navwin » Discussion » The Alley » The times...
The Alley
Post A Reply Post New Topic The times... Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648


0 posted 2009-08-29 12:06 PM



they are a changin':
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIKPKjl0-pg

© Copyright 2009 Denise - All Rights Reserved
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

1 posted 2009-08-31 12:34 PM


More frightening stuff:

Here are two articles regarding Van Jones and his communist beliefs and associations who is now a special advisor to President Obama.  This is just one of the radicals that Obama has surrounded himself with in the White House.  There are now over 40 czars along with their staffs to support them.  These "special advisors" as the White House is now calling them were not vetted by the Senate and answer to no one but the President.  One of the people in one of Van Jones' organizations, the Apollo Group, is a co-founder of the radical Weather Underground along with Bill Ayers (remember him?).  This organization, the Apollo Group, was responsible for writing part of the Stimulus Bill and is now spending millions of our money at their discretion for their causes.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=108445
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=108441

The White House is not responding to calls for information on this or how these czars were screened.  Van Jones and the other guy spending our stimulus money also have criminal backgrounds and are ex-cons.

Van Jones describes himself as a community organizer now working within the framework of the federal government family.


Here’s an article on Obama's new and first ever FCC "Diversity Chief".  Obama is going after conservative talk radio.  This new Diversity Chief praises Hugo Chavez and praises his "democratic" revolution.
http://www.newsmax.com/ruddy/obama_talk_radio/2009/08/30/253646.html


Is this the hope and change some people thought they were voting for?


Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354
Listening to every heart
2 posted 2009-08-31 06:31 PM


While sort of "on topic" and since you're in the know more than I am, Denise, I'm curious: are czars considered paid by the Federal Government, and if so, do they make the same wages? That might sound like a funny question, but I don't think it is. What's their compensation? I could go on line and find out what actual federal workers [as well as state workers] might make, but what does a Czar bring home?

Just curious...and finding the whole time out on logic highly amusing, even though my pocketbook is sorely missing some "cents".


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

3 posted 2009-08-31 08:43 PM


That's one of the problems, Karilea, nobody knows how much they are paid, how they were screened, chosen, what the details are regarding the size of their staff, who they are, what they are paid etc., although I am sure they are paid from our tax dollars, no doubt. And they answer to no one except Obama. Not to you, to me, or to Congress. There are 40 plus of the 'Czars', or as the White House prefers to call them, 'special advisors', at this time. Some more questions: Why would Obama choose people who have radical backgrounds, criminal records, ties to the Weather Underground and other radical groups, and an avowed communist, as advisors? How much power do they wield?

Here is a link where you can watch all five videos of Glenn Beck's special programs last week on this issue and more. Many important questions posed by Beck need answers. So far the White House has been silent, except to call to say to stop calling them Czars, they are Special Advisors.

http://patriotsnetwork.com/
  

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
4 posted 2009-08-31 08:52 PM


Karilea, it was reported on ABC news that the czars make between 135,000 on the low end to 175,000 on the high end. Then they also have staffs....and, yes, we pay for them, although they do not report to and are not obliged to answer to COngress.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

5 posted 2009-09-01 08:51 AM


Welcome back Michael. Good to see you!

Here's an interesting article regarding Obama's selection of his advisors:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=108545


Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354
Listening to every heart
6 posted 2009-09-01 09:47 AM


Aha...I'm reminded why I veer away from the news. Ack...but thanks, Denise. I do listen to Glenn now and then - I usually rely on the spouse to bring me up to date. But my question, and the answers, were something that we had both missed.

Welcome back, Mike!


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
7 posted 2009-09-01 10:26 AM


Nice to be here.....I think.

Democrats will simply go after the messenger here, being Beck, but what he presents are actual facts of the czar backgrounds and their own quotes, which cannot be refuted, regardless of the messenger.

I cannot believe that even the most dyed-in-the-wool, Obama-supporting liberal can look at these points and not feel that there is something very wrong here. Closing their eyes, and minds, is their only choice, which they will do and to hell with the country.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

8 posted 2009-09-01 12:00 PM


If this columnist's suspicions are correct things are even worse than we could have imagined:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14262

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
9 posted 2009-09-01 03:10 PM



I don't like the whole idea of Czars. It was probably a good solution to a specific problem when Roosevelt first introduced them. Since then however they've been so overused that they've eventually just ended up as a placebo for the people, used by successive Governments that didn't really have a clue how to fix a problem but wanted to be seen to be doing something and appease public concern.

Take the E.coli outbreak.

Faced with the issue of food safety that had the nation in a panic the logical move would have been to endorse stronger food standards and maybe bolster the Food and Drug Administration with extra resources to enforce current standards. So what did the president do?

He appointed Dr. David W.K. Acheson as the Food Safety Czar. His job? Well a sceptic might say, with good reason, that it was to do what someone else was already supposed to be doing but wasn't.

Does that sound like a good plan? I mean you don't sack the idiot who can't do his job you just employ someone else he can report his latest incompetence to on a daily basis.


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
10 posted 2009-09-01 08:58 PM


As usual -- Glenn Beck is either a  liar  or  an  idiot  (or both).

This isn't really worth the time, but, one doesn't have to look very far to find facts:

First:

Van Jones works for the Council on Environmental Quality and reports to Nancy Sutley -- and as Chair she was confirmed by the Senate.

If you want to know Van Jones salary -- submit an FOI request

Second:

quote:

After smearing White House special advisor Van Jones for days on his show, Glenn Beck said on August 27, 2009: "I want to point out the silence; no one has challenged these facts -- they just attack me personally."

Well, the White House is wise to stay above the fray but someone has to set the record straight. And as the person who first hired Van Jones, initially as a legal intern and later as a legal fellow, I am in a unique position to know the truth.

And the truth is: Beck is fabricating his facts.

For instance: several times on his show, Beck has said or implied that Van went to prison for taking part in the Rodney King riots.

Van has never served time in any prison. He has never been convicted of any crime. And just to be clear: Van was not even in Los Angeles during those tumultuous days.

I know because he was working for me -- in San Francisco -- when the four Los Angeles police officers were acquitted in the beating of Rodney King. I was the Executive Director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area when Van was an intern.
----
The True Story (From Someone Who Was There)

This is what really happened. On May 8, 1992, the week AFTER the Rodney King disturbances, I sent a staff attorney and Van out to be legal monitors at a peaceful march in San Francisco. The local police, perhaps understandably nervous, stopped the march and arrested hundreds of people -- including all the legal monitors.

The matter was quickly sorted out; Van and my staff attorney were released within a few hours. All charges against them were dropped. Van was part of a successful class action lawsuit later; the City of San Francisco ultimately compensated him financially for his unjust arrest (a rare outcome).

So the unwarranted arrest at a peaceful march -- for which the charges were dropped and for which Van was financially compensated -- is the sole basis for the smear that he is some kind of dangerous criminal.

Van has spoken often about that difficult period 17 years ago -- and its impact on him, as a young law student. But to imply that he was somehow a rioter who went to prison is absurd. Beck also bizarrely claims that Van was arrested in the Seattle WTO protests. That is just a flat-out falsehood.

You don't have to take my word for it. Arrests and convictions are all a matter of public record. Beck is at best relying on Internet rumors or even inventing claims to boost his ratings.

Beck is no more accurate with present facts than he is with past ones.

Beck has said repeatedly that Van is some kind of a mysterious "czar," accountable to no one but the President. A simple Internet search shows that this claim is false. A March 10, 2009, press release announced that Van was hired by the Chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality - to work on her staff as a "special advisor."

In other words, Van is within the normal White House chain of command, reporting to an office confirmed by the United States Senate, just like most White House staffers. Media outlets sometimes use the "czar" shorthand. But the facts show that Van has no mysterious role or extra-constitutional powers.

Beck has implied on two occasions that Van Jones and other Obama appointees were not vetted by the FBI. False. I was interviewed in my own office by an FBI agent, dutifully vetting Van. Yet another fabrication on the part of Mr. Beck.
http://www.alternet.org/story/142310/glenn_beck%27s_crazy_lies_about_van_jones/



Third:

The Secretary of Labor spends the money related to jobs creation.

Fourth:

This really isn't worth the time.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
11 posted 2009-09-02 07:51 PM


Last week President Obama appointed yet another “czar” with massive government power, answering only to him. Even before this latest appointment, the top-ranking Democrat in the Senate wrote President Obama a letter saying that these czars are unconstitutional. President Obama’s “czar strategy” is an unprecedented power grab centralizing authority in the White House, outside congressional oversight and in violation of the Constitution.

As of last week, Czar Kenneth Feinberg has the authority to set the pay scale for executives at any company receiving government money (and how many aren’t, these days?). Czar Feinberg has the power to say that someone’s pay is excessive, and to make companies cut that pay until the czar is pleased. Congress did not give Czar Feinberg this authority. For that matter, Congress has not authorized any of the czars that President Barack Obama has created. Over the past thirty years presidents have each had one or two czars for various issues, and once the number went as high as five. But now, by some counts President Obama has created sixteen czars, and there may be more on the way. Each of these has enormous government power, and answers only to the president.

Democratic Senator Robert Byrd is the president pro tempore of the U.S. Senate.  Senator Byrd wrote a letter to President Obama in February, criticizing the president’s strategy of creating czars to manage important areas of national policy. Senator Byrd said that these appointments violate both the constitutional system of checks and balances and the constitutional separation of powers, and is a clear attempt to evade congressional oversight. (Didn’t this White House promise unprecedented transparency?)

http://townhall.com/columnists/KenKlukowski/2009/06/15/senior_democrat_says_obamas_czars_unconstitutional

Interesting that one of the top Democrats can see there is something wrong here and our illustrious members here can't.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
12 posted 2009-09-02 07:59 PM


Until last week, Carol M. Browner, President-elect Barack Obama's pick as global warming czar, was listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for "global governance" and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.

By Thursday, Mrs. Browner's name and biography had been removed from Socialist International's Web page, though a photo of her speaking June 30 to the group's congress in Greece was still available.

Socialist International, an umbrella group for many of the world's social democratic political parties such as Britain's Labor Party, says it supports socialism and is harshly critical of U.S. policies.

The group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, the organization's action arm on climate change, says the developed world must reduce consumption and commit to binding and punitive limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr. Obama, who has said action on climate change would be a priority in his administration, tapped Mrs. Browner last month to fill a new position as White House coordinator of climate and energy policies. The appointment does not need Senate confirmation.

Mr. Obama's transition team said Mrs. Browner's membership in the organization is not a problem and that it brings experience in U.S. policymaking to her new role.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/12/obama-climate-czar-has-socialist-ties/print/

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
13 posted 2009-09-02 08:03 PM


President Obama: 16 Czars (and counting)

    * Drug Czar: Gil Kerlikowske, former Seattle police chief

    * Energy and Environment Czar: Carol Browner

    * Homeland Security Czar: John Brennan

    * Health Czar: Nancy-Ann DeParle

    * Urban Affairs Czar: Adolfo Carrion, Jr.

    * Economic Czar: Paul A. Volcker

    * Regulatory Czar: Cass R. Sunstein

    * Technology Czar: Vivek Kundra

    * Government Performance Czar: Jeffrey Zients

    * Border Czar: Alan Bersin

    * WMD Policy Czar: Gary Samore

    * Intelligence Czar (Director of National Intelligence): Dennis Blair

    * Car Czar: Steven Rattner

    * Pay Czar: Kenneth R. Feinberg

    * Great Lakes Czar: Cameron Davis

    * Cyber Czar: TBA

Let’s talk a little more about this. Know how many Czars Reagan had? One. Bush 41? One. Clinton? Three. Dubya? Four. Obama has already QUADRUPLED that. And since most of these positions are already covered by Secretaries, the overlap is wasteful. And some are just inane (seriously, A GREAT LAKES CZAR? What is a Great Lakes Czar? Overlord of the Catfish? I don’t understand). Scariest part? Czars have no one to answer to but Obama. Know how much they are in control of? $1.7 TRILLION. Yeah.
http://pinkelephantpundit.com/2009/06/10/obama-czar-of-czars/


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
14 posted 2009-09-02 10:39 PM


You'll need to revise your numbers considerably Mike.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2  009/jun/12/john-mccain/McCain-says-Obama-has-more-czars-than-Romanovs/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitchen_Cabinet

quote:

The kitchen cabinet is the name given to Presidential advisers who do not hold high public office but who wield great influence in the White House. President Andrew Jackson, upset because his cabinet secretaries did not rein in their wives during the Peggy Eaton affair (in which the wife of the secretary of war was accused of a prior adulterous act), relied on two newspaper editors and three minor officials in the Treasury Department instead of convening cabinet meetings. His political enemies accused him of using a “kitchen cabinet” instead of the real one.

Earlier, Thomas Jefferson had been accused of forming an “invisible cabinet” that dealt in “backstairs influence” at the White House. Later, Theodore Roosevelt had a “tennis cabinet” and Warren Harding a “poker cabinet” of advisers. Harry Truman was criticized for relying on his Missouri Gang, and he struck back at critics by claiming to have organized his own kitchen cabinet, which included a secretary for inflation, secretary of reaction, secretary for columnists, and secretary of semantics. President Ronald Reagan invited a group of California business entrepreneurs who had been active in funding his campaigns to serve as informal advisers, but after some bad publicity the White House staff got Reagan to distance himself from them.
http://www.answers.com/topic/kitchen-cabinet


http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=E4A45A27-18FE-70B2-A8D5995710778D81
(yawn)

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
15 posted 2009-09-02 10:48 PM


Maybe you should clue in Robert Byrd, reb. Of course he IS getting pretty old

Entertaining to see the time you put into something not worth the time that makes you yawn.

Keep thinking everything is fine and above board...it's  easier that way.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
16 posted 2009-09-02 10:53 PM


15 whole minutes.

All ya gotta do is look around Mike.



Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
17 posted 2009-09-02 11:19 PM


Look around alternet? I'll pass...

What I'd like to see is an unemployment czar. B.O. could certainly use one of those...

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

18 posted 2009-09-03 12:03 PM




     I did a Google search.  The first page yielded this phrase:

"1 - 10 of about 4,980,000 for Use of "Czar" during Bush Administration." This suggests that Four is apparently inaccurate for George W. Bush by a very wide margin.  

     I have not checked the figures for George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.  Since the title "Czar" is as frequently imposed by the newspapers as by the administration itself, the issue seems to be an attempt to say something critical of Obama without actual content.

     "The Car Czar," if I understand the dates correctly, was an invention of George W. Bush.  "The Aids Czar" was his as well;  also "The War Czar." Many many other Czars are his as well, and since "Czar" is not a formal title in this country and is not spoken of in the constitution, any suggestion that it would be confirmed by the Senate would be inappropriate.  

    To criticize something that is not supposed to be confirmed by the Senate for not having been confirmed by the Senate seems a puzzle to me.  Should the congress have wished this to have been the case, it would have made its will known already.  It certainly has the power to do so now, should it believe that it needs do so at this point.  Then the courts can comment, should they wish to do so.

     In the meantime, the only jobs with titles like "Czar" in this country are created by the newspapers and the media because they sell more soap.  And the Senate doesn't have to confirm anybody's ability to sell soap.  



serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

19 posted 2009-09-03 01:22 AM


This is the spit that keeps me away.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

20 posted 2009-09-03 09:51 AM


I think staying above the fray implies a moral high ground, which I don't think the government has.

If you go to the first Beck program there is an audio clip of Van Jones in his own words saying that he went into jail a Marxist and came out a Communist. That's a quick evolvement for a couple hours in lockup, but I guess anything is possible.

Should someone have to do an FOI request to find out how much a special advisor is being paid out of taxpayer money? Where's the transparency in that? Why isn't it freely available along with other federal positions, especially if that someone merely works for the chair of a council in a position confirmed by Congress?

Also, Van Jones' group, The Appolo Alliance, of which he is a founding board member, helped to write the Stimulis Bill, the one that nobody was allowed time to actually read before voting on, that funded itself billions with our tax dollars. Another co-founder and board member is another Mr. Jones (his first name escapes me at the moment) is also a co-founder of the Weather Underground along with Bill Ayers.

quote:
Despite its seemingly innocuous name, the Apollo Alliance is just as radical and far left as ACORN. Their website may be filled with "institutional speak," but they are, in reality, as red as Mao's Handbook. The organizers of Apollo may claim the organization was "launched in the aftermath of the 9/11 tragedy" for the purposes of developing green technology, but 9/11was simply the crisis they were able to take advantage of. After all, as the Obama White House likes to remind us, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."

Apollo is about establishing coalitions in states and cities nationwide to "promote policy change consistent [with their] Ten-Point Plan for reducing America's dependence on foreign oil." That may sound like a novel plan until we investigate deeper. It is then that we find a group as dangerous as the Weather Underground. Their sensus plenior is radical control of the energy free-market and control of our private property.

Groups like Apollo Alliance may be unknown to 99 percent of Americans, but they're not unknown to Barack Hussein Obama – which brings me to my point.

Why would Obama, who promised he would surround himself with respected experts like Warren Buffet, former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, Gen. Jim Jones (former supreme allied commander of NATO), Dick Lugar and other ranking Republicans, instead align himself with radical communists and anarchists of such groups?

Start with Van Jones, Obama's green jobs czar. Matthew Vadum writes, "[Jones and] Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), the revolutionary group formed by [the] self-described communist and rowdy black nationalist … held a vigil in Oakland, Calif., mourning the victims of U.S. imperialism around the world on the night after Sept. 11, 2001."

"He does not appear to have distanced himself from his past communist activities and is now part of the Obama administration's push to turn Sept.11 into a National Day of Service focused on the promotion of the radical environmentalist agenda." ("Van Jones and His STORMtroopers Denounced America the Night After 9/11"; The American Spectator Blog; Aug. 29, 2009) I pause to ask how one turns the worst terrorist act on American soil in history into a day of environmental service?

Aaron Klein wrote, "[Jones'] radical group's manual boasted the 9/11 vigil was held to express solidarity with Arab and Muslim Americans, and to mourn the civilians killed in the terrorist attacks as well as the victims of U.S. imperialism around the world." ("Obama 'Czar' on 9/11: Blame U.S. Imperialism"; WorldNetDaily.com; Aug. 28, 2009)

Klein also reported that "a section of STORM's manual … describes Jones' organization as having a commitment to the fundamental ideas of Marxism-Leninism. "We agreed with Lenin's analysis of the State and the Party," reads the manifesto, "and we found inspiration in the revolutionary strategies developed by third world revolutionaries like Mao Zedong and Amilcar Cabral."

Why would Obama invest so much power in a non-elected legislator, like Jones, who holds such radical anarchist views? The answer is: for the same reason he would select John Holdren, as science czar knowing he has proposed and advocated compulsory sterilization and forced abortions to control the population.

Obama selected Jones for the same reason he selected Cass Sunstein, a man who proposes bans on hunting and eating meat and who has proposed that our dogs be allowed to have an attorney in court, to be the regulatory czar. And although Sunstein has distanced himself from his proposed "fairness doctrine" for the Internet – if Obama's push for emergency control of the Net is realized, his backing away will be a moot point.

Why would Obama select Carol Browner, an outspoken member of Socialist International – a group that advocates global governance (read: one-world government) – to be global-warming czar? Why did he select Ezekiel Emanuel as health care adviser at the same time he is claiming there are no death panels in his universal health-care reform initiative? Are we to believe he is unaware that Emanuel is an outspoken proponent of the Complete Lives System, which puts values on lives based mostly on age?

Obama selected these and his other radical czars for the same reason he made friends with William Ayers and spent 20 years in Jeremiah Wright's church – because their ideologies are sympatico and always have been – he just couldn't say that while campaigning.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=108545

Why does this group get to help write legislation and benefit financially from it?

