suffering the rather severe and inconvenient consequences of the law. If we don't have that, we haven't got much.
Obama had very little choice in the matter, and I'm willing to be patient in observing the steps he may take to reverse the damage. It would be a very different story if he continued to use the practice with future "enemy combatants." But as it is, the horse is already *in* the barn so to speak, and Obama is forced by Bush's horrifyingly poor judgment to continue the miscarriage of justice in want of any better solution.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
As far as the Obama administration is concerned, I'm far more unnerved by the change of tune regarding State Secrets. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
It's an unnerving article. If you go into the case examples that are filtering in, a theme seems to be a continuation of the practice concerning crimes committed under Bush, having mostly to do with counter-terrorism, not surprisingly.
Now, first I'm not an apologist for this behavior, but I try to be as pragmatic as possible in looking at it. The big problem here, both in looking at Bush and in looking at Obama, is that when we're talking about state secrets, the whole point is that they are meant to involve facts with which we are not acquainted. Now, in the specific cases such as that of Binyam Mohamed, in which the White House is trying to block not only a US court, but also a British court from entering into a discovery phase, it is difficult (though not completely impossible) to imagine a legitimately prescient argument for denying his right even to that much of a trial, based on some looming threat to national security.
In my opinion, the pooch got screwed on this issue whenever it was the State Secrets Act was adopted- which I don't know. We absolutely MUST have a check against the Executive's power over information. I will have to watch this item more carefully and see where it goes. I'm not *completely* convinced that the use of the privilege is invalid, just as with Bush I was frustrated at the fact that I would never be sure of whether he was acting in good faith, or not, or was just stupid, or doing the best possible thing he could do, because we would never see the whole picture. We got 8 years to judge Bush on the merits of what he *did* do in public, which if it was any indication of how he handled secretive matters, was not encouraging in the least. Obama has had 9 months, and lest we forget, he has inherited a rather strikingly unique set of challenges. I'm giving it time.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:The name on the door is not going to change my mind about the behavior.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)