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

21 posted 2009-09-03 10:14 AM


Should this concern anybody? If not, why not?
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=108696

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

22 posted 2009-09-06 06:58 PM


More shameful shenanigans by the administration:
http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/?p=1891

Van Jones was just the tip of the iceberg.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
23 posted 2009-09-06 08:41 PM


Let's leave it at...none are so blind as those who will not see.

[This message has been edited by Balladeer (09-06-2009 10:01 PM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
24 posted 2009-09-07 07:23 AM


The Van Jones (non) feeding frenzy
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
09/04/09 11:30 AM EDT

From a Nexis search a few moments ago:

Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the New York Times: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the Washington Post: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on NBC Nightly News: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on ABC World News: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on CBS Evening News: 0.

If you were to receive all your news from any one of these outlets, or even all of them together, and you heard about some sort of controversy involving President Obama's Special Adviser for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, your response would be, "Huh?" If you heard that that adviser, Van Jones, had apologized for a number of remarks and positions in the recent past, your response would be, "What?" And if you were in the Obama White House monitoring the Jones situation, you would be hoping that the news organizations listed above continue to hold the line -- otherwise, Jones, who is quite well thought of in Obama circles, would be history.


9/5/09 UPDATE: The New York Times, ABC and NBC hold the line

After the Jones controversy reached a boiling point on Friday, the Washington Post published a story, "White House Says Little on Embattled Jones," on page A-3 of its Saturday edition. But the New York Times remained silent on the story.

Likewise, on Friday night the "CBS Evening News" reported the Jones matter, but ABC's "World News" and "NBC Nightly News" again failed to report the story.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/The-Van-Jones-non-feeding-non-frenzy-57271402.html


...let me add, none are so blind as those who solely rely on network news for their i nformation.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
25 posted 2009-09-07 09:53 AM


quote:

..let me add, none are so blind indoctrinated as those who solely rely on network conservative news propaganda machine for their i nformation misinformation.



quote:

*** Remind us again how the media is biased…: Finally, here’s one more thought about the entire controversy over Obama’s education speech on Tuesday: Since the White House has said the text of the speech will be available for 24 hours before he delivers it and since they altered the lesson plan language, why is this still a controversy? The ability of the conservative media machine to generate a controversy for this White House is amazing. In fact, this is an example of a story that percolates where it becomes harder and harder for some to claim there's some knee-jerk liberal media bias. (Does anyone remember these kinds of controversies in the summer of 2001?) The ability of some conservatives to create media firestorms is still much greater than liberals these days. How effective is the conservative media machine? Just ask Van Jones…   http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/09/04/2052774.aspx



quote:

Meanwhile, the chairman of the House Republican Conference, Rep. Mike Pence (Ind.), called on Jones to quit or be fired, saying, "His extremist views and coarse rhetoric have no place in this administration or the public debate."

Jones, author of "The Green Collar Economy" and, since March, the special adviser for green jobs at the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), has faced withering criticism from conservatives for weeks over his activist background. Fox News host Glenn Beck has been a leading voice in the criticism. (Notably, Beck's advertisers are facing boycott calls from a group Jones helped found.)

The blog Gateway Pundit reported Thursday that Jones signed in 2004 a petition from 911Truth.org. The petition questioned whether Bush administration officials "may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war."

On Thursday, Jones apologized for signing the petition.

"In recent days some in the news media have reported on past statements I made before I joined the administration -- some of which were made years ago. If I have offended anyone with statements I made in the past, I apologize. As for the petition that was circulated today, I do not agree with this statement and it certainly does not reflect my views now or ever," he said in a statement issued by the CEQ.

It was his second apology of the week. On Wednesday, Jones apologized for labeling Republicans with a vulgarism in a February speech, saying that his comments were "clearly inappropriate."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/09/04/gibbs_offers_little_support_fo.html?wprss=44]http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/09/04/gibbs_offers_little_support_fo.html? wprss=44




quote:

During his 2 p.m. PDT show, Beck did not address the boycott spearheaded by Color of Change to protest the talk show host’s remark last month that he believes President Obama is “a racist.”

Instead, he spent a large share of his program suggesting that Jones, who co-founded Color of Change in 2005, is a radical. Jones now serves as a special advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

During a six-minute biographical profile, set to ominous music, Beck said Jones was twice arrested for political protests and has described himself as a "rowdy black nationalist." The talk show host cast the piece as part of a broader examination of Obama's "czars," special advisers to the president who "don't answer to anybody."

"Why is it that such a committed revolutionary has made it so high into the Obama administration as one of his chief advisers?" Beck asked.

Christine Glunz, a spokeswoman for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, noted that Jones has been lauded as an environmental hero and said his entire focus is on “building clean energy incentives which create 21st-century jobs.”

“Glenn Beck is trying to change the subject,” said James Rucker, executive director of Color of Change, who noted that Jones has not been active with the group in almost two years. “The issue is his baseless fear mongering.”

Beck has gone after Jones in the past. On July 28, he called the activist a "self-professed communist" and questioned the role he was playing in the administration. His latest assault on Jones came as Color of Change announced that it has secured commitments from 36 companies who have pledged not to advertise on Beck’s popular program, including Wal-Mart and Sprint. However, some of the companies never had a presence on "Glenn Beck." Representatives of Procter & Gamble and AT&T – listed by Color of Change as companies that had signed onto the boycott – told The Times that their companies did not run spots on Beck’s program to begin with.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2009/08/glenn-beck-ignores-ad-boycott.html]http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2009/08/glenn-beck-ignores-ad-boycott.html



quote:

A top environmental official of the Obama administration issued a statement Thursday apologizing for past incendiary statement and denying that he ever agreed with a 2004 petition on which his name appears, a petition calling for congressional hearings and an investigation by the New York Attorney General into "evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur."

Van Jones, the Special Advisor for Green Jobs at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, is Number 46 of the petitioners from the so-called "Truther" movement which suggests that people in the administration of President George W. Bush "may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war."

In a statement issued Thursday evening Jones said of "the petition that was circulated today, I do not agree with this statement and it certainly does not reflect my views now or ever."

He did not explain how his name came to be on the petition. An administration source said Jones says he did not carefully review the language in the petition before agreeing to add his name.
---------
In 2005 Jones told the East Bay Express that the acquittal of Rodney King's assailants in 1992 in that infamous police brutality case changed him significantly. "I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th," he said. "By August, I was a communist."

Jones and other young activists in 1994 formed a group called Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM, rooted in Marxism and Leninsm. Two years later, Jones launched the Ella Baker Center, an Oakland, Calif., based "strategy and action center" which states that it tries to "promote positive alternatives to violence and incarceration.

More recently, in February during a discussion on energy at Berkeley, Calif., (and prior to his joining the Obama administration) Jones referred to Republicans using an epithet for a proctological orifice, which he called "a technical, political science term."

Asked why Republicans asserted more control of the Senate when they had a smaller majority before 2006, Jones said "the answer to that is, they're a--holes." He added that President Obama is not an a--hole, but, "I will say this. I can be an a--hole, and some of us who are not Barack Hussein Obama are going to have to start getting a little bit uppity."

"I apologize for the offensive words I chose to use during that speech," Jones said in a different written statement to Politico on Wednesday. "They do not reflect the views of this administration, which has made every effort to work in a bipartisan fashion, and they do not reflect the experience I have had since I joined the administration."

- jpt

UPDATE: It's worth pointing out that Ben Smith at Politico has spoken to two signatories of that petition, Rabbi Michael Lerner and historian Howard Zinn, who say they were misled about what they were signing. And the conservative website Little Green Footballs points out that Rachel Ehrenfeld, author of “Funding Evil; How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It" has posted on her website, the American Center for Democracy: "PLEASE NOTE: Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld is not a signatory of the 911Truth.org. She has asked several times to have her named removed from the list, but the organization failed to comply."
http://blogs.abcnews.  com/politicalpunch/2009/09/controversial-obama-administration-official-denies-being-part-of-911-truther-movement-apologizes-for.html



quote:

A total of 33 Fox advertisers, including Wal-Mart Stores Inc., CVS Caremark, Clorox and Sprint, directed that their commercials not air on Beck's show, according to the companies and ColorofChange.org, a group that promotes political action among blacks and launched a campaign to get advertisers to abandon him. That's more than a dozen more than were identified a week ago.

While it's unclear what effect, if any, this will ultimately have on Fox and Beck, it is already making advertisers skittish about hawking their wares within the most opinionated cable TV shows.
---------
Beck supporters have suggested that retaliation might have something to do with ColorofChange.org's campaign. One of the group's founders, Van Jones, now works in the Obama administration and has been criticized by Beck. But Rucker said Jones has nothing to do with ColorofChange.org now and didn't even know about the campaign before it started. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32540919/ns/entertainment-television/


http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0909/Van_Jones_Ahole_remark_inapprop  riate.html?showall
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0909/Jones_apologizes_for_sta  tements_denies_911_doubts.html?showall

Up until Van Jones resigned Mike -- the only real story was that Beck was telling a bunch of lies and half-truths about Van Jones -- that a story doth not make.  The conservative media don't get to pick what the mainstream media runs as stories -- but as  Domenico Montanaro pointed out above -- too often they drive it.  

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
26 posted 2009-09-07 10:38 AM


"Up until Van Jones resigned Mike -- the only real story was that Beck was telling a bunch of lies and half-truths about Van Jones -- that a story doth not make"

Is that a fact, LR? The question would be....why is that the only real story?

In a statement issued Thursday evening Jones said "of the petition circulated today I do not agree with this statement and it certainly does not reflect my views now or ever." He did not explain how is name came to be on the petition.

Why would that not be a valid story? Why would a presidential czar being a self-confessed communist not be a valid story? Why would a founder of STORM not be a valid story? There are no lies or half-truths there.  Jones claimed that whites are literally poisoning the black community. He stated that no black had ever conducted a "Columbine" shooting, that only whites do that. There are videos of all of these. There are facts brought to light that neither Jones or Obama could repudiate, except for Jones basically saying, "Are you gonna believe what you see or what I tell you?" How stupid are these people? Don't they realize that anything they say is a matter of public record that can be  checked and verified? So Jones has apologized...is that supposed to mean something? WOuld he have apologized before becoming a czar? He tried to do  damage control and it didn't work. Where is that stringent vetting process you claimed Obama employs? Do you feel that if this had been a Bush czar, it would also have been a non-story? Please don;t tell me you're that far detached from reality. Why would a man like this having the ear of the president not be a story? Would you please point out which "lies and half-truths" Beck spewed out?

As far a Glenn Beck is concerned...


His latest assault on Jones came as Color of Change announced that it has secured commitments from 36 companies who have pledged not to advertise on Beck’s popular program, including Wal-Mart and Sprint. However, some of the companies never had a presence on "Glenn Beck." Representatives of Procter & Gamble and AT&T – listed by Color of Change as companies that had signed onto the boycott – told The Times that their companies did not run spots on Beck’s program to begin with.

While the advertising boycott has generated substantial media coverage, Fox News said it has not impacted the network’s revenues or Beck’s audience. "The advertisers referenced have all moved their spots from Beck to other programs on the network so there has been no revenue lost," a spokeswoman said.


Jones' assault on Beck through his Color of Change organization didn't hurt Beck at all. Beck has so many wannabe sponsors waiting in the wings he has no problem there. Trying to spruce it up by listing sponsors that don't even advertise with Beck didn't help their validity, either.

The fact is that the mainstream media doesn't touch what the White House doesn't want them to touch, unless it gets so out of control they have no choice. How does it get out of control? By being reported by independent news agencies not concerned with what the White House dictates.

There is a reason why Fox News is the most watched news station in the country. People go there for BOTH sides of the news, not only what mainstream media and the White House wants to spoonfeed them. You may not like  that fact but it doen't make it a non-fact. That is why  network news is in the sorry state it's in today and has such low approval ratings from the general populace.....and that's why Fox News stands out as one of the only venues where one can get complete facts presented, hence it's popularity.


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

27 posted 2009-09-07 10:56 AM


"None are so blind as those who will not see." So true, Michael. I was just thinking the same thing last night.

Which of Beck's statements are considered lies and half-truths, LR?  He backed up everything he presented with audio and/or video. If lies and half-truths are to be the focus, one needs look no further than this current administration.

The only lesson plans that were changed were for the kindergarten and elementary students. The high school kids will still be instructed to read Obama's writings (books?) and do projects highlighting some of his quotes. And these 'suggested' lesson plans came straight out of the White House.

Couldn't a reasonable person conclude that this is a blatant attempt at indoctrination of our kids with Obama's ideology? I certainly think so.

It's not the speech, per se, that poses a problem, although I would certainly have to read the transcript to see if that is also a problem, but the suggested lesson plans accompanying the speech, formulated by the White House. What's that all about? No other administration has ever done such a thing.

People who only watch the news on the Big Three have no idea what is really going on in this country. That is quite telling and quite appalling.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

28 posted 2009-09-07 12:46 PM


quote:

And it was a fresh reminder that the White House’s vetting process didn’t fall down only on high-profile nominees like Tom Daschle. It barely touched the lower reaches of the administration – a White House official conceded Sunday that Jones’ past statements weren’t as thoroughly scrubbed due to his relatively low rank. Jones’ selection also was propelled by powerful patrons, who included the first lady and the vice president.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26813.html

Did the White House Official mean to say vetted instead of scrubbed, or did the official actually mean scrubbed, as in delete from the internet?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
29 posted 2009-09-07 02:38 PM


I would guess scrubbed, as in cleaned up, as in whitewashed, as in bye-bye....a little slip of the tongue there

Perhaps Obama's strong, stringent vetting process that has kept him from filling so many positions is little more than getting Michelle's and Hillary's approval.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

30 posted 2009-09-07 03:16 PM


That was my impression too, Michael, a little slip of the tongue. Very telling, if that's what it was.


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
31 posted 2009-09-07 05:00 PM


quote:

Is that a fact, LR? The question would be....why is that the only real story?



No, it isn't a fact -- it's the 'opinion' of the editors of newspapers and television news organizations who have to decide every day what is news and what isn't.  As if we haven't discussed this as many times as Glenn Beck cries.

"If it bleeds -- it leads"

That's the axiom that rules the 'news' world.

Now, if you want to talk about the issue of punditry -- there is a different arena altogether for what makes fodder for cable.

The real question you have to ask Mike is why was Beck talking lying about Van Jones for weeks before Faux news even ran a 'story' on what it passes for objective journalism on September 2?

quote:

There is a reason why Fox News is the most watched news station in the country. People go there for BOTH sides of the news, not only what mainstream media and the White House wants to spoonfeed them. You may not like  that fact but it doen't make it a non-fact. That is why  network news is in the sorry state it's in today and has such low approval ratings from the general populace.....and that's why Fox News stands out as one of the only venues where one can get complete facts presented, hence it's popularity.



Do you really want to play the 'Fox is Fair and Balanced' game?

quote:

The Ratings Mirage
Why Fox has higher ratings--when CNN has more viewers

By Steve Rendall

Reporting on the ratings rivalry between the Fox News Channel (FNC) and CNN is often misleading--and almost always over-hyped.

"Fox Tops CNN as Choice for Cable News," declared one typical headline (Chicago Tribune , 3/24/03). "Fox News Channel Continues to Crush CNN ," reported Knight Ridder (Dallas Morning News , 2/3/04) in a column comparing the rivalry to a party primary: "Fox News Channel is winning the Nielsen caucuses." Last summer (8/17/03), the New York Times Magazine declared, looking back at the period of the Iraq invasion, "Fox was--and still is--trouncing CNN in the ratings."

After exposure to countless similar stories published since January 2002, when Fox was reported to have surpassed CNN in the Nielsen ratings, one might naturally conclude that Fox has more viewers than CNN .

But it's not true. On any given day, more people typically tune to CNN than to Fox .

So what are the media reports talking about? With few exceptions, stories about the media business report a single number for ratings (often expressed two different ways--as "points" or "share"). This number is often presented as if it were the result of a popularity contest or a democratic vote. But it is actually the average number of viewers watching a station or a show in a typical minute, based on Nielsen Media Research's monitoring of thousands of households.

The average is arrived at by counting viewers every minute. Heavy viewers--those who tune in to a station and linger there--have a greater impact, as they can be counted multiple times as they watch throughout the day.

When an outlet reports that CNN is trailing Fox , they are almost invariably using this average tally, which Fox has been winning for the past two years. For the year 2003, Nielsen's average daily ratings show Fox beating CNN 1.02 million viewers to 665,000.

But there is another important number collected by Nielsen (though only made available to the firm's clients) that tells another story. This is the "cume," the cumulative total number of viewers who watch a channel for at least six minutes during a given day. Unlike the average ratings number the media usually report, this number gives the same weight to the light viewer, who tunes in for a brief time, as it does to the heavy viewer.
----------
Journalists who publish Nielsen numbers ought to explain that the data are not simply measures of popularity, and they are not produced as a service to journalists or the public. The figures are gathered to provide advertisers with complex data about viewer habits. It pays to remember that neither cable news stations nor Nielsen Media Research are primarily in the business of serving the public interest--both are in the business of delivering audiences to advertisers.

Advertisers would rather see larger numbers of viewers see each ad a few times than have a smaller number watch the ad over and over again. But having a large number of viewers tune in for so short a period of time that they see very few ads is not desirable either. As Sherrill Maine, CNN 's senior vice president of marketing, was quoted in the Cablefax (1/26/03): "We'd like Fox 's [average] ratings; Fox would like our cume."
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2005



But it is a logical fallacy to assume that Fox is 'fair' because more people watch it -- if we're to assume that the volume of people watching is the measure of objectivity then we must assume that Fox is the least objective because more people in aggregate get their news from other sources Mike.

It is, however, factual to say that news viewership has become more polarized and a predictor of politics:

quote:

Eighty-seven percent (87%) of Fox News viewers say they are likely to vote for John McCain, while those who watch CNN and MSNBC plan to support Barack Obama in November by more than two to one.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 65% of CNN voters plan to vote for the Democratic candidate versus 26% who intend to go for the Republican. Similarly, MSNBC watchers plan to vote for Obama over McCain 63% to 30%.

Only nine percent of those who watch Fox News say they will vote for Obama

Rasmussen Poll



quote:

Despite tumultuous events abroad, the public's news habits have been relatively stable over the past two years. Yet modest growth has continued in two important areas online news and cable news. Regarding the latter, the expanding audience for the Fox News Channel stands out. Since 2000, the number of Americans who regularly watch Fox News has increased by nearly half from 17% to 25% while audiences for other cable outlets have been flat at best.

Fox's vitality comes as a consequence of another significant change in the media landscape. Political polarization is increasingly reflected in the public's news viewing habits. Since 2000, the Fox News Channel's gains have been greatest among political conservatives and Republicans. More than half of regular Fox viewers describe themselves as politically conservative (52%), up from 40% four years ago. At the same time, CNN, Fox's principal rival, has a more Democrat-leaning audience than in the past.

The public's evaluations of media credibility also are more divided along ideological and partisan lines. Republicans have become more distrustful of virtually all major media outlets over the past four years, while Democratic evaluations of the news media have been mostly unchanged. As a result, only about half as many Republicans as Democrats rate a variety of well-known news outlets as credible a list that includes ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, NPR, PBS's NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, the New York Times, Newsweek, Time and U.S. News and World Report.

CNN's once dominant credibility ratings have slumped in recent years, mostly among Republicans and independents. By comparison, the Fox News Channel's believability ratings have remained steady both overall and within partisan groups. Nonetheless, among those able to rate the networks, more continue to say they can believe all or most of what they hear on CNN than say
that about Fox News Channel (32% vs. 25%).

The partisan nature of these ratings is underscored by the fact that, while roughly the same proportion of Republicans and Democrats view Fox News as credible, Fox ranks as the most trusted news source among Republicans but is among the least trusted by Democrats.
http://people-press.org/report/215/news-audiences-increasingly-politicized



quote:

Rasmussen Reports survey found that voters see an entirely different picture. Generally speaking, they believe ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, CNN, and the Fox News Channel are biased to help one campaign or the other.

Between 33% and 39% of Americans believe that each of the five major broadcast news outlets is unbiased. On balance, four of the five are believed to be helping the Kerry campaign. One, Fox News, is believed to be helping the Bush campaign.

CBS is seen as the most biased--37% believe that network news team is trying to help the Kerry campaign. Only 33% believe it presents the news in an unbiased manner. This may be a reaction to the recent flap over memos aired by CBS--38% believe that Dan Rather used his broadcasts to help the Kerry campaign.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/media/voters_see_all_networks_with_bias



I am, however, inclined to agree that anyone who only gets their news from one source, or one type of source, isn't likely to find out much more than the sizzle.  

Who are the people who only get their news from Television? (including Fox)

The older, less educated, less affluent traditionalist -- 46% of the country in 2008:

quote:

The 2008 biennial news consumption survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press was conducted by telephone - including both landline phones and cell phones - from April 30 to June 1 among 3,612 adults nationwide. It finds four distinct segments in today's news audience: Integrators, who comprise 23% of the public; the less populous Net-Newsers (13%); Traditionalists - the oldest (median age: 52) and largest news segment (46% of the public); and the Disengaged (14%) who stand out for their low levels of interest in the news and news consumption.
http://people-press.org/report/444/news-media



Also interesting is how many Republicans get their news exclusively from Fox:

quote:

The poll finds that among GOPers, 24% think Fox is “extremely reliable,” and 41% think Fox is “reliable.” That’s a total of 65% of Republicans who see Fox as reliable or very much so.

Meanwhile, only 20% of Republicans think CNN is reliable.

Even more interesting, perhaps, is how many Republicans only get their info from Fox, as compared to the other cable networks. A surprising 74% of GOPers “never” watch CNN, and an even higher amount, 89%, never watch MSNBC. http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/poll-huge-majority-of-republicans-say-fox-news-is-reliable/
http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2009/8/6/US/331



Is there a reason for this bias among Republicans and conservatives toward Faux News?

I'll report, you'll decide (based upon your bias):

quote:

Norvell is London bureau chief for Fox News, and on May 20 he let the mask slip in, of all places, the Wall Street Journal. So far, the damage has been contained, because Norvell's comments—in an op-ed he wrote decrying left-wing bias at the BBC—appeared only in the Journal's European edition. But Chatterbox's agents are everywhere.

Here is what Norvell fessed up to in the May 20 Wall Street Journal Europe:

    Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally, and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed the scraps to Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly. And those who hate us can take solace in the fact that they aren't subsidizing Bill's bombast; we payers of the BBC license fee don't enjoy that peace of mind.

    Fox News is, after all, a private channel and our presenters are quite open about where they stand on particular stories. That's our appeal. People watch us because they know what they are getting. The Beeb's institutionalized leftism would be easier to tolerate if the corporation was a little more honest about it.

Norvell never says the word "conservative" in describing "where [Fox's anchorpeople] stand on particular stories," or what Fox's viewers "know … they are getting." But in context, Norvell clearly is using the example of Fox News to argue that political bias is acceptable when it isn't subsidized by the public (as his op-ed's target, the leftish BBC, is), and when the bias is acknowledged. Norvell's little joke about clubbing lefties to death should satisfy even the most literal-minded that the bias Norvell describes is a conservative one. (Lord only knows where Norvell acquired the erroneous belief that Fox News is "honest" about its conservative slant; perhaps he's so used to Fox's protestations of objectivity being ignored that he literally forgot that they continue to be uttered.)
http://www.slate.com/id/2119864/




quote:

On Fox News Watch, the panel was discussing the Democrats' reasons for pulling out of the Nevada presidential debate, which was to be hosted by Fox.  Panelist Neal Gabler simply said that Fox News is to conservatives as Air America Radio is to liberals.  Therefore, just as conservatives do not appear on Air America Radio, liberals have little reason to appear on Fox.  Gabler used Fox's use of the word "extreme" when referring to bloggers as more proof of the network's bias. http://www.thebluestate.com/2007/03/video_fox_news_.html



quote:

While talking about CNN's alleged bias, Fox's own panel admits the irony in accusing another network of bias, causing a storm of laughter and embarrassing the host! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7bMUalkOvw



quote:

Look, I think liberals have reasonable gripes with Fox News. It does lean to the right, primarily in its opinion programming but also in its story selection (which is fine by me) and elsewhere. But it's worth remembering that Fox is less a bastion of ideological conservatism and more a populist, tabloidy network. It often does very good hard journalism, but it gets mixed up with a lot of other stuff, and the Fox-haters are hardly inclined to be discriminating viewers when it comes to separating the wheat from the pure, concentrated evil. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/fox_john_edwards_and_the_two_a.html




quote:

Fox News' Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade dismissed protesters at the Group of Eight (G8) economic summit as "morons without jobs." Later in the same program, Kilmeade said former CBS correspondent Bernard Goldberg's newest book, 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (And Al Franken is #37) (HarperCollins, 2005) is not ideologically skewed, even though Goldberg's list includes numerous people who are Democrats, liberals, progressives, and feminist activists, and only a handful of known conservative figures.
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200507060002



quote:

Protesters From Hell

Demonstrators Invade D.C.

The protesters invaded Washington over the weekend.

From stem cell research advocates to Cindy Sheehan (search) sympathizers, protesters of all shapes, sizes, colors and odors found a cause.

Unfortunately for me — since I was traveling by train — a whole lot of them originated from or passed through New York's Penn Station, and a train delay made matters worse.

A steel girder collapsed on the tracks just outside of the station, and it was just what the doctor ordered for a bunch of anxious, ready-to-protest-just-about-anything, jobless folks — err, demonstrators — who gathered with their anti-Bush cardboard signs and their 1967-era wardrobe.

As if the tie-dyed clothes weren't stereotypically Grrring enough, they just couldn't help but to break into song. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170465,00.html



quote:

In the days leading up to the supposedly grassroots event, the New York Times' Paul Krugman noted, "a key role is being played by FreedomWorks, an organization run by Richard Armey, the former House majority leader, and supported by the usual group of right-wing billionaires. And the parties are, of course, being promoted heavily by Fox News."

The involvement of a news channel in promoting a partisan event has caused many to give the political tilt of Fox News a second look.

In the lead-up to the event, Fox News featured 9 segments and 40 promos over just two days, according to the watchdog website Media Matters. Over a one week period, 10 in-show promos were given by Fox presenter Sean Hannity, while Neil Cavuto and Glen Beck delivered 5 each. Cavuto did seven news segments on the event. All Fox News shows featured commercials advertising the protests during that time, and they were regularly described as "FNC [Fox News Channel] Tax Day Tea Parties" by on-air personalities.

In addition, Fox News contributors were listed as "Tea Party Sponsor[s]" on the website promoting the event, while appearances by Fox personalities were used to promote individual rallies.

Fox News anchor Cody Willard, reporting from one of the protests, even went so far as to say on the air, "Guys, when are we going to wake up and start fighting the fascism that seems to be permeating this country?"

In yet another tea-bag day controversy, Fox anchor Neil Cavuto was captured on an open mic discussing the crowd numbers with an on-location producer, estimating the turnout at 5,000 people, but minutes later Cavuto told viewers that "They were expecting 5,000 here, it's got to be easily double, if not triple that." http://www.vancouversun.com/news/News+sponsored+parties+fail+ignite+popular+uprising+among+conservatives/1499732/story.html



quote:

FOX NEWS INTERNAL MEMO: "Be On The Lookout For Any Statements From The Iraqi Insurgents...Thrilled At The Prospect Of A Dem Controlled Congress"...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/11/14/fox-news-internal-memo-be_n_34128.html



Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
32 posted 2009-09-07 05:09 PM


quote:

Which of Beck's statements are considered lies and half-truths, LR?



Really Denise?
/pip/Forum6/HTML/001855.html#10

quote:

This is the spit that keeps me away.
--Serenity



And isn't it the goal?

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
33 posted 2009-09-07 05:37 PM


Sorry Mike.. forgot to give you this demographic:

quote:

Median Age of Fox News Viewers is 65 – Average Dittohead Is a 67 Year Old Man http://www.pensitoreview.com/2009/05/05/average-age-of-fox-news-viewer-is-65/



And this Cavuto clip where he calls Bill Rice a 'hero' for starting a fist fight at a health reform rally:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fHSW4Txxz8

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

34 posted 2009-09-07 05:49 PM


I still don't know what you are talking about LR. Beck backed up everything he presented using Jones' own words.

I also don't know what Serenity's post means or why you referenced it or what your commment about that implies.

You need to be a little less cryptic.

And now the left is disparaging the seniors of this country and saying they'll help Fox's ratings only until they stroke out? Absolutely disgusting.

I'm glad Fox is covering the numerous Tea Parties. God knows no one else is, except to malign them. And yes, they are real grass roots, despite the left calling them astroturf. The real astroturf are Obama's minions on the left from Acorn and SEIU who have to be paid to show up to push his healthcare agenda, even advertising on Craigs List to recruit activists.  

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
35 posted 2009-09-07 06:40 PM


I'm not going around the mulberry bush with you Denise -- you can read and understand English perfectly well...

Although I can understand your difficulty in sorting out what Beck says;
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-13-2009/glenn-beck-s-operation

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

36 posted 2009-09-07 06:58 PM


My difficulty is in trying to figure out what you are saying.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
37 posted 2009-09-07 07:20 PM


A lot of clips that basically say nothing, LR, and, yes, I speak English, also, and I know mule muffins when I see them. The fact is that there are videos showing everything that got Jones bounced and nothing you can produce here can nullify that fact.

I can understand that Fox being the most watched television news is irritating to the left, just as Limbaugh being the most listened to radio program in the country, followed by Hannity and Beck is as equally irritating, especially in light of the fact that their Air America or whatever attempts they come up with to crack that stronghold have failed miserably. Call their watchers  old, senile, waiting to die off codgers or anything you want....the facts don't change.

There are way, way too many examples to show that network news is slanted and will only present whatever spin to a story they want to project. Protests of thousands of people somehow turn into hundreds, if mentioned at all. Facts about someone like a presidential advisor like Jones having been a communist, accusing whites of deliberately poisoning blacks, creating a radical group like STORM and having accused the government of complicity in 9/11 does not show up at all, unless forced to. Cap and trade being rushed through the House didn't even get a mention, even though the ramifications  of it would be mind-boggling.

The American people are not as mindless as the left would like to think they are. Fox presents them with information they don't find on network  news.

...but don't give up hope. If Obama has his way, Fox and other conservative outlets will be a thing of the past and all of the old codgers will have to listen to CNN and MSNBC by default. It;s a brave new world, indeed.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

38 posted 2009-09-07 07:31 PM


I wonder how many communists and communist sympathizers are in the current administration and Congress?

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/van-jones-mystery-solved/

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
39 posted 2009-09-07 07:39 PM


Irritated? You've got to be kidding.  This is the funniest stuff on TV.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWL-pfCao-U

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

40 posted 2009-09-07 07:43 PM


This should be the next guy to go:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovnwzMJf09o&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcaosblog%2E com%2F&feature=player_embedded

I guess the White House didn't get around to scrubbing his stuff yet either.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

41 posted 2009-09-07 08:00 PM


And her too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud_yNFnfrSI

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
42 posted 2009-09-07 08:07 PM


Don't forget to post Obama's fake Kenyan birth certificate again Denise.  I mean -- he's the one that's REAALLY got to go!
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
43 posted 2009-09-07 10:01 PM


Nicely done, Denise
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

44 posted 2009-09-08 06:22 PM


Maybe soon we will be able to see one that isn't fraudulent, LR.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=109242

Thanks Michael!


Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
45 posted 2009-09-08 09:28 PM


It's mildly amusing to me that I opened this thread today, for the first time, just after watching "Point Of Order" last night.

Enough said.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
46 posted 2009-09-11 06:18 PM


(CNN) -- Two employees at the Baltimore, Maryland, branch of the liberal community organizing group ACORN were caught on tape allegedly offering advice to a pair posing as a pimp and prostitute on setting up a prostitution ring and evading the IRS.

The video footage -- which has been edited and goes to black in some areas -- was recorded and posted online Thursday by James O'Keefe, a conservative activist. He was joined on the video by another conservative, Hannah Giles, who posed as the prostitute in the filmmakers' undercover sting.

The video shows the pair approaching two women working at the ACORN Baltimore office and asking them for advice on how to set up a prostitution ring involving more than a dozen underage girls from El Salvador.

One of the ACORN workers suggests that Giles refer to herself as a "performing artist" on tax forms and declare some of the girls as dependents to receive child tax credits.

"Stop saying prostitution," the woman, identified by the filmmaker as an ACORN tax expert, tells Giles. The other woman tells them, "You want to keep them clean ... make sure they go to school."
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/10/acorn.prostitution/index.html?imw=Y&iref=mpstoryemail http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/10/acorn.prostitution/index.html?imw=Y&iref=mpstoryemail#cnnSTCVideo

When ACORN was presented with this video, first they claimed it was a put-up job and then, after seeing the video, fired the two ACORN workers in the video.

So my question is this....is this newsworthy? Here we have an organization advising people on how to set up a prostitution house to avoid taxes. ALso, we have them being told that there would be 13-15 year old girls involved in being used as prostitiutes and it didn't bother them at all and they gave advice on how to hide them. Is this worth a headline or two? Is there anyone reading this who thinks child prostitution is an ok thing, that, when exposed, shouldn't be on the news? Ok, maybe there are some of you who think this is a big deal to conservatives just because it's ACORN. Let's make it H&R Block. If Block employees had given this same counceling, would it THEN be newsworthy? How much news coverage did it get?

The day after the video surfaced and ACORN fired the people involved, this is the amount of times our news organizations mentioned it...

Fox,,,,,,,,,,,,19
CNN............3
MSNBC.......0
ABC............0
NBC............0
CBS............0

I guess cheating the government is no big deal. Child prostitution is no big deal. An organization which has received 53,000,000.00 in government grants since 1994 and stands in line to receive a part of over 8 billion in the stimulus plan being involved in it is no big deal.

No doubt FOX jumped on it with more fervor because ACORN was involved but the fact is that ACORN WAS involved. There is also little doubt that the network news agencies didn't touch it for the same reason - because ACORN was involved.

Some of you want to continue extolling the virtues and fairness of the network news agencies? Go ahead. This is a typical example of why FOX has the large audience it has and the networks don't.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
47 posted 2009-09-11 07:04 PM


.


“Today one-third of Democrats believe that President Bush was involved in the planning of September 11.”

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGU2ZWM2YzI5MzkxMjhjOTVhYWU1ZTZlZGM5ZGY0Y2U=


What media do they read and or watch?

PS:

“In July, the popular left-wing website FiredogLake couldn’t let go of the birther bit. One post — titled “The Republican Party is the Birther Party, and it’s dragging them down” — made much of the fact that 28 percent of Republicans, according to one poll, do not believe that Obama is a natural-born citizen. This week, the site’s founder, Jane Hamsher, was disgusted that Jones was “thrown under the bus,” even though he subscribed to trutherism, a view that “35 (percent) of Democrats believed as of 2007.””

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGUyNGZlMWEzYmUwZDExMmM3NTAzOTBjMDg2YzdiZjk=

I throw this in just to show Hanson
was not coming up with a number out of the air by himself.


.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
48 posted 2009-09-11 09:09 PM


Census Bureau severs ties with ACORN in 2010 count

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Census Bureau on Friday severed its ties with ACORN, a community organization that has been hit with Republican accusations of voter-registration fraud.

"We do not come to this decision lightly," Census director Robert Groves wrote in a letter to ACORN, which was obtained by The Associated Press.

In splitting with ACORN, Groves sought to tamp down GOP concerns and negative publicity that the partnership will taint the 2010 head count.

"It is clear that ACORN's affiliation with the 2010 census promotion has caused sufficient concern in the general public, has indeed become a distraction from our mission, and may even become a discouragement to public cooperation, negatively impacting 2010 census efforts," Groves wrote.

Stephen Buckner, a census spokesman, confirmed the letter, but declined additional comment.

ACORN spokesman Scott Levenson did not immediately return a request for comment.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-09-11-acorn-hidden-camera_N.htm?csp=34

Well, at least some good came out of it....

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

49 posted 2009-09-13 08:51 PM


I wonder if any news agencies other than Fox and CNN had any coverage of the AWESOME March on Washington yesterday, of which I am thrilled to have been a part.

Here is a link showing the grounds after the innauguration and after the march yesterday. An interesting study in contrasts. I did not see one single scrap of litter the entire day.

There are also some videos that will give you an idea of how many were there as well as a feel of what it was like being there:
http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2009/09/12/conservative-patriots-v-government-trough-feeders/

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

50 posted 2009-09-13 10:25 PM




Dear Huan Yi,

          If you have trouble with the plausibility of the birther position, discuss it with Denise, who upholds that position here.  I do not find it plausible myself.

     I do not find it likely that the Republicans helped plan 9/11.  I do believe that they certainly took advantage of 9/11 to further an agenda that I do not approve of, and which I feel has been disadvantageous to the country; but that is a very different thing.

     Nor do I find it likely that The President and all his friends are Communists, Socialists and Marxists.  I say this having known Communists, Socialists and Marxists who stated that that is what they were.  I have also, in the course of my life, known and dealt with the occasional skinhead and nazi, people whom I judged to be so and who claimed to be so as well.  The President and his pals aren't right wing folks either, despite what the right wing talk show folks claim.

     If we want to chuck claims like these around, I suggest we agree on some definitions first, and then see if the people we're discussing actually fit them.  The reality is more important than any of us are, and more important than any of our egos.

     If we actually want to get at the truth, why not actually decide what a socialist is, what a fascist is and what a communist is?   Let's try to decide what the actual questions are that we want to look at.  Let's talk about what we want for the country in terms that are as concrete as possible.  This seems like a more productive way of talking than this sort of painful back and forth slashing.  

    

      

icebox
Member Elite
since 2003-05-03
Posts 4383
in the shadows
51 posted 2009-09-14 12:21 PM


Two more ACORN "sting" video tapes have been released.  One recorded in the Washington DC hoffice and one released this morning that was recorded in the Brooklyn office.  So far the pattern in each office is approximately the same.  ACORN empolyees advising a couple dressed as a pimp and a prostitute on how to circumvent and/or break various laws.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

52 posted 2009-09-14 01:51 PM


Just call me intellectually curious about the matter, Bob. When he stops hiding everything pertaining to his life from his birth certificate to his school applications and records and law firm clients, to the tune of over $1 million dollars so far, I'll stop questioning.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
53 posted 2009-09-14 05:10 PM


If  ACORN did not have the Obama connection, they would have been disbanded long ago...or, at least, incurred the loss of their government funding.

The time may come when not even Obama's influence will help them or they become another Reverend Wright, who Obama will decide it not being advantageous to continue the association.

That will be a good day for the country....

[This message has been edited by Balladeer (09-14-2009 07:15 PM).]

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
54 posted 2009-09-14 09:10 PM


I'm curious, just exactly what do you think these videos tell us about ACORN?  Obama?  Anything?

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

55 posted 2009-09-14 10:35 PM




Dear Denise,

           It was Huan Yi who brought up the topic.  You already know my thoughts on the matter and do not take them into consideration.  Should you believe that Huan Yi feels they are a vital and lively issue, you should take them up with him.

     As for the Republicans causing the 9/11 tragedy, I thought then and I think now that the notion is absurd.  The events of 9/11 were used by the Republicans to further the Republican agenda.  Some of the events following 9/11 that I did not like were a result of that, some were a result of Democrats attempting, I think wrongly, to take momentum away from the Republicans by being more hawkish than the hawks.  The department of homeland security has at least some Democratic footprints on it, as does the PATRIOT ACT.

     This doesn't mean that the Democrats shouldn't  repair their mistakes.

      I think that the notion that the Republican Lite folks now holding office being confused with actual socialists and communists requires a willful ignorance about the meaning and history of those terms.  That Right wing talk show hosts are trying to use both these terms and the word "Fascist" in the same bundle of accusations about the same administration shows that these folks are attacking not only the Democrats, but the language of discourse and idea itself.  

    

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
56 posted 2009-09-15 06:26 PM


Two interesting things happened today.

More tapes on ACORN came out, showing their advising  on how to run child prostitution rings.

The Senate passed a resolution 83-7 to cancel all HUD funding to ACORN.

Interesting stories, no? Well, I watched the network news for any coverage and guess what?...not a word. SO I went to the internet and checked all stories posted for YAHOO, AP, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and Reuters. How many carried any coverage of it? Zero - nada - zilch.

So I went to google, typed in ACORN, senate and HUD and finally got info on the topics. Who from?

Fox
LATimes
Washington Post
DAllas News
CBN
San Francisco Chronicle

For all of you who feel the network news agencies are non-partisan...who are you kidding? For all of you who wonder why FOX and other independent agencies get such audience participation....who are you kidding?

People have no choice but to listen to FOX and others if they want full reporting. Network news will not give  it to them. They are not deserving of respect and perhaps that's why respect for them continues to fall....and deservedly so.

LR, what do the tapes tell YOU about ACORN? That child prostitution really isn't so bad, perhaps? You are not blind and you're certainly not stupid. You know exactly what these tapes tell any decent person. Well, at least Charlie Gibson found a worthy news lead-in.... The HOUSE rebuke of Wilson for calling out "You lie!" during Obama's press conference. Surely, to Democrats and their network news cronies, that is far more important. What a surprise.....

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

57 posted 2009-09-16 03:40 AM




     I wouldn't expect every graduate of my College to be a paragon.  I don't expect every member of my political party to be one either.  I do not expect that I need to defend every member of my political party; I know there are as many fools in my political party as in any other political party.  

     When the Acorn folks who gave advice to the people pretending to be pimps and prostitutes came to the attention of the leadership they were fired.  That's pretty much what's you're supposed to do when you find out you have an unethical idiot working for you, isn't it?  When my dad found out one of his employees was stealing from him close to 50 years ago, that's what he did.

     When the Republicans found that they were harboring criminals in their midst, they found the means to pardon them, as in the case of Iran Contra; or they found ways of denying the misdeeds until they could be no longer covered up, as in the case of Jack Abramov.  Occasionally  they were known to commit felonies out of spite, as in the case of blowing the cover of a working CIA agent and destroying her usefulness and the usefulness of her cover, which had been apparently supplying data on Iranian arms production.  Such things compromised the security of the country in what the Republicans had been calling a time of war.  This I understand to be a definition of treason, while I understand some might quibble.

     These are, of course, only a few of the activities the Republicans have defended over the past few administrations.  Going into others would be a waste of time here.

     But I do think it says where the values of the two parties are.  The Republicans are putting a lot of energy into the activities of phony Hos and Pimps, and are trying to see if they can get members of a black grassroots organization to act wacky.  When they succeed, as of course they do, they smear the entire organization.

     When a member of their congressional delegation tells the President "You Lie!" in the middle of a speech, the Party disavows him, he says he's sorry half an hour afterward, and there is not supposed to be any connection drawn at all, even though that congressman goes on talk radio the next day and brags about what he said, and boasts about how many donations and how much financial support he's gotten for having said it.  There is, as much as in many political situations, a double standard at work here.

     Not only was Acorn upset about the idiocy of its employees (my conclusion, here), but it fired them as well.  In the case of the Republicans, I suspect that the Congressman was carrying out Republican policy.  There was no evidence of sanctions that I could see, and lots of evidence of party support.  

     There were lots of murmurings about suppression of free speech.  This is from the party that wouldn't allow the seating of someone at the State of the Union Speech during the Last Administration because the woman in question was wearing a T-shirt that supported a peace initiative.

     And all this aside, we still haven't defined what a socialist is, what a communist is, what a fascist is, and how you can describe somebody as both a fascist and either one of the other two terms at the same time without making a self-contradictory statement.  

     As writers — and I think we all like to think of ourselves as writers — we're obligated to at least try to make sense.


Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

58 posted 2009-09-16 04:19 AM




Dear Mike,

           I have no objection to people viewing or reading Fox.  My objection is to people viewing or reading Fox exclusively.

     I would recommend that people view or read Fox as a supplement to some more objective news source.  If you dislike the paper of Record in this country, The New York Times, then don't use that as your primary news source.  Try The Christian Science Monitor, or even the Murdoch run but generally considered more objective The Times of London.

     I make a point of saying this because I want to distinguish myself from what "people" say in your posting above, not because I'm trying to tell you what to read.  Only to say that my recommendations are different from those which you believe "people" have.

     The non-Fox sources you speak of are unclear to me.  I would still suggest that it's good to have multiple named sources, and that none of the sources be involved with the publication itself.  I've had this discussion with Denise from time to time as well.

     I am not against right wing sources.  As I've said before, The Economist is one of the world's foremost sources for a lot of military and economic research, and I would trust almost anything they say.  I might disagree with their conclusions, but their facts are pretty much impeccable.  They are clearly well to the right.  I am not so much concerned with where a publication is on the political spectrum, as to what that does to their gathering of facts.  The Economist is good with facts and makes fine arguments I may disagree with, but which are always well reasoned.  The National Review will frequently cherry pick its facts and distort its reasoning to fit its politics.  In my opinion.  They are big on appeals to emotion, which can be effective if you share both the emotion and the point of view.

     I find The Washington Times much the same.  They are funded, or they were at least at one time funded, by The Reverend Moon; and they still may be.  

     The Wall Street Journal, which you briefly trashed (I thought) as one of those main stream press papers, is not a main stream press paper.  It's a Right wing paper these days, and has been for several years, since its purchase by the Murdoch organization.  Before that, only its editorial section was slanted solidly to the right.  If The Wall Street Journal didn't cover the Acorn Story, you might consider that it's a business, and it has to keep its customers happy.  The executives of the nation may not have felt that this particular story was important business news.  The Journal may have it, however, in the Friday or weekend edition, when the focus is not so relentlessly on the business news, and when the Executives have time for tabloid type news.

     The New York Times may have skipped it because it has, at least at times, been limited by its motto — "All the news that's fit to Print."  This story may have been or may not have been.  It depends on what you think the readership of The New York Times would think of that, which may be very different than the Audience of The New York Daily News might think of it.  Two different papers, two different readerships.  I don't think they have a track section or a comic page in the times, either.


Hope you're recovering well,

Bob Kaven

    

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
59 posted 2009-09-16 10:46 AM


Bob, I doubt you will get many travelers to accompany you on your journey down Fingerpoint Lane, although I recognize it as a favored avenue of yours. You can throw in Iran Contra, Abramov, the CIA, Iranian arms production or even those horrific "past eight years" and you still have nothing to do with the a ACORN situation.

When the Acorn folks who gave advice to the people pretending to be pimps and prostitutes came to the attention of the leadership they were fired.  That's pretty much what's you're supposed to do when you find out you have an unethical idiot working for you, isn't it?

That's very benevolent of you, Bob. I'm sure you showed that same benevolence with the Abu Ghrab situation. After all, those were idiotic, renegade lower-ranked soldiers who made Iraqui prisoners strip naked, form pyramids and do all sorts of degrading things. Undoubtedly you said that they were just renegade soldiers that had nothing to do with military procedures and certainly nothing to do with Bush or administrative policies. Since they were all court-martialed, no doubt you applauded the military and the Bush administration for handling the situation, which is what you're supposed to do when you have unethical idiots working for you, isn't it? Wait a minute. Though my drug-induced memory, I seem to recall that you DID blame the military and the BUsh administration. I can easily go back to those threads and reprint what you had to say to clear up any confusion but....is it really necessary? Shoe doesn't fit so well on the other foot, does it?

The Republicans are putting a lot of energy into the activities of phony Hos and Pimps, and are trying to see if they can get members of a black grassroots organization to act wacky.

Really? Which republicans are you referring to? I suppose the filmmaker and his girlfriend who decided to do this could be republicans, although I haven't heard it mentioned. They are certainly not democrats, for sure. WHen you say "the republicans", who exactly are you referring to? trying to see if they can get members of a black grassroots organization to act wacky. Yep, that was the plan. These two thought, "Let's go into ACORN offices and tell them that we need advice on setting up child prostitution houses and get them to act wacky". It worked out well.

Yes, ACORN fired the employees....and in a very interesting way. First, they denied the tapes were valid. Then they fired the employees. Then they cam out and claimed the tapes were innacurate, edited and doctored and they were going to sue. It begs the question that, if the tapes were inaccurate, why fire the employees? That's not the right way to treat loyal employees, is it? Get a glimpse of reality, Bob. Four cities, four different sets of employees, four tapes...and the same result. Now, a reasonable man could assume that, if the same results came from four different areas, there is a strong possibility that they were following standard ACORN policies. Does that sound unreasonable to you, Bob, or do you consider that to be nothing more than coincidence?

The New York Times may have skipped it because it has, at least at times, been limited by its motto — "All the news that's fit to Print."  This story may have been or may not have been.

Hmmm....makes one wonder what news they would consider fit to print. You can't have it both ways, Bob. Here we have two scenarios....

(1) The tapes are valid, an organization which has received tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds and is in line to get a lion's share of 8+ trillion in stimulus funds, has been caught by undercover cameras, offering advice on how to cheat the government out of taxes and how to cover child prostitution houses...not THAT is certainly something fit to print, wouldn't you say?

(2) ACORN is innocent. These were nothing more than rogue employees in different cities, not following standard ACORN procedures. The SENATE, however, has rescinded HUD funding to them. Why? Here you have a wonderful organization, doing good for a lot of people, being punished for something they are completely innocent of? That's extremely unfair and outrageous! THAT is certainly something fit to print, wouldn't you say? Either way, you have a newsworthy story.

Why didn't network news cover it? How could they? They found themselves between a rock and a hard place. They could either condemn ACORN, which would really not set well with the Obama administration, especially with the ACORN ties to Obama and Pelosi, or they could condemn the Senate, which would mean condemning the overwhelming majority of democratic senators who voted to rescind the HUD funds. What's a left-wing news organization to do? Exactly what they did do.....nothing.  They are getting very good at doing exacly that. I'd say they have it down to a science.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
60 posted 2009-09-16 11:11 AM


As far as the Joe Wilson situation is concerned, it's nothing more than a pig in a poke. Was he wrong to demean the decorum of the congress? Of course he was. The Democrats stated it, the Republicans stated that and even Joe Wilson stated that. He called the White House, apologized, and had his apology accepted. End of story, right? Well, not exactly....

WIlson blurted out in a second of emotion. You, who are able to excuse ACORN by blaming everything on unruly employees, seem to have difficulty in excusing Wilson for individually losing his cool.

I suspect that the Congressman was carrying out Republican policy.  

I see. With republicans, it must be an orchestrated conspiracy but, with  democrats, the opposite. Got it, Bob. Your "suspicions" always seem to come with a strong slant to the left, don't they?

WIlson goofed by fracturing protocol and, for that, he apologized. The interesting thing is that his claim was not innacurate. Obama WAS lying. He was making the claim that 47 million uninsured Americans would get health care under his plan and no illegal aliens would. It is a fact that over nine million illegal aliens are included into that 47 million figure so that made his statement a lie, a lie blatant enough to cause WIlson to blurt out at an unfortunate time, without thinking. Want verification that it was a lie? The next day, and from that point forward, Obama figures about uninsured Americans has somehow dropped in the 30+millions from the 47 made in the speech. They have since subtracted the number of illegal aliens from the original figures to cover their bases. The fact that they HAVE changed the figures validates the claim that Obama's comment was indeed a lie at the time.

Now, the peanut farmer has come out to claim Wilson's comment was racial. The senility that he suffered while serving as President has obviously progressed. He has my sympathy.....

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
61 posted 2009-09-16 02:29 PM


.
" one week ago today President Obama stood before a joint session of congress pushing his plan to reform health care. Also trying to debunk what he called bogus claims. Take -- listen to what he said. About abortion."
" One more home. Misunderstanding I want to clear up. Under our plant. No federal dollars. Will be used to fund abortions and federal conscience laws will remain in place."
" Well our next guest may not have shouted out you lie after hearing that assertion but he does say the president was not telling the full truth. Moreover this Democrat. Says if something is not done to stop taxpayer dollars from going toward abortions. He has the votes to kill the house bill. Michigan congressman Bart Stupak is a pro life Democrat and a member of the house energy and commerce committee he's my -- that morning congressman. Good morning. All right so we have heard it from President Obama. From Nancy Pelosi and from numerous Democrats that this is a scare tactic tactic being used find -- by those on the right. That is an out and out lie to say that federal funds that any taxpayer dollars could go toward abortions. You you say that's that they are wrong."
" They're the wrong the amendment hr 3200 health care bill that went through the energy and commerce committee that were involved in the amendment process for both through recently July. Actually added amendment called the -- amendment which says. Public funds can be used for abortion and in the public option in particular at least one plan must have abortion coverage in that public option plan.”


http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/26436057/abortion-at-issue.htm#q=He alth+Bill+funds+abortion


This Democrat says he told the White House about the amendment
and they knew about it , , , , never the less . . .

I resent that.


.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
62 posted 2009-09-16 03:02 PM


Looks like Michigan has a decent senator there, John. Telling the president that his claims on not funding abortions in the new health plan is false is not conducive to a Democratic congressman's political health, is it?

In order not to be accused of getting all of my information from Fox News, I'll check for it on the local network news tonight. Surely it will get major coverage, wouldn't one think?

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
63 posted 2009-09-16 05:32 PM


Mike,

There's a video on fox of the Dem making
the statement among others on the topic,
(my old home computer couldn't handle it;
I saw it at the office before a dental
appointment where I was properly punished).
I originally saw it referenced on NR.

I resent that though being informed and knowing beforehand
yet the denial was made.  I'm beginning to feel
that Jesse Jackson was wrong; he talks down to everybody.

John

.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
64 posted 2009-09-16 06:54 PM



quote:
I resent that though being informed and knowing beforehand
yet the denial was made.


Have you read the Capps amendment Huan?
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090730/hr3200_capps_1.pdf

.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
65 posted 2009-09-16 07:04 PM


.


So why is this Democrat making
the statements he's making?

Is everyone but . .
an idiot that can't read
and understand what the words mean?


.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
66 posted 2009-09-16 08:15 PM



What do you think the words mean Huan?

.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
67 posted 2009-09-17 01:40 AM


.


No, answer my previous question:

"So why is this Democrat making
the statements he's making?"


An elected representative, a Democrat,
intimately involved in the process
makes a statement as to his understanding
and yet I am to believe him wrong.  Am
I to believe that his understanding is
or will not be that of others in power
to execute the bill once it becomes law?
Just how does that work?

.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
68 posted 2009-09-17 03:18 AM


quote:
An elected representative, a Democrat,
intimately involved in the process
makes a statement as to his understanding
and yet I am to believe him wrong.  Am
I to believe that his understanding is
or will not be that of others in power
to execute the bill once it becomes law?


Nobody is asking you to believe that Stupak is wrong Huan. I asked if you've read the amendment and provided a link, then I asked your opinion regarding what it actually means.

quote:
No, answer my previous question:

"So why is this Democrat making
the statements he's making?"


The question answering seems a little one sided but I'll give you my opinion in the hope that you might reciprocate.

Stupak wants all abortions banned so he's insisting that the amendment allows abortions. Obama wants the health bill to pass so he's insisting that federal funds will not be spent on abortions. Both of them are simultaneously absolutely correct and totally wrong and the evidence is right there in that link I posted.

So - what's your opinion Huan?

.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
69 posted 2009-09-17 10:27 AM


.


"Both of them are simultaneously absolutely correct and totally wrong and the evidence is right there in that link I posted."

Which then leaves things in the eyes
of the beholder in power.

I can see where the representative is coming from.


.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
70 posted 2009-09-17 10:28 AM


In other words:

.-No Exchange participating health
16 benefits plan may discriminate against any individual

17 health care provider or health care facility because of its
18 willingness or unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide
19 coverage of, or refer for abortions.
In section 241(c), add at the end the following new
paragraph:
f:\VHLC\073009\073009.178.xml
July 30, 2009 (1 :29 p.m.)
(44743111)
F:\Pll\NHI\TRICOMM\AMDS\ABORTION-COMBO_l1B.xML
6
1 (3) PROHIBITION OF USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS
2 FOR ABORTION COVERAGE.-An affordability credit
3 may not be used for payment for services described

4 in section 122(d)(4)(A).
Insert at the appropriate place (in the matter immediately
preceding division A) the following section:
5 SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS RE·
6 GARDING ABORTION.
7 (a) No PREEMPTION OF STATE LAWS REGARDING
8 ABoRTION.-Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
9 preempt or otherwise have any effect on State laws regard-
10 ing the prohibition of (or requirement of) coverage, fund-
11 ing, or procedural requirements on abortions, including
12 parental notification or consent for the performance of an
13 abortion on a minor.


And it continues:

14 (b) No EFFECT ON FEDERAl. LAws REGARDING
15 ABORTION.-
16 (1) IN GENERAl-l.-Nothing in this Act shall be
17 construed to have any effect on Federal laws regard-
18 mg-
19 (A) conscience protection;
20 (B) willingness or refusal to provide abor-
21 tion; and
22 (C) discrimination on the basis of the will-
23 ingness or refusal to provide, pay for, cover, or
f:\VHLC\073009\073009.178.xml
July 3D, 2009 (1 :29 p.m.)
(44743111)
F:\Pll\NHI\TRICOMM\AMDS\ABORTION-COMBO_IIB.xML
7
1 refer for abortion or to provide or participate in
2 training to provide abortion.


Grinch is right. Abortion is not covered.

Do you read it differently?


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
71 posted 2009-09-17 11:26 AM


The representative made particular reference to this,
(see the video interview
http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/26436057/abortion-at-issue.htm#q=abortion


):

7 (1) ASSURED AVAILABILITY OF VARIED COV-
.8 ERAGE THROUGH THE HEAIjTH INSURANCE EX-
9 cHANGE.-The Commissioner shall assure• that, of
10 the Exchange participating health benefits plan of-
11 fered in each premium rating area of the Health In-
12 surance Exchange-
13 (A) there is at least one such plan tha~
14 provides coverage of services described in sub-
15 paragraphs (A) and (B) of section 122(d)(4);
.

Now I don’t understand why we’re saying he doesn’t know
What he’s talking about.
.


“[The House Commerce and Energy Committee] created a legal fiction, a paper separation between federal funding and abortion: Federal funds will subsidize the public plan, as well as private health plans that include abortion on demand; but anyone who purchases these plans is required to pay a premium out of his or her own pocket (specified in the Act to be at least $1.00 a month) to cover all abortions beyond those eligible for federal funds under the current Hyde amendment. Thus some will claim that federal taxpayer funds do not support abortion under the Act.
But this is an illusion. Funds paid into these plans are fungible, and federal taxpayer funds will subsidize the operating budget and provider networks that expand access to abortions. Furthermore, those constrained by economic necessity or other factors to purchase the "public plan" will be forced by the federal government to pay directly and specifically for abortion coverage. This is the opposite of the policy in every other federal health program. Government will force low-income Americans to subsidize abortions for others (and abortion coverage for themselves) even if they find abortion morally abhorrent.”
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/08/13/us-catholic-bishops-healthcare-bill-funds-abortion.html


.
.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
72 posted 2009-09-17 01:32 PM


Brad,

You are right but so is Huan.

The amendment says that abortions that are already funded under Medicare - those deemed to be necessary under current law, will be funded under the proposed government plan. It also says that those not currently funded will not be included in any government plan. It then goes on to say that private plans can include or prohibit any type of abortion - even elective - but that no part of a subsidy paid towards that plan by the government can be used to fund an abortion not covered under present law. It then throws in an insistence that there will be at least one of each type of health plan available in the health exchange to allow individuals to choose the plan that suits them

The above portion of the amendment is ok, apart from the fact that it's a little redundant due to the fact that current legislation already has all those points covered - it's how Medicare and private health plans already work. If they'd have left it at that I'd have simply pointed out that it was a waste of time and money but they didn't.

The energy and commerce committee added this little gem:

quote:
6 (3) COVERAGE UNDER PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION.-The public health insurance option shall provide coverage for services described in paragraph (4)(B). Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing for or prohibiting coverage of services described in paragraph (4) (A).

(4) ABORTION SERVICES.-
(A) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS PROHIBITED.
(B) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS ALLOWED.


That's the bit that's got Stupak all hot under the collar, it's basically saying that the public option can provide A but not B then the highlighted bit seems to say that they can provide either.

What Stupak isn't saying though is that it doesn't really matter what the highlighted bit says because the amendment is shackled to the existing law governing federal funding of abortions. They might just as well have said:

"Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing for or prohibiting coverage of services described in paragraph (4) (A) because what is allowed and not allowed is governed by another law that takes precedent."

It's a classic case of design by committee. The amendment is unnecessary and a complete waste of time and money.

So who's right?

Obama is right in that no elective abortions will be funded by federal funds, Stupak is right in that special cases, which are already funded under present law, will continue to be funded.

The confusion is created because neither of them has defined what they mean by abortions.


Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
73 posted 2009-09-17 02:25 PM



quote:
Now I don’t understand why we’re saying he doesn’t know
What he’s talking about.


Who's saying that?

.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
74 posted 2009-09-17 04:15 PM


I'm confident the representative is concerned about this:

“[The House Commerce and Energy Committee] created a legal fiction, a paper separation between federal funding and abortion: Federal funds will subsidize the public plan, as well as private health plans that include abortion on demand; but anyone who purchases these plans is required to pay a premium out of his or her own pocket (specified in the Act to be at least $1.00 a month) to cover all abortions beyond those eligible for federal funds under the current Hyde amendment. Thus some will claim that federal taxpayer funds do not support abortion under the Act.

But this is an illusion. Funds paid into these plans are fungible, and federal taxpayer funds will subsidize the operating budget and provider networks that expand access to abortions. Furthermore, those constrained by economic necessity or other factors to purchase the "public plan" will be forced by the federal government to pay directly and specifically for abortion coverage. This is the opposite of the policy in every other federal health program. Government will force low-income Americans to subsidize abortions for others (and abortion coverage for themselves) even if they find abortion morally abhorrent.”


.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
75 posted 2009-09-17 04:47 PM



quote:
I'm confident the representative is concerned about this


I'm not. I think he has more intelligence than to believe all that smoke and mirror nonsense.

You should give him more credit Huan, the guy isn't an idiot.


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
76 posted 2009-09-17 05:21 PM


.

So the Catholic bishops are or are
relying on idiots.  


.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
77 posted 2009-09-17 05:28 PM



Is that your opinion?

Have you any evidence to support that assumption?

.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

78 posted 2009-09-17 05:53 PM




Dear Mike,

           Of course I see things from a slant to the left.  Is this an accusation of some sort?  Why would I try to hide something so basic to my point of view?  I have never made any secret of it and am proud of it.  You make it sound like it's some sort of guilty secret I've been trying to keep for goodness sake.  Perhaps you thought you were going to blow my cover for the shocked and astonished masses of right-thinking folk out there?  Gee.

     I'm left wing in the same way you're right wing, openly and straightforwardly.

     As for your attempt to compare Acorn and potential war crimes in Iraq involving the mistreatment and torture of prisoners, including the deaths of some of them, I would suggest to you that your analogy is stretched.  The war crimes trials in both Germany and Japan as well as the military tradition of our own country has both honored and enshrined in law the principle of command responsibility.  You more than I should be aware that while the troops themselves are fully responsible for the orders they carry out, their superiors are responsible for the issuance of those orders in a way that does not extend to most civilian enterprises.  Furthermore, we know that those orders originated considerably further up the command structure.

     These stories were among the other stories that were pretty much buried during the past two administrations, though you will recall that I called your attention to them when they surfaced.  The difficulty of getting news in print when it doesn't present itself pre-researched and already written is not a problem that confines itself to one side of the political spectrum or the other.  It is a result of the concentration of the news agencies being concentrated in the hands of only a few owners, and with those few owners seeking to maximize profits by cutting back on costs, including reporters who are willing to do the research.

     I suggested, by the way, that some of these stories might be covered by The Wall Street Journal on it's weekend edition, which is both more of a tabloid sort of thing and more right wing.  I'd be interested to see if any of these stories do show up there.  

     I'd put it to you that we may have more agreement about at least some of the press issues than you'd imagine, though for different reasons, and with very different emphases.

     Acorn does not have the same structure or responsibilities as the military.  Conflating the two does neither one any good.

     I say this not only as a good leftist. but as a guy who's got some respect for logic.

     "Fingerpoint Lane" I thought was an interesting turn of phrase, but somewhat off point as it were.

     The essential Evil of Acorn evades me.  I see occasional foolishness and idiocy, but frankly, Mike, when I look around, I can pretty much see that everywhere, and most of the time it simply isn't malicious.  I see the same thing in any political party and most religions and even most people.  They mostly mean well, they may have an amount of malice to them, but mostly it's foolishness and stupidity.  I include myself here.  Sometime people's thinking or behavior is a complete puzzle to me, of course.  I can understand their rationales, but I remain puzzled in some other way, as I must puzzle them sometimes.  So the notion of a community organizing company being the epitome of evil simply doesn't compute for me, and I really need it explained in straightforward words of one syllable.  I just don't see it.

     I still hope you're feeling better.  I know this has been a challenging six months or more for you.

All my best, Bob Kaven    


Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

79 posted 2009-09-17 06:40 PM




     Health care.

     I am in despair over it right now.

     If everybody must purchase health care and there is no public option, we supply a windfall to the insurance industry without putting any brakes on them.  As is, this looks to be a recipe for inflation and for decline in services because there is no public option to keep the insurance companies honest.

     Huan Yi and others are talking about abortion.

     I understand that this is one of the great topics of our era, and one of enormous and central ethical significance.  In this case, however, I believe that we are debating the hanging of a painting while the house burns down around our ears.  We should debate the painting fully, but better when we can make sure it's out of the rain and without scorch marks.  Then we can batter each other with verbal brickbats, or throw water balloons, or whatever.

     We need a public option.

     I need some solid information to correct the information I already have.  Should anybody have better information or an objective source (non-Lewin group), I'd appreciate it.  My non-confirmed information says that the insurance folks make about 20% per year per policy for medical insurance.  Is this true?  My non-confirmed information also states that the industry is trying to increase that to a 35% per year per policy margin.  I know that if I had a mutual fund that returned 20% per year on a steady basis, I'd be over it like white on rice; and that if it were 35% I'd be making wart-hog in heat sounds.

     A fair amount of that money — would that be included as part of the costs, and thus not counted as part of the profits, or would that come out of the profits? —is paid out in administrative costs and bonuses.  Each insurance company must cover its own administrative costs, which means that those costs get passed on the the doctors, who must pay both in money and in time they could spend with patients.  Since a doctor will often use several insurance companies, he must deal with several different bureaucracies, each requiring separate skill sets.  She may need to hire extra employees.  She will require time away from patients for her paperwork in writing letters of justification and so on.  A single payer system has a single bureaucracy, a single set of forms, and requires less time for paperwork.

     The 20% to 35% may be available for other expenses.  If the insurance companies want to remain part of the game, they would be forced actually to compete with a system offering real service for a decent fee.  Perhaps they could find a way of doing that without the measures they find acceptable now, many of which I do not.

     Most of these unacceptable measures may be identified simply by looking at the fears that many folks on the right have brought up as possible outcomes for government run healthcare.  Many of these are actual realities for people living with our current private system of health care insurance.  

     My current health care provider has disallowed a medication I have been taking for more than 10 years on another health care plan because it exceeds the recommended dosage levels.  My original physician wrote and obtained an exception for that, and the exception has been reviewed from time to time and approved.  Not so with my new insurance provider, who, it turns out, had access the whole time to the prior records.  It simply didn't chose to use them.  I'm still waiting.

     This is the sort of thing the fear mongers were telling us might happen if single payer health care would be enacted.  It's here today, thanks to my health insurance.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
80 posted 2009-09-17 06:44 PM


The essential Evil of Acorn evades me.  I see occasional foolishness and idiocy, but frankly, Mike, when I look around, I can pretty much see that everywhere, and most of the time it simply isn't malicious.

I contend, Bob, that you don't see it because you don't want to see it. That's ok...plenty of other people are. ACORN has had their ties with the upcoming census severed. They have had their HUD funding erased. They have been chastised by the White House. Individual states are now in the process of eliminating all funding to ACORN. Today in the House...

The House of Representatives just voted 345 to 75 to prohibit any federal funding for the community organizing group. The vote follows on the heels of a similar prohibition added to a spending bill in the Senate on Monday, which was approved by a vote of 83 to 7

Long loathed by conservatives, the group has come under fire from both parties this week after a video surfaced showing ACORN employees offering tax advice to people posing as sex traffickers. In the House, 172 Democrats sided with all 173 Republicans voting to support the ban. All 75 "no" votes were Democrats. See the roll call here.

The vote also comes after White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said on Wednesday that "obviously the conduct that you see on those tapes is completely unacceptable."
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2009/09/house-votes-to-cut-acorn-funding.html?csp=34

Pretty heavy-hitting for an organization engaging only in occasional bits of foolishness and idiocy, wouldn't you say? By all means, continue seeing, or not seeing, what you prefer. The old "if I close my eyes you can't see me" doesn't really fly that well.

As far as you "left-wing slant", of course you have it, as well as I have mine. I was simply trying to point out the incredible lengths you go to to validate it.

Acorn...rogue employees, not necessarily having anything to do with the administration of the company.

Abu Ghrab..rogue employees but having everything to do with the administration of the military.

Joe Wilson...must be a Republican conspiracy, in spite of the fact the Republicans condemned his actions. You paint it as an impossibility that it could have been an impromptu personal burst and find the need to tie it to some hidden Republican planned agenda. Hey, Bob, don't you think that's carrying the left-wing slant a little far. Come on, now.

You are remindful of Hillary Clinton back in the dark days of Monica, who claimed (before Bill's confession) that the entire thing was a vast right-wing conspiracy. After all of the smoke had cleared and she was asked if she felt she owed the right wingers an apology for her unwarranted accusations, she just said "Are you kidding?" and walked away. To the time of this writing, I believe no apology has ever been issued....what a surprise, no?

There is nothing wrong with slants, Bob, but to carry them to that level in which you did with Wilson doesn't make them a slant - it makes them a rant.

Health is better. Still living on pain pills with one more surgery scheduled at the end of October, but hopefully that will be the end of it. Thanks for asking...

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
81 posted 2009-09-17 06:47 PM


.


No I assume the contrary,
which you well know.  I further
believe they are without evil
or malacious intent and their concerns
are rational.  I do not believe the
represenative is far apart from them
in his concerns as to his understanding
nor its basis.

.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
82 posted 2009-09-17 07:43 PM


WASHINGTON -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said yesterday she is clueless about an amendment to prohibit government funds for embattled ACORN, although it overwhelmingly passed the Senate Monday and the White House is calling for the group to be held accountable.

"I don't even know what they passed," Pelosi told The Post yesterday. "What did they do? They defunded it?"

The issue now goes to a House-Senate conference committee for a spending bill. Its fate is up to Democratic leaders, particularly Pelosi, since the House passed no such provision. Some fellow lawmakers were surprised that Pelosi wasn't following the issue

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/pelosi_clueless_about_cash_cut_off_ZHSkPZ2Mbhr5phoqht5GHN


Well, at last Pelosi said something I can agree with.....she IS clueless!

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
83 posted 2009-09-17 09:37 PM


Dems unhappy with proposed tax in health care bill
AP


    *
    
Insurers and business groups also oppose the new tax and other fees in the bill, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is wasting no time making its objections known. The chamber announced it will begin airing a new TV ad Friday in more than a dozen states lambasting "Washington politicians" who "want new taxes on health care companies — taxes that will get passed on to you."

The 35 percent tax levied on insurance plans is a different approach, though unions and employers contend it will end up being passed along to workers. Conrad acknowledged the criticism but said it was a necessary step.

"Does that create some pain? Yes, it does," Conrad said. "People want to see real pain, stay on the current course" — with health care costs rising unchecked, he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090918/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_taxes


People want to see real pain? Will everyone who wants to see real pain please raise their hands? I can understand that sometimes pain is necessary to achieve goals but....we WANT to see real pain? Who is this bozo to make such a statement?

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

84 posted 2009-09-17 10:32 PM


     Actually, Huan Yi, I'm not at all sure what or whom your are speaking of or to. So I'm unclear how to respond to you here.  I'm sorry about that.  I believe you may be talking to me, but I can't be sure.  And I don't know if your disagreement,m if disagreeing we are, is about the nature of humanity, the nature of political parties, or the malice of political parties.  You might be talking about the responsibilities of command.  As somebody who seems to share a fondness for Harry Truman — unless I misread you, which I am distressingly wont to do — I admire the sort of leader who is willing to acknowledge where the buck stops.  We haven't had many of them, and they are refreshing.  

     I can't tell if you are talking about this either.  You don't offer enough information to be read clearly.  I will try to reply to you, if it is indeed me that you are addressing, if you give me enough indication of what you are trying to say for me to form an honest and clear response.  Otherwise you leave me at a loss.

          Were I to well know this, whatever this may be, I would be able to skip this note and go directly to a response.  Or skip the necessity of responding at all, secure in the understanding you were talking to Grinch or Balladeer or somebody else.

     Knowing the referent of "they" in this case would be useful as well.  I believe most folks are generally without malicious intent, by the way.  I don't know if that means we agree about this or not, though, since I remain basically puzzled.

     Regretfully, Bob Kaven

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

85 posted 2009-09-18 02:12 AM


Why, I think Conrad must be a clueless, and deaf, POLITICIAN, Michael! That would be my guess!     They apparantly didn't hear us too well this past August or this past Saturday.

I believe John was referring to the Catholic Bishops in a reply to Grinch, Bob.

And just a clarification to your 'birther position' comment: There is more than one position held by those lumped into that so-called group. What is it that you don't find plausible? The contention of some that he was possibly born in Kenya, or Canada? Or the contention that even if he was born in Hawaii he still may not be considered a 'natural born citizen', since he was born with dual citizenship (which he himself admitted on his Fight the Smears site, in which case they contend that he'd be considered a citizen but not a 'natural born' citizen, which is a requirement to hold the office of President)? Or the contention that he may not be a citizen at all due to his childhood Indonesian citizenship, with no evidence that he ever renounced it and reapplied for U.S. citizenship?

About the only thing that the so-called 'birthers' agree on is that Obama is withholding all documentation pertaining to his past life that could shed any light on his citizenship status to the tune of over a million dollars so far. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask 'why?', do you?

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
86 posted 2009-09-18 01:17 PM



quote:
we WANT to see real pain? Who is this bozo to make such a statement?


I think that you've misinterpreted his point Mike, though it's an honest and understandable mistake caused by his lazy diction, if you were listening to him instead of reading a transcript it would be clearer.

If you look carefully at the context of what he said though it's obvious that what he meant was:

If People want to see real pain - stay on the current course with health care costs rising unchecked.


Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
87 posted 2009-09-18 03:57 PM



quote:
The House of Representatives just voted 345 to 75 to prohibit any federal funding for the community organizing group.


Along with a whole bunch of other organisations and companies.

I've just read the proposal. Regardless of whether you believe ACORN should lose it's funding it's a seriously bad piece of legislation that will hurt a lot more people than the intended target.

The current proposal states that any organisation (including companies) that are indicted, or employ an individual who is, or has been, indicted, cannot receive government funding.

Indicted?

That's simply another way of saying accused. So all you have to do to get government funding pulled from an organisation or company is to accuse one of their employees or contractors of a relevant felony.

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Why couldn't they use a bit of common sense and at least use the word CONVICTED?

.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

88 posted 2009-09-18 09:56 PM



Dear Denise,

           Yes.  It has all been discussed and answered to my satisfaction.  I have addressed these things with you before.  Huan Yi brought them up in a different context.  Should you wish to discuss them with Huan Yi or with Republicans that believe that your position doesn't hold water, you should do that.  You already know I disagree with you and you know why.  You have heard my comments and have chosen to disregard them, as is your right, and as long as you continue to hold that position with no new information of substance that I can see, I feel that that particular discussion with you is simply not productive.

     Should you have new information of substance, I would be happy to look at it and give it my best consideration, as you certainly deserve.  But your position at this point is one that, as I understand it, is under litigation, and our discussion will not affect that at all.

     I'd appreciate it if you could inform my how you could tell that Huan Yi was speaking to Grinch.  If true, I certainly feel relieved, but I see no way of actually figuring this out from his text.  How did you figure this out?

     Sincerely, Bob Kaven

[This message has been edited by Bob K (09-18-2009 10:33 PM).]

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

89 posted 2009-09-18 10:21 PM



    
Dear Grinch,

           Whatever happened to presumption of innocence?

     The House is the body that is closest to public.  It will always be first to do this sort of thing; it's its nature.  In Athens, the meeting once sent out  and recalled a punitive expedition on two successive days during, if I remember correctly, the Peleponnesian War.

     During times of ferment and stress during the American Revolution, the congress behaved the same way with similar results.  It required the addition of a Senate, a judiciary and a President, all with balancing powers, to restrain the House from running away with itself.  

     We need The House for its direct connection with the voters.  This gives it vitality, freshness and directness.  These are also the reasons we need to be cautious about The House.  Something so powerful needs to be respected and feared, and the Constitution provided the House both powers and safeguards for that reason.  The Constitution was not America's first try at a Government, and we had learned a lot about Representative Government during the Revolution and under the Articles of Confederation.

     It's still necessary to allow  an element of direct democracy in.  It can be used to affect the political process disproportionately, and has done so since at least the heyday of the Know Nothings in the first part of the 19th Century.

     I don't believe we have seen such pride in being ill informed, partly informed, misinformed or utterly uninformed since that time, but it does seem to have come back in fashion, and logic and information seem to be the focus of contempt.  You suggestion that this is new, however, simply means we must once again remind ourselves of Lord Acton.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
90 posted 2009-09-18 10:22 PM


I certainly agree that an accusation is insufficient grounds. I have always thought that an indictment was an accusation that led to court proceedings. I looked up the definition and indictment does indeed say a accusation, although I have never heard little Billy say, "Mom indicted me for hitting my little sister." Actually, I've never heard any adult use it in that context, either.

Be that as it may, having congress pass a bill canceling funding does not make it a done deal. From my understanding, it the goes to a committee where it is gone over word by word and either approved or amended. Hopefully, when that happens,  they will give it a little more clarity than they have done so far.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
91 posted 2009-09-19 05:46 AM


Bob,

Acton was right but in this case it isn't a misuse of power it's a misuse of the system. The political system and the people have become a tool in a dangerous game to elevate one political party above the other to the detriment of rational lawmaking and the nation as a whole. The defund Acorn Act is simply another example of that process; the evisceration of the health care bill is another. It's a knee-jerk reactions to often manufactured hysteria, which as you say is nothing new, the house is seemingly reacting to recent events but it's more than that, it’s a carefully prepared trap to make one political group look bad if they oppose it.  Before anyone asks, no, this isn't a jab at the left or right, this particular brush is wide enough to cover all of them.

Mike,

I agree the term "Indicted" is rarely used outside the legal process but within legal and legislative circles everyone knows that it simply means accused, so why use it in the first place? Will it be amended as it goes through the political process? I certainly hope so, my fear though is any attempts to amend the wording will be portrayed as an attempt to protect ACORN.

Logic and common sense dictates that as it's amended the direct reference to ACORN will have to be removed. A law targeting one particular organisation or Company is downright stupid, not to mention possibly unconstitutional. Laws are supposed to apply to everyone so naming one particular organisation is redundant. The term indicted needs to be replaced with convicted as we've discussed - otherwise some bright spark is going to use that loophole to defund a whole slew of otherwise innocent organisations. Next you have to look at whether the punishment fits the crime, which brings into the equation the question of how culpable an employer can be for the actions of an employee. They certainly should have some responsibility but for them to bear the punishment for the uncontrollable actions of their employees doesn't seem right. If an employee working at a soup kitchen commits voter fraud would sacking him be enough or do you need to close down the kitchen?

Another thing that will have to be changed is the fact that this act is tagged onto another bill and may possibly end up becoming law by being carried through on the shirttails of the bill it's attached to. Or vice versa, the bill it's attached to might be completely insidious but gets voted through because people want to see ACORN suffer. This proposal needs to be looked at individually - not as fifty lines in a two thousand-line bill about student funding.

Hopefully you'll agree in the cool light of day that all the above are reasonable areas for amendment, Call me sceptic if you like but I'm betting that if any of the above are so much as mentioned there'll be accusations flying around left, right and centre that they're simply ways to defend the actions of ACORN.

Party politics - no wonder the world's going down the pan.

.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

92 posted 2009-09-19 09:33 AM


I followed the line of communication, Bob. Grinch asked John a question, and the next reply from John seemed to me to fit as an answer to the previous question.

My position on Obama is simply that he is hiding something due to his sealing all information about his personal history. But you didn't answer my previous question as to the reasonableness of people asking 'why?' under these circumstances.

I don't know his actual citizenship status, whether he is 'natural-born' (requirement to hold the Office of President), 'native-born' (born on U.S. soil), or a 'naturalized' (foreign born) citizen. I suspect that whatever his status actually is he fears it may have disqualified him from seeking and/or holding the Office of Preident, thus his refusal to release any information.

If you can direct me to any concrete evidence that can put the questions to rest, I'd be more than happy to consider it.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

93 posted 2009-09-19 10:30 AM


My sister had a good point on the healthcare insurance coverage for illegal aliens issue: Whether they are covered under any eventual plan or not, what is the difference? They will overwhelm the system either way: doctors' offices with coverage, or the emergency rooms without coverage. Either way we citizens will pay for it.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
94 posted 2009-09-19 12:00 PM


Denise,

Perhaps it never was as big a problem as it seemed.

How many non-American citizens are treated every year in the US and what's the total unrecoverable cost?

I only ask because I had a similar conversation with a friend recently who was bemoaning the fact that the NHS resources are being drained by non-UK residents.

I was surprised when I started researching the figures. In one UK hospital for instance I found figures for non-UK resident treatment equated to around 2%. Of those treated 85% of the cost was recovered from the patient or the patient's country of origin. The total cost that had to be written off, the actual cost to the taxpayer, in that year was a grand total of £4,845.

In the grand scheme of things it seems that despite all the hype it's not that big of a problem in the UK.

I accept that the US could be different though. Any figures you can provide would be useful.

.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

95 posted 2009-09-19 02:29 PM


quote:

The federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) mandates that U.S. hospitals with emergency-room services must treat anyone who requires care, including illegal aliens. Medical service for Americans in affected communities is being severely damaged as hospitals absorb more than $200 million in unreimbursed costs. Some emergency rooms have shut down because they cannot afford to stay open. Local tax-paying Americans are either denied medical care or have to wait in long lines for service as the illegals flood the facilities. In California, the losses are calculated to be about $79 million, with $74 million in Texas, $31 million in Arizona, and $6 million in New Mexico.


http://www.theamericanresistance.com/issues/health_care.html

Of course, the unreimbursed amount, which primarily effects the hospitals, doesn’t include the costs to the taxpayer via Medicaid payments for certain covered services, such as the costs associated with childbirth.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
96 posted 2009-09-19 04:14 PM


Denise,

I think there's a problem with your figures that prohibits us from understanding the scope of the possible illegal immigrant problem. I'm not contesting the numbers, though I have to be honest I haven't checked them out, the problem I see is associating all the unrecoverable cost to illegal immigrants.

more than $200 million in unreimbursed costs sounds impressive but that figure is a total of unrecoverable costs incurred while treating legal and illegal immigrants as well as uninsured American citizens. That total isn't attributable solely to illegal immigrants; to infer that it is would be slightly misleading.

Do you know how much of the unrecoverable cost is specifically attributable to illegal immigrants? That's the figure we need before we can understand the scope of the problem.

We can make a rough guess of the costs based on what we do know. There are an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the US for instance, of those census results show that roughly 50% of them have, and are paying for, insurance cover, albeit insurance obtained through fraudulent means. That means that there's only 5.5 million potentially uninsured illegal immigrants. Not all of them are going to need treatment though. We can take a punt on that figure for the moment, we can refine it later, lets say that 10% of the population need medical treatment. That gives us 550,000 illegal immigrants getting treatment at the taxpayer's expense.

So how much of the $200 million is attributable to those 550 k?

To get near that figure we need to know what percentage the 550 k is of the total number of uninsured population - the set of people that are incurring the unrecoverable costs.

The total number of uninsured people in the US is, according to census estimates, 46 million, but lets err on the side of caution and make the calculation a little easier - lets call it 45.5 million. If we knock off the 5.5 million that are uninsured illegal immigrants we get a nice round 40 million. However only 10% (our earlier punt) of those will require treatment. That's 4 million incurring unrecoverable costs, if we add the illegal immigrants incurring unrecoverable costs we get 4.55 million if you divide the total cost by that figure you get $44 per person. Multiply that by the number in each respective group and you get:

Uninsured Americans = $176 million
Illegal immigrants = $24 million

$24 million is still a lot though but I can get it down a little more. Remember that punt we took on how many people require treatment? Well I might not know the exact figure but I do know that legal immigrants are less likely than US born Americans to seek treatment - 75% less likely in fact. It stands to reason that illegal immigrants would follow that trend. So our $24 million figure for illegal immigrants is actually $6 million and the figure for Uninsured Americans jumps up to $194 million.

If there are 138 million tax payers in the US each one of them is paying around 2 cents a day in additional tax towards the unrecoverable costs of the illegal immigrants.

When you look at it that way it doesn't seem to be that big of a problem.

  

[This message has been edited by Grinch (09-19-2009 05:03 PM).]

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
97 posted 2009-09-19 07:10 PM


.


"I followed the line of communication, Bob. Grinch asked John a question, and the next reply from John seemed to me to fit as an answer to the previous question"

Logical thinking.
Shame on you.


.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

98 posted 2009-09-19 07:40 PM


It's no doubt a difficult thing to track, but I think your estimates may be a bit on the low end, Grinch. The 200 million was the estimated costs to hospitals as unrecoverable, not the total cost to taxpayers. Here is a study that puts the estimate for total illegal immigrant healthcare costs to federal and state governments at 10.7 Billion annually. I assume that is the amount after any insurance payments are made on behalf of illegals who have some type of private insurance, otherwise it wouldn't be counted as a cost to the federal and state governments.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51751


And this amount doesn't include the amount that hospitals can't recover from insurance companies or the federal and state governments:

quote:
"Our people are really torn," said Brian Brannman, [the University Medical Center's] chief operating officer. "We want to take care of people who are ill. We're proud that we can save lives. But our employees are also worried about the survival of UMC. They know that the appetite of taxpayers for helping undocumented immigrants is limited."

Since April, UMC has been spending about $2 million per month providing emergency dialysis services to 80 illegal immigrants, Brannman said.

He projects that these services at UMC could run more than $24 million in the current fiscal year.

In each of the five prior years, the hospital provided the same emergency services to half as many illegal immigrants for a little more than $1 million per month.

Brannman said the hospital receives no reimbursement from federal, state or local sources to provide this life-saving treatment for people who have entered the country illegally.
. . .
"When we're projecting a budget deficit of $70 million for fiscal year 2010, you can see that $24 million in dialysis treatment that's not reimbursed is an awfully big chunk," Brannman said.
. . .
"There's no question that these illegals who come for dialysis treatment at emergency rooms back everything up," said Dr. Dale Carrison, UMC's head of emergency services, adding that most require treatment two or three times a week. "And there's also no question that they need help. But this isn't how emergency rooms were meant to be used."

Unfortunately, this hospital's experience is not unique. Until the government gets serious about eliminating illegal immigration, already-staggering unpaid medical bills will continue to grow.

Unless Congress makes every effort to reduce the strain on our health care system caused by illegal immigration, any overhaul will be unworkable and unsustainable.


http://www.cis.org/feere/healthcare

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

99 posted 2009-09-19 07:50 PM


I've been accused of that from time to time, John. Not as often as I would like, but it does happen sometimes!
Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

100 posted 2009-09-19 08:27 PM




     Just out of curiosity, if these illegal aliens are working at jobs that American citizens could be holding, then they are paying social security into the social security fund under phony numbers of some sort.  This money is withheld by the employer.  The worker never sees it.

     Have you ever seen your social security withholding?

     This money is paid into the social security fund for disability and for emergency care, as I understand it.  I'm certainly willing to be corrected about this.  At any rate, if this money is paid into the social security fund, it is money that these folks never see, and it represents the input of at least a significant number of the illegal aliens into our joint retirement system that they do not tap into at least in terms of actual retirement pensions.  WE tap into that money from them.  The money that they tap into for emergency medical care and other services may well be covered by the payments that they make through the withholding system into the social security system, which is, as I understand it, insurance for those people who pay in and the percentage of those who need care.

     Wouldn't that include these illegal aliens?

     If your withholding funds are not being paid into the system by your employer, we generally consider that the employer is committing fraud, don't we?  It is the employer's responsibility to make those payments and to make those payments, and to do the paperwork.

     How angry do you get at the millions are American citizens who work part or full time under the table and don't pay taxes on that income?  

     At any rate, it appears to me that the illegal aliens do pay sales taxes and a fair number of them pay social security withholding and other such taxes but never actually collect benefits from them.  We may be making more money from them, overall, than they are making from us.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

101 posted 2009-09-19 09:17 PM


I think Social Security is one of those currently unfunded or underfunded government obligations. The politicians helped themselves to the lock box and threw away the key a long time ago. Many of us may never see a penny of all that we have been paying into it.

If the illegals using phony or stolen SS#'s in order to work here illegally can't collect on it in the future, that's their own fault for breaking the law by being here illegally in the first place and by committing fraud on top of that. It doesn't entitle them to anything. I did hear something a while back though about Congress considering or passing legislation granting SS to illegals. I don't remember the details though. Too much has happened recently to keep up with it all, or to even retain some of it in the memory banks.

I'm not angry with anyone, Bob. If it didn't bother my conscience, I'd try to find work under the table myself!

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
102 posted 2009-09-19 11:18 PM


"At any rate, it appears to me that the illegal aliens do pay sales taxes and a fair number of them pay social security withholding and other such taxes but never actually collect benefits from them.  We may be making more money from them, overall, than they are making from us." - BobK

A study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform estimated that in 2004 the annual uncompensated cost of medical care for illegal immigrants in California was $1.4 billion. Total uncompensated educational, health care and incarceration costs were estimated to be 10.5 billion. http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/12/26/170334.shtml

Care to revise your comment, Bob?


Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

103 posted 2009-09-19 11:58 PM


     I do not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsmax_Media

     You may also wish to see a quick selection of the following:

http://mylifeasanalien.wordpress.com/2008/04/12/at-tax-time-illegal-immigrants-pa  y-taxes-too/  

     In keeping with my personal policy, you should have a look at the postings after the initial one  in the above listing.  The ones underneath will be expressing views that are closer to your own as I understand it, and which I find . . . personally difficult.  I chose to list this particular reference because it offered you these pieces, and because it gave you a chance to see that I try to look at therm as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/19/business/19illegals.html  

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1424.html

Sincerely, Bob Kaven


     I can supply a very large number of further references, should they prove of any interest.

[This message has been edited by Bob K (09-20-2009 01:44 AM).]

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

104 posted 2009-09-20 01:26 AM




quote:
  Denise:
I think Social Security is one of those currently unfunded or underfunded government obligations.




     Social Security is funded.  Anybody who has social security tax withheld from their paycheck funds it, and this includes most of us.  Legal immigrants fund it the retirement portion, but do not benefit from it until they become citizens.  Illegal immigrants fund the retirement portion but do not benefit at all.  Their funds are nevertheless factored in to the income the government counts on the system generating every year.  I don't think many people actually complain about this, including the legal and illegal immigrants involved.

     Whether they actually have grounds for complaint would be an interesting but probably fruitless discussion.

     The notion that Illegal immigrants do not contribute to health care costs in this country, however, seems to me to be somewhat different.  The illegal immigrants do pay a fair amount of money in social security taxes and in income taxes and in sales taxes, many of which are designed to go to payment of health care costs.  Much as we complain about our various sin-taxes on tobacco and alcohol, for example, much of this money is supposed to be ear-marked for care of people with health problems due to consumption of these products.  Illegals pay their share of these taxes.  They may be said to pay a disproportionate share of social security taxes, because they will frequently not apply for refunds due to them.  And a substantial part of these social security taxes are paid out to hospitals.

     I would be interested to see if there was a good way of figuring out what the actual distribution of costs actually was.  The figures that Mike quotes above are figures that Grinch has already addressed earlier, and it would be interesting to see what an actual breakdown of the real  figures would be, no simply a rehash of the figures for unrecovered costs from hospitals.  Not all those figures are due to undocumented immigrants.  Having worked in hospitals, I've known a fair number of indigent patients, as well as people who've gone into bankruptcy because of health care costs.  Only a few of them have been illegals.  Many have been simply too rich for government assistance and too poor to pay food, rent and medical bills all at the same time.

quote:

    Many of us may never see a penny of all that we have been paying into it.



     Yeah, my Grandfather — my mother's dad, — said that.  He had a catastrophic illness at the end of his life, and if it hadn't been for social security and medicare, he'd have had to go into a nursing home.  None of us had the dough to take care of him.

     Have you every figured out what the actual total was that you put in?  They give you a regular accounting, you know.  If all that you were going to get was limited to what you'd already put in, how long do you think that would last, prices for things being what they are?  About two good months of hospital care would use it all up, wouldn't it?

     One big operation and two months of hospital care would just about wipe all that out and then some, if all that was being talked about was what you could do for yourself.  Even then it would leave you in debt, and that's not counting on the cost of medication or extended care afterward.

     The government, whatever its flaws, has been keeping ahead of that curve for about 75 years.  That's not perfect, but it's not terrible, either.  It's managed to keep up with people's lives getting longer and their quality getting better overall the whole time.  If it was making a profit off the whole business, it would never have been able to keep up.

    Making a profit is great for some things.  

     It's simply not the best solution for everything all the time and everywhere.

     For health care right now, profit seems to be getting progressively greater for the insurance companies and coverage seems to be getting progressively more limited for the folks who need it.  If you think of this in terms of the market, you might consider that the people who are selling insurance have too much of a monopoly on the market because they've got a lock on the people who set the ground rules.  It's not a free market.

     If the government sets up a single payer system that works and returns good service for a fair price, then the private companies are going to have to figure out some way of competing for their market share.  So far their method has been mostly cheating by stacking the deck.  That's what they're trying very hard to do again now.  If they fail, they may have to rethink their services and pricing structures.  That would be novel.

quote:

If the illegals using phony or stolen SS#'s in order to work here illegally can't collect on it in the future, that's their own fault for breaking the law by being here illegally in the first place and by committing fraud on top of that. It doesn't entitle them to anything. I did hear something a while back though about Congress considering or passing legislation granting SS to illegals. I don't remember the details though. Too much has happened recently to keep up with it all, or to even retain some of it in the memory banks.



     Illegals don't collect on pensions.

     They do collect on emergency services because it's in your interest (and mine) to have vaccinated people walking around rather than carriers of polio and smallpox.   Would that more of our citizens understood that.  It's in your interest (and mine) that people with Flu get treated before they spread it, and that they get vaccinated for that before that catch it.  The largest strides made in terms of length of life and in health of the population at large has been in terms of infectious diseases and in public health (such as in treatment and prevention of cholera and VD) and in provision of sewage and clean water.

     When we don't extend this care to every human being in the environment around us, it is the same as cutting our own throats.  That is a matter of pragmatics.  

     I believe the notions of actually finding a workable program to accomplish the exclusion of one group from the midst of another have tended to become less and less ethical the more explicitly the actual details of their execution — and I use the word advisedly — are made known.  I am perfectly willing to be proven wrong by being shown any half dozen or so successful and ethical programs for winnowing illegal aliens from the midst of a national population.  Any three, for that matter.

     I'd settle for a clear picture of any single program universally acclaimed as successful and ethical as a way of beginning discussions, however.  It would at least show that there is something we know we can work towards.

     If there is no such universally acclaimed success story, I would suggest that demands that we hold out for a situation in which illegal aliens can be excluded successfully, ethically and pragmatically from our society are simply  ways in which we are able to stop thinking realistically about what our country actually needs and what we actually need to do to make the best real country out of what we have to work with.  We're simply sticking our heads in the sand.  And saying, "So there!"

      

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
105 posted 2009-09-20 05:13 AM


quote:
It's no doubt a difficult thing to track,


No Denise, it's a totally impossible thing to track due to the way your system works.

Remember the figure I supplied for that UK hospital - £4,845 - that's a pretty precise figure don't you think? Do you want to know why?

In the UK we have a single payer system augmented by private insurance. To get treatment in the UK you need a National Insurance number. They give you a nifty little card to prove you're eligible or they can retrieve it from a central database if you supply your name and address.

Anyone who doesn't have a National Insurance number isn't a UK citizen and treatment is chargeable. If the patient is an EU citizen and is eligible for health care in an EU country and can prove it the UK government will honour that cover and recover the cost from the relevant country. Everyone else gets charged. Obviously a small number can't or don't pay but the exact amount can be precisely calculated because 100% of the people not paying are non-UK citizens.

In the US however the overwhelming number of people incurring unrecoverable costs are US citizens - the largest group of uninsured people - illegal immigrants are a smaller but undetermined subset.

Because your system lumps all unrecoverable costs into one pot there is absolutely no way of calculating the amount that illegal immigrants cost the tax payer. The best you can do is estimate as I did earlier.

You could eliminate a large proportion of the cost incurred due to illegal immigrants by changing your system - a single payer system would do it - but that would seem to be a rather large hammer to crack an extremely small nut.

quote:
but I think your estimates may be a bit on the low end, Grinch. The 200 million was the estimated costs to hospitals as unrecoverable, not the total cost to taxpayers.


I was simply working off the figure you supplied Denise.

quote:
Here is a study that puts the estimate for total illegal immigrant healthcare costs to federal and state governments at 10.7 Billion annually


Is that your final offer or will it go up when I explain why it's wrong?



Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
106 posted 2009-09-20 08:24 AM


"In the UK we have a single payer system augmented by private insurance. To get treatment in the UK you need a National Insurance number. They give you a nifty little card to prove you're eligible or they can retrieve it from a central database if you supply your name and address. Anyone who doesn't have a National Insurance number isn't a UK citizen and treatment is chargeable."

=======================================================================

"Under H.R. 3200, a 'Health Insurance Exchange' would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option…H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens—whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently—participating in the Exchange."

CRS also notes that the bill has no provision for requiring those seeking coverage or services to provided proof of citizenship. So, absent some major amendments to the legislation and a credible, concrete enforcement effort in action, looks like the myth on this issue is the one being spread by Obama, Reid, Pelosi, et. al.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obamacare-wont-cover-illegal-immigrants--55021087.html

It would appear that the President and Congress have no intention of following the UK example in that regard.

Many California hospitals cannot afford to absorb costs and many are forced to close due to financial mandates for treating illegal immigrants. As recently reported, 84 California hospitals are closing their doors forever. Hospital closure degrades health care to all in the community and results in job losses. http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/12/26/170334.shtml

The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons has a report (PDF Format) in their spring issue that points out the detriment of illegal aliens to the health and health care system of Americans. http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/000859.html



Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
107 posted 2009-09-20 12:11 PM


WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama says there should be an investigation into the hidden-camera video involving employees at the activist group ACORN and a couple posing as a prostitute and her pimp. The two ACORN workers are seen apparently advising the couple to lie about her profession and launder her earnings to get housing aid.

The video is only the latest problem for the group, which had nearly $1 million embezzled by its founder's brother and has been accused of voter registration fraud. The House and Senate voted last week to deny federal funds to ACORN.

Obama told ABC's "This Week" in an interview broadcast Sunday that what he saw on the video "was certainly inappropriate and deserves to be investigated." But the president did not say who should investigate. And he said it is not a major national issue he pays much attention to.

"Frankly, it's not really something I've followed closely," Obama said. "I didn't even know that ACORN was getting a whole lot of federal money."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090920/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_acorn


LOLOL! Anybody who believes  that has a double-digit IQ.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

108 posted 2009-09-20 12:34 PM


Bob, do you really think that having a public option will foster competitiveness with private insurers when it will be the government who holds all the cards, from funding sources (taxation) to making all the rules of the game? I don't see that as a level playing field.

I also pay income taxes, sales taxes and SS taxes. That doesn't entitle me to free healthcare.

Perhaps your grandfather's prediction will come to pass in this generation. I guess we'll just have to wait and see, with the baby boomers coming of age. I thought it ironic that when the H1N1 vaccine becomes available it will only initially be available to those under 50. That seems to coincide precisely with Obama's healthcare advisor's (Zeke Emanuel) philosophy of age-based treatment.

And I'll ask you one last time since you didn't answer me the first two times:

About the only thing that the so-called 'birthers' agree on is that Obama is withholding all documentation pertaining to his past life that could shed any light on his citizenship status to the tune of over a million dollars so far. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask 'why?', do you?


Are you implying that I am playing games with you on the numbers, Grinch? That I'll 'up' a figure next time around simply because you've 'explained' why the one given is wrong?

That knocks me back a bit since you are obviously intelligent enough to know that the two numbers given by me are estimates of two different costs; the first being the unrecoverable costs to hospitals due to the uninsured population (and I'll even grant you that this figure is for legal and illegal resident uninsured), the cost of which doesn't get passed along as a tax liability to citizens, but does do damage to individual communities in healthcare services due to overcrowding and hospital closures, as Michael noted above, and the second being costs to the federal and state governments soley due to illegal immigrant healthcare, which does get passed along to taxpayers. Apples and Oranges.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

109 posted 2009-09-20 12:40 PM


He supposedly didn't know about the March on DC last weekend either, Michael. But we waived to him as he flew over the crowd on his way to Minnesota!

Obama is either very uninformed or very disingenuous. Neither speaks very well of him.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
110 posted 2009-09-20 12:55 PM


quote:
It would appear that the President and Congress have no intention of following the UK example in that regard.


I think you're mistaken Mike - you don't need to be a UK citizen to purchase private health insurance. I think you misread this bit:

"Under H.R. 3200, a 'Health Insurance Exchange' would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option"

The public option, like the NHS in the UK is only applicable to eligible citizens, private insurance is available to anyone willing to pay for it.

The UK and US are exactly the same in this regard.

.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
111 posted 2009-09-20 01:43 PM


quote:
Are you implying that I am playing games with you on the numbers, Grinch?


No, I'm implying that you are trying to find figures to prove a flawed assumption when the reality is that no figures exist.

The point I'm making is that the way your system works there is no way to accurately separate the unrecoverable costs of health care incurred by illegal immigrants from those incurred by ineligible US citizens. The best you can do is guess, which is what all those racist fear mongers who cite illegal immigrants as the source of all your problems and keep manufacturing telephone number figures to back up their inane claims.

No matter what figure you dig up to try to prove your point a probable maximum of only 3% of the total can ever be applicable to illegal immigrants. For every $3 you claim they're costing you it's costing you $97 for the ineligible US citizens.

What you need is a system that insures everyone - universal health care would do it.

On to your two sets of figures:

quote:
the first being the unrecoverable costs to hospitals due to the uninsured population


These are people who get treatment without cover, are billed but don't or can't pay. The $200 million. A probable maximum of 3% can be attributed to illegal immigrants the rest is attributable to uninsured Americans but the bottom line is you don't know exactly how much is attributable to illegal immigrants beyond it probably being less than 3%.

quote:
the second being costs to the federal and state governments soley due to illegal immigrant healthcare


This is where people get treatment and the cost is claimed against Medicare or Medicaid by the hospital, sometimes illegally, they call it "presumptive coverage". Again a probable maximum of 3% can be attributed to illegal immigrants the rest is attributable to ineligible Americans. The cost of this is totally incalculable. You can pick a number from 1 to 100 billion and nobody can prove you're right or wrong. The only thing you can say is that whatever number you select at random illegal immigrants will only be responsible for a maximum of 3%.

It's a self-defeating argument Denise.

However much illegal immigrants are costing you uninsured Americans are probably costing you more by a country mile. Why are you concentrating on 3% of the problem and ignoring the other 97%?

It makes no sense.

.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
112 posted 2009-09-20 03:07 PM


.


Regarding California and illegal immigration Victor Hanson
wrote in 2002 with a follow up in 2007:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_2_do_we_want.html


http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_1_mexifornia.html


.



Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
113 posted 2009-09-20 04:16 PM


I think you're mistaken Mike - you don't need to be a UK citizen to purchase private health insurance. I think you misread this bit:

Actually, that was not the part I was referring to. It's my understanding from your words that, should a person not prove to be a UK citizen (and must show proof), he is chargeable. In the current US plans being offered, no proof of citizenship is necessary...there is simply no charge.

I consider that a difference...

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

114 posted 2009-09-20 04:17 PM




Dear Denise,

          I responded to your comments about "so called birthers" in posting number 55.  Briefly, I said:

quote:

           It was Huan Yi who brought up the topic.  You already know my thoughts on the matter and do not take them into consideration.  Should you believe that Huan Yi feels they are a vital and lively issue, you should take them up with him.



     I think it is a non-issue.

     Should you feel that it is an issue that demands discussion, I am certain there are others who are as fascinated by the ins and outs of the issue as you are, and it would be more fruitful for you to continue the discussion with them.  

     I felt the issue was closed when I saw the birth certificate on line.  I believe that the business about long form and short form birth certificates has been put to rest by the Sate of Hawaii.  I feel that the truth of the President's position has been checked by actual reasonably objective sources.  You and I have had discussions about this in the past. The continual "yes, butting" on the side of the birthers has reached a place where it hinges on more and more obscure pieces of data and the data seems more and more tenuous.  Each time one odd statement is refuted, another odd and even more tenuous statement shows up with even less connection to any sort of central line of reasoning.  

     While there may be some extremely small chance there is some truth to it — and I say this with the same attempt at open-mindedness that I would extend to somebody who is certain the earth is flat and wishes to prove it to me — I need to be convinced.  I would actually need to be engaged thoughtfully and with good will by those who hold this position.  That would include their thoughtful willingness to consider and — at a minimum — actually remember what I've said to them already on the subject.  This hasn't happened so far, and I see little evidence that it will happen in the future.

     That includes being told that I haven't responded when in fact I have.

     I do not believe that there is sufficient fact to the case for me to spend time discussing it.  For the President to spend time talking about it would steal time best used in other ways when his lawyers could deal with it more efficiently.  If I see at some point there is enough fact for me to want to discuss it, or if I grow outraged enough for one reason or another, I may change my opinion.

     Sincerely, Bob Kaven

    

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

115 posted 2009-09-20 04:32 PM




Dear Huan Yi,

           Victor Hanson is an extraordinary Historian.  His work on the Greek Hoplites is well worth reading both for the wonderful quality of his prose and for the trenchant quality of his thinking.  For a man such as yourself, he would be a wonderful resource about the nature of man and war, and he is well respected by the wonderful John Keegan as well.

     I don't know that any of these qualities makes him a particularly well qualified commentator on modern politics, although he has attempted to fill that role.  His somewhat self-righteous and bellicose book published a year or so after 9/11 proved itself a well intentioned attempt to justify the Bush administration's tissue of lies.

     I will need to read the articles you've referenced to be able to comment any more fully.  Hanson is, among other things, owner of a family run vineyard; and he will have had relevant experience, and he will have written about it tellingly, so I can say honestly if a touch ruefully that I look forward to being taken to task brilliantly by a man worthy of admiration.

    Thanks for digging this one up, Huan Yi.

All my best, Bob Kaven


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
116 posted 2009-09-20 04:37 PM


When one starts talking about the small percentage illegal aliens are costing US citizens and the hospital system, one cannot also ignore the rest of the picture. Health care for illegals represents about 1/6 of what illegals actually cost when you figure in education, social services, etc.

Our immigration policies are basically a joke and you may recall that I was completely against Bush on that topic. Our policies are surpassed in stupidity only by the military "Don't ask-don't tell" lunacy. What the government is basically saying is that it is against the law to enter the country illegally. However, if you do manage to accomplish that, then you can apply for all of the social services, education and emergency health care you need. In other words, we will reward you for being able to get through the border. Why shouldn't they try?? Now, this proposed bill is simply enforcing the fact that they will continue to be covered, even while the president and democrats say they won't. The simple fact that no one will be required to prove citizenship when receiving treatment spells that out quite clear. Again I ask....why SHOULDN'T they keep trying? We are making it too lucrative for them not to....

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
117 posted 2009-09-20 05:06 PM



quote:
In the current US plans being offered, no proof of citizenship is necessary...there is simply no charge.


That's only half true Mike, proof of citizenship is definitely not required for private insurance inclusion, for public insurance however it is a mandatory measure of eligibility in both the UK and US.

The confusion arises when it comes to emergency treatment.

It's definitely true that almost all hospitals are obliged to treat emergency cases, which are life, limb or organ threatening. Even if the patient does not have sufficient health insurance. That's where Denise's $200 million unrecoverable costs come from, but none of that is a consequence of any of the proposed bills, it's due to an act passed in 1986 - the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
118 posted 2009-09-20 06:12 PM


Dead' patient in Barack Obama health care speech lived another three years

A patient whose death President Barack Obama highlighted as an example of poor health care in fact had his insurance reinstated and was able to live another three years.


By Alex Spillius in Washington
Published: 5:23PM BST 17 Sep 2009

The president told the poignant story of Otto Raddatz, without naming him, during a speech to Congress last week aimed at reinvigorating support for his proposals to reform health care.

He said the Illinois man was dropped by his insurers in the middle of chemotherapy treatment, because they discovered he had failed to report a gallstone which he claimed had been unaware of.

"They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it," the president said in his primetime address.

In fact following complaints by his sister, a lawyer, and Lisa Madigan, the Illinois attorney general, the patient's policy was reinstated within three weeks of it being rescinded in early 2005, according to the Wall Street Journal.

His insurers then paid for a stem-cell transplant that kept him alive until this year.

Mr Obama appears to have exaggerated the story after White House speechwriters lifted it from the news website Slate.com without thorough checking.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6202915/Dead-patient-in-Barack-Obama-health-care-speech-lived-another-three-years.html


....and Obama still doesn't understand why people  don't believe him. Go figure......

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

119 posted 2009-09-20 06:17 PM



Dear Mike,

         Quoting myself is less work than writing it out again and I find myself getting more tired more easily these days.

     I begin by talking about illegals (and legals, for that matter, while they aren't yet citizens) not being able to collect social security pensions.

quote:


     They do collect on emergency services because it's in your interest (and mine) to have vaccinated people walking around rather than carriers of polio and smallpox.   Would that more of our citizens understood that.  It's in your interest (and mine) that people with Flu get treated before they spread it, and that they get vaccinated for that before that catch it.  The largest strides made in terms of length of life and in health of the population at large has been in terms of infectious diseases and in public health (such as in treatment and prevention of cholera and VD) and in provision of sewage and clean water.

     When we don't extend this care to every human being in the environment around us, it is the same as cutting our own throats.  That is a matter of pragmatics.  

     I believe the notions of actually finding a workable program to accomplish the exclusion of one group from the midst of another have tended to become less and less ethical the more explicitly the actual details of their execution — and I use the word advisedly — are made known.  I am perfectly willing to be proven wrong by being shown any half dozen or so successful and ethical programs for winnowing illegal aliens from the midst of a national population.  Any three, for that matter.

     I'd settle for a clear picture of any single program universally acclaimed as successful and ethical as a way of beginning discussions, however.  It would at least show that there is something we know we can work towards.

     If there is no such universally acclaimed success story, I would suggest that demands that we hold out for a situation in which illegal aliens can be excluded successfully, ethically and pragmatically from our society are simply  ways in which we are able to stop thinking realistically about what our country actually needs and what we actually need to do to make the best real country out of what we have to work with.  We're simply sticking our heads in the sand.  And saying, "So there!"




     When I say, "would that more of our citizens understood that," I mean that we've got lots of citizens who figure that it's somebody else's responsibility to get vaccinated and prevent them from getting measles and mumps and smallpox and polio, not that you should understand it's in your interest to have everybody around you vaccinated against these illnesses.  Not understanding the need to get vaccinated against these basic illnesses whose prevention has been understood for almost a hundred years is like believing in the usefulness of drinking sewage, with the exception of folks who are allergic to egg products and some of the other culture mediums used to grow the vaccines themselves.

     I would like to know how you are planning to exclude illegal immigrants from the fabric of American life without acting unethically and possibly illegally in the process.  And I would like to know how you believe that withholding care from these people in emergency rooms and preventative care in general does anything but attack the health welfare of the population in general. Were you planning on leaving the bodies unburied as well to save the extra money?  

     You do understand, outrageous as it sounds, that this is the logical extension of the complaints you are voicing?

     Why not sit down and come up with a thought through plan that accomplishes what you'd like and doesn't have the unwanted side-effects that I'm certain you'd rather avoid?

     This might actually be something that everybody could do together, rather than something that everybody would have to fight each other to accomplish.

     I might not like that people drive without insurance, for example, get into accidents and kill themselves and other people, or injure themselves and other people.  That doesn't mean I'm in favor of letting them bleed to death on the side of the road, and letting the cars and bodies rot there, even if they don't have the money to pay for a tow or to pay for getting stitched up.  Are you?

     Perhaps you could quote some figures about how well private donors did during the 19th Century, when there were a great many deaths from unmarked railway crossings in the cities of the United States.  Perhaps you could use those figures to show how well these private donors worked in the absence of government help?  I'd be interested to hear.  I honestly don't have an answer, though because it's hard to apply funds to a need without some sort of systematic organization, I suspect that governmental structure rather than ad-hoc organization would probably be more effective.  I might be wrong.

     In the mean time, instead of fighting about immigration and health care, why not try to look at it together.

     For example:

     What do you want your health care system to do for you and for your country?

     How many of the people in the country do you think it ought to cover?

     How do you think we ought to pay for it?

     How much should it cost?

     What do you think it ought to pay for?



     I think those are five pretty decent questions.  I'm willing to take a shot at answering them if you are.  Heck, I'm willing to take a shot at answering them even if you aren't.  I'm even willing to say I don't know where I really don't know.

     Is anybody willing to look at them with me?

Sincerely, Bob Kaven

    

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
120 posted 2009-09-20 06:27 PM


Miss Raddatz told the Chicago Sun-Times she took no issue with Mr Obama.

"The point is that my brother lost his insurance coverage when he was dying," she said, adding that her brother had been suffering from stage IV non-Hodgkins lymphoma.


I thought that was the important point too but you're right Mike they should have got the rest of the facts right.

Simply repeating what you read on the interweb is never a good idea.

.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
121 posted 2009-09-20 06:33 PM



I don't mind answering them Bob. It'll not be tonight though. It's bedtime in the UK.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
122 posted 2009-09-20 07:15 PM


Yes, I read the entire article and I agree that the insurance company was wrong (and horse's arses) in terminating coverage when they did BUT, at least, through legal action they were able to get it re-instated shortly thereafter. The system worked...and the patient lived another three years.

Whenever I get facts wrong on here, I get them wrong. I'm not speaking to 200 million Americans. Obama should at least get his facts straight and clear, especially when he is asking for public trust. All of his "personal" examples like Tilly Mae in Memphis or some such other prime-time character are just people his speechwriters dig up and feed to him....not much to instill confidence there.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

123 posted 2009-09-20 09:39 PM


I'm not the one acting without good will, Bob. I merely asked you to directly answer a direct question, which you, for some reason refuse to do.

I also am not the one who has to prove anything. Questions have been raised, beginning two years ago during the primaries, that have been ignored, swept under the carpet and ridiculed, and now any documentation that could help answer those questions have been officially sealed from view. I don't accept a digitized computer generated online "certification" attested to by FighttheSmears, MoveOn and FactCheck as a satisfactory production of evidence, while all the actual documentation exists behind lock and key, and a very expensive lock and key at that.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
124 posted 2009-09-20 09:44 PM



I would like to know how you are planning to exclude illegal immigrants from the fabric of American life without acting unethically and possibly illegally in the process.

Beats me. Off the top of my pointed I would say stop all social services...food stamps, unemployment, education or whatever social services they are awarded now. Would I deny them emergency treatment? No, I wouldn't..but, upon their recovery, I would have them deported with instructions on how to apply legally for citizenship. I would make them understand there there would be little benefit to entering the country illegally.

Perhaps you could quote some figures about how well private donors did during the 19th Century, when there were a great many deaths from unmarked railway crossings in the cities of the United States.

Sure, Bob, right after I research what private donors did with regards to the Black Plague in the 14th century   Whatever point you are trying to make with that example is lost on me.

Am I in favor of letting people bleed to death by the side of the road? Thanks, Bob....guess you just can't help yourself.

What do I think about health care. I think it should be mandatory for all who can afford it and I think it should be made affordable. How? Cracking down on the insurance companies, getting serious about tort reform, reducing waste in the hospital system, going after the drug companies, etc etc etc. There are many ways to make it more affordable. You seem to insinuate I feel the health care system is fine and doesn't need any changes. Neither I, or anyone I know, believes that.....but  it does need a lot of tweaking. What it does NOT need is to be government run. Government has proven that it cannot run ANY business effectively...perhaps because many of it's members  have no business experience. This particular government has done nothing more than quadruple the national debt in less than a year. Obama claims it will not add to the debt, a statement refuted by almost everyone. He claims he can finance it partially by eliminating waste. What has stopped him from initiating policies to eliinate waste up until now? He claims it will not interfere with private insurance, another statement refuted by the CBO and everyone in a position to know better. He simply wants it to be government run.

I believe health insurance should be like car insurance, in a way. With car insurance, those with less money take out less coverage but still meet the minimum. Those with more can take out as much extensive coverage as they want. If you believe that every person is entitled to health insurance, then why don't you believe that every person has the right to drive a car, whether or not they have insurance? Last time I checked, the constitution made no mention of either car insurance or health insurance being one of our inalienable rights.

There are millions of people here who can afford health insurance and yet don't carry it. Why? WHo knows? Feelings of indestructability, youth, or simply not wanting to...your pick. SHould you be paying for their health care? Should I?  The government sees fit to make us responsible for their health care needs, but  not them? What's wrong with that picture?

Those are my thoughts and, yes, I know you can take them apart and have a feast with them so proceed if you like. You asked my opinion and here it is....period. Are there holes in it? Undoubtedly. If I had all of the answers, I'd run for Congress, so at least there would be one person there who knows what he's talking about.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

125 posted 2009-09-20 10:21 PM




Dear Mike,

          You may be right about the nature of President Obama's exemplars; I don't know.  Saying "all they are" is a bit dismissive in my opinion.  An illustration is meant to illustrate a point, and can do so well or poorly.  It may also do so honestly or dishonestly.  My understanding is that President Obama has in general played fair with his illustrations.  

     We may remember President Reagan's "Welfare Queen," in this regard, who turned out not to exist.  This exemplar fitted President Reagan's purposes very well indeed, but did so dishonestly.  We might remember President Bush's sharp rebukes to the Clinton White House Staffers for removing the W's from the White House typewriters, an exemplar that fit President Bush's purposes very well indeed but which was flawed by the fact that it the objectionable actions never happened.  

     Apt examples chosen to illustrate appropriate situations may bore the right wing.  I find a willingness at least to attempt to be confined by the bounds of aptness to be be somewhat refreshing.  

     Granted it doesn't have the excitement of telling two conflicting stories at the same time (The Iraqis were responsible for everything, from Vice President Cheney; and, I never claimed that Saddam Hussein worked with al qaida, by President Bush); but it does have that troublesome anxiety-lessening effect that so distresses many notable neoconservatives.  I must say I'm sorry that the President hasn't added enough chili to the beans for the conservative crowd by simply offering straightforward examples; and I hope he continues to remain fully as boring in the future.      

Sincerely, Bob Kaven

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

126 posted 2009-09-20 10:33 PM




Dear Mike,

           Actually, I'm not interested in taking apart your post 124.  I appreciate your willingness to take a fair shot at giving a fair answer at what I thought were a decent set of questions.  Rather than try to take your thoughts apart, which would be not so nice of me, I think, I should take a try at answering the same questions myself.  Then both of us will have a chance to see each other's thinking.

     If you're willing to talk about your thoughts, you should have a chance to see my thoughts as well without any criticism in between, at least from me, and at least on this.  I have some comments that I made about examples and Obama earlier, before I'd seen your comments here.  

     Thanks for giving these a good shot.  I really do appreciate it.

Bob

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
127 posted 2009-09-20 10:47 PM


I must say I'm sorry that the President hasn't added enough chili to the beans for the conservative crowd by simply offering straightforward examples; and I hope he continues to remain fully as boring in the future.

I don't think congressional democrats would agree with you, Bob. Not only has he not influenced the Republicans, he has also lost much of the Democratic support. I, too, hope he continues along those same lines.

Yes, by all means, give your thoughts on your questions without any criticisms from me. After all, opinions are just that, and are to be respected.      

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

128 posted 2009-09-22 12:12 PM


Whatever the actual cost of illegal immigrants on our healthcare system, Grinch, and I see no reason not to go with the $10.1 Billion annual cost to the federal and state governments, it is a strain on the system. I don’t know how much better or worse allowing them to have coverage under any new plan the government might be able to push through, but either way it is a burden that we really can’t bear, given the current financial crisis.

And now I am angry. First we hear that there may not be sufficient vaccine for H1N1 because to be effective people may require two shots instead of one, then the next week we hear one dose seems to be sufficient. Well that seemed to be a bit of good news. Then a couple days later we hear that the vaccine will not be initially available to those 50 and older, and that those 65 and older will be the last group in line for any eventual availability. So the rationing has begun by the government already, even before they take over the healthcare system. It should be up to the physicians, depending upon patient vulnerability to death or health complications from the H1N1 strain. The criteria should be pregnant women, the very young, the very old and the very sick, as in the past, to determine who should receive the vaccine, not the government mandating an age based criteria. And now we will be shipping our ‘excess’ to other countries via the U.N. Will that be before or after everyone here who should get it has a chance at getting it, or will we newly defined ‘oldsters’ be shafted for the wannabe global government’s determination of the ‘common good’?

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

129 posted 2009-09-22 12:31 PM




Dear Mike,

         I’ve put some thought into the five questions I proposed.  I was hoping that we could put Democrat/Republican and Liberal/Conservative aside for a while and simply look at what each of us thought the issues were and what we thought we needed or thought we might do about them.  Get to the root of things, if possible — radix, root, the word that radical comes from, a word that applies to both left and right at times.

What do you want your health care system to do for you and for your country?

     How many of the people in the country do you think it ought to cover?

     How do you think we ought to pay for it?

     How much should it cost?

     What do you think it ought to pay for?


1)  I want my health care system to supply health care for the citizens of my country and those residing here in that country, whose health affects those citizens.  I want that system to function from the time a citizen has a health care need until that need is resolved.  It will not be able to fill all needs of every person, but it should be sufficient to maintain or return anybody to health or to maintain them at their best level of functioning given the problems they face, even if the problem has to do with dying.  

     Should they wish extraordinary levels of care, such as plastic surgery for cosmetic rather than reparative reasons, or speculative and unproven treatments for conditions for which there are already proven and effective treatments, these might be covered by the purchase of a boutique policy or out of pocket.  There should be no need to fund a polysurgery addiction like Michael Jackson’s.

     There should be ongoing reviews of which treatments are the most effective for treatment of which conditions.  And yes, people should keep their final directives up to date.  There is no reason for us to repeat the Terry Schaivo sadness when a simple written directive would have made it clear that that yes she wanted to be kept alive on machines or that no she did not.  These decisions should be made by the people themselves, if only for the sake of the survivors.  

2)  I think such a program ought to cover everybody in the country.

3)  I think we are already paying for it.  I simply think we are not getting it.  I believe that much of the difference has been funneled into excess profits for insurance companies in the health care business and into excess profits for the drug industry as well as bonuses for some of their executives.

     The insurance companies seem to be trying to get the profit cap lifted on the product now from 20% to 35%.  I fail to see how this will help get any more people coverage.  I suspect that it will actually cut the number of benefits actually delivered, myself, and will probably raise the premiums as well.

     I believe that if what we are now paying in premiums was diverted toward health taxes, there would be enough to an excellect single payer system with room for private insurers to sell boutique policy coverage for single rooms, private duty nursing and the like.  

     Considerable money could be saved simply by refusing to pay enormously bloated prices for drugs and actually making drug companies bid for government drug contracts, and by refusing to allow drug companies to advertise other than to physicians.  Currently, they appear to be creating artificial markets for expensive drugs when less expensive and equally effective drugs will work just as well.

     Actually, Mike, I think I’ve covered five questions in three sections.

     What level of agreement do we have here between us and what level of disagreement, if we put the political labels aside and actually start looking at opinions and proposals?

     If you’ve got any thoughts or comments, I’d be happy to take a shot at coming to grips with them.

All my best, Bob Kaven

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
130 posted 2009-09-22 02:55 PM



My perfect health care system would consist of government funded but independently managed not for profit health care provider running alongside the current private insurance companies. It would provide two basic health care plans. One that contained the bare minimum emergency services and serious illness cover - life, limb and organ threatening stuff.

The second would include treatment for non-threatening ailments and diagnostic procedures. Private comprehensive plans would also be available

The basic emergency plan would be automatically available to all citizens including the unemployed.

The enhanced basic plan would be automatically available to any income tax payer and their dependants, in addition anyone receiving social security benefits could opt into this system but their received benefit would be reduced if they did so. Anyone receiving a pension could also opt in at reduced rates.

Private enhanced plans would be available to anyone who preferred to opt out of the universal health system. They would still pay the universal health care charge but would receive a tax rebate.

In addition an agreement would be reached with health care providers whereby any citizen could purchase treatment direct from the provider on an "as needed" basis. The cost charged by the providers would be 20% higher than standard rates.

The premium for this universal health care will collected via an increase in income tax. Every taxpayer would pay the same flat rate at source. All legal dependants would be covered under the policy of the main wage earner residing at the family home; married couples with children would receive a tax rebate of 50% of the joint amount paid.

Any person preferring to opt out of the system and arrange private cover would receive a rebate equal to the non-emergency portion of the universal premium.

The system would be managed on a regional (State) level, each region would be responsible for treatment of national, epidemic or pandemic health care needs such as immunisation and vaccination against transmittable diseases within their catchment area.

Under this system everyone is covered if they fall under a bus but above and beyond that it's the individual's responsibility and choice regarding what health care they want.  

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
131 posted 2009-09-22 05:03 PM



quote:
Whatever the actual cost of illegal immigrants on our healthcare system, Grinch, and I see no reason not to go with the $10.1 Billion annual cost to the federal and state governments, it is a strain on the system.


And if the total cumulative cost is zero it's no strain at all.

You don't know what the cost of presumptive coverage given to illegal immigrants is Denise, any more than you knew what unrecoverable losses are attributable to them. Nobody does, you don't, I don't and the government, both state and federal, don't either. So what are the chances that a bunch of racist bigots who have a grudge against immigrants got it right?

I'll give you a clue it's probably no chance whatsoever.

A 75 year old Latino goes into a hospital emergency room after being hit by a drunk driver - unfortunately he died three days later from complications.

Was he an illegal immigrant Denise, would you treat him anyway?

A 6-year-old Asian girl is rushed into the emergency room after collapsing in class. She spends 4 hours in surgery but dies two days later due to acute peritonitis caused by a burst appendix.

Was she an illegal immigrant, would you treat her anyway?

A 22-year-old white woman is brought into the emergency room ranting in what sounds like Dutch or German, she's heavily pregnant and needs to undergo an emergency caesarean section. She survives but discharges herself from hospital two days later.

Is she an illegal immigrant Denise, would you treat her anyway?

Not sure? The emergency room staff probably aren't either but it doesn't really matter because they're obliged to treat all of them all under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986. If the costs for treatment for any of the above aren't claimable from an insurance company or the family of the deceased then the hostpital has two choices. They either write the cost off as an unrecoverable loss (your $200 million) or they "presume" that the patient is covered by Medicare or Medicaid and bill the state (your $10 billion figure).

Oh I almost forgot to add.

The 75 year old Latino was a second generation Mexican-American born in Califonia who fought for his country in Vietnam where he received the medal of honour.

The 6 year old Asian girl was the daughter of the local police chief.

The 22-year-old white woman? She's back on the farm that she's lived on all her life. The hospital received payment in cash from the Amish community 3 days later.

.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

132 posted 2009-09-22 06:27 PM




Dear Denise,

          Doing things the traditional way has its points.

     It certainly sounds attractive, the way you state it, when you speak of the new strain of Flu.

     I notice, however, that while you spoke at some length about your fears — which I share — and your suspicions of governmental actions — which I also share in general, though not in this case — you do not speak of having checked these things out.

     Were my degree of alarm as great as yours, and it seems that it is not in this case, I would be interested in getting some information because I am aware that Flu is a wily illness.  While the standard order would seem useful for many strains of flu, it would not be useful for others.  It might even be counterproductive.

     The big Flu of 1918, for example, was not such a big deal for the elderly or for children.  The people it struck, almost by choice if one could attribute choice to a plague, were those who were healthy and in the prime of life.  Using your administration schedule applied to those folks would have left you feeling triumphant.  Almost everybody who got your (nonexistent at the time) vaccine would have lived; and how simply awful for those strong young folks that we weren't able to save because we ran out of vaccine before we got to them because your rationing scheme sent the "life-saving" vaccine to the traditionally more vulnerable.

     Did you in fact run across reasonably objective information that gives more substance to your reasonable fears of governmental action than those things you've already mentioned?  If so, I'd be interested in a reference I could follow up on.  It sounds like an ageist policy on the face of it, and I'd like to know the rationale behind it if this is in fact the way the government is now doing things.  Hard data?

Sincerely,  Bob Kaven


JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

133 posted 2009-09-22 08:28 PM


The step-wise approach that angers Denise for which she condemns "our government" is the recommendation of SAGE to WHO, the World Health Organization.
"SAGE was established by the WHO Director-General in 1999 as the principal advisory group to WHO for vaccines and immunization. It comprises 15 members who serve in their personal capacity and represent a broad range of disciplines from around the world in the fields such as epidemiology, public health, vaccinology, paediatrics, internal medicine, infectious diseases, immunology, drug regulation, programme management, immunization delivery, and health-care administration."
I could be wrong but they sound like a pretty credible group to me. Why should our government ignore their advice?
http://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/notes/h1n1_vaccine_20090713/en/index.html

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

134 posted 2009-09-22 09:28 PM


I've never advocated that those needing care not be treated, Grinch. I've said that earlier as well. I'm simply saying that I don't know which would cost more, covering them with any eventual plan or allowing for emergency care only, but that either way is still a burden on our economy. What needs to be done, today, is a serious effort at stopping the flood of illegal immigration.

Bob, I heard the information on the evening news and on the radio. I didn't do internet research on it, although I'm sure it is out there for those who wish to investigate further, as Jennifer did. It does fit in nicely with the views of Obama's chief health advisor, Ezekial Emanuel. Coincidence? You can also google him to read his views and justifictions for age based treatment.

I don't esteem those organizations as highly as you seem to, Jennifer. I believe that it is immoral beyond imagining that any age based criteria be implemented in the distribution of health care, promoting the view that the most valuable group in a society are those aged 15 thru 49, and will therefore get preference in a treatment, regardless of their actual need of treatment based on physical condition, health history and probable rates of a successful outcome without treatment, while those who are very young, very old, and very sick, whose morbidity rates would be highest without treatment, find that treatment is simply not available to them.

Yes, I do condemn those in our government who adopted such a plan. The choice was theirs, after all. No one is forcing them to go along with the recommendations of SAGE. They could have left the decisions in the hands of the physicians to administer a tight supply wisely as they see necessary to the most endangered in the population, not the most 'age-worthy'. 'Need', not 'age', should be the criteria used.

It would almost be funny if it weren't so sickening: This is the same group of people who scoffed at and accused concerned citizens in August at the various town hall meetings of spreading 'misinformation' about Obamacare when they voiced concerns of impending rationing of healthcare by the government, among other things. Well, it seems they are already doing it, aren't they, Jennifer?  So who is really spreading misinformation, the concerned citizens or the government?

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

135 posted 2009-09-22 10:06 PM


Denise, I believe the idea behind the step-wise approach has absolutely nothing to do with age discrimination. Rather, the idea seems to be to try and control the spread of the disease by vaccinating those more likely to be exposed to it and likely to pass it on. Who’s more likely to be exposed or pass it on, an eighty year old woman sitting home watching Dancing with the Stars or a person out and about at school or work on a daily basis? Those most endangered ARE those most likely to be exposed.

And please don’t confuse treatment with vaccination. No one will be denied treatment because of their age. Also, you might want to check the morbidity rates to date by age. I think you’ll be very surprised.

No, I don’t think “they” are rationing healthcare anymore than triage unit at your local hospital emergency room. They are simply using what may be limited resources (vaccine) in a manner they deem most effective in helping to stop the spread of the virus.


JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

136 posted 2009-09-22 10:22 PM


Also

Denise - “I believe that it is immoral beyond imagining that any age based criteria be implemented in the distribution of health care.”

Does that mean you’re opposed to Medicare and the Prescription Drug Program for Seniors? Do you think a similar program should be available to everyone regardless of age? Or do you think those programs should be discontinued because they’re age based and thus, in your opinion, immoral?


Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

137 posted 2009-09-22 10:56 PM




Dear Denise,

           Jennifer's made some excellent points that I think you believe you've addressed, but you don't to me appear to have done so.

     If one develops a treatment for Tay-Sachs disease, which is a genetic disease that affects one particular group of European Jews, you don't demand that you be moved to the head of the line for that treatment on the grounds that you might have some Jewish ancestry and that you're over fifty.  The treatment should not get distributed on the basis of the eldest and the sickest and the youngest first.

     There would be a good case for treating children before reaching reproductive age, but not elderly people who will not pass it on or for treating sick people whose treatment might be affected by treatment for Tay-Sachs disease and who may not reproduce while they are very sick anyway.  You would treat the people who would benefit from the treatment.  You would withhold treatment from those who would not benefit because the treatment might do harm, and the basic principle of medicine is to avoid doing harm whenever possible.

     The same reasoning is applied to the decision to treat any population.  You want to treat the vulnerable members first, and thus limit the spread of the disease in the population as a whole.  You need to determine who those members are by doing research into the nature of the illness.

     In the case of a large scale illness, you are not only treating an individual patient, but you are treating a population as well, and there is a medical specialty that focuses on that particular area of art and science.  It is epidemiology.  It is as complex as cardiology or neurology, and it is what Jennifer is trying to address with you here.

     While you have every right to have an opinion on what is right and wrong about the way these decisions are made, as I believe I do as well, neither one of us are competent or even board certified in that area of medicine.  Actually to claim expertise as opposed to the right to an opinion  pretends to a level of knowledge that I don't have.  I do on occasion lay claim to that level of personal chutzpa, but that is of limited use in convincing those who refuse to acknowledge true extent of my cosmic powers.  

     That means basically everybody else.

     You may not like Jennifer's point; you may even be outraged by it.  She still seems to have the science of the matter on her side.

     This doesn't make you wrong.  

     It does suggest that the two of you are talking past each other.  Sadly.

Yours, Bob Kaven

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
138 posted 2009-09-22 11:17 PM


I think you all have gotten off-point. Grinch gives examples of three people being rushed to emergency rooms. I don't understand the point. Those people get treatment now in the system we have. The only point about illegal aliens is that Obama used those figures while speaking of how many people in the country were without health care...and while he was saying that illegal aliens would not be covered. When he was confronted by that fact, via Wilson's "You lie!" outburst, he changed the figured to eliminate them.

So what's the point? If Obama claims they will not get free medical care, fine. In his plan AND the way things are now, they are still going to get emergency treatment so what does that have to do with the government taking over health care?

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

139 posted 2009-09-22 11:24 PM


I should think, Jennifer, that 50 plus folks out there in the work-a-day world are just as exposed as younger workers of 18 thru 49, and school kids of ages 5 thru 14 are just as exposed as those 15 and above. And even the elderly may come in contact with an infected person at the grocery store, or church, or hair salon. They would be even more at risk if they have underlying health conditions that make them less likely to withstand a serious respiratory infection which could result from any type of flu, as would any person of any age with any underlying health condition, young or old.

And yes, if Ezekial Emanuel has his way, not only vaccinations but other treatments as well will be age restricted. His writings should give everyone pause.

And now you want to compare a health insurance program for seniors, that they must contribute towards out of their social security check, with treatment/vaccine administration mandates by the government? That's a poor comparison.

Why don't we stick with the flu, Bob. Of course genetic specific illnesses such as Tay-Sachs have their own specific criteria not relating to the general population.

If we are interested in treating the most vulnerable then it must be done by treating those most vulnerable to death and disability, not by excluding them.



JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

140 posted 2009-09-23 06:54 AM


“If we are interested in treating the most vulnerable then it must be done by treating those most vulnerable to death and disability, not by excluding them.”

We’re not talking about your ordinary seasonal flu, Denise. We’re talking about the possibility of a world wide pandemic. You don’t prevent or limit the spread of a pandemic by treating the most vulnerable. (Treatment comes after you contract the disease and should not be confused with prevention measures such as vaccines) What you need to do is take measures to help stop the spread of the disease before it reaches pandemic proportions. It seems reasonable to me that experts in  fields such as epidemiology and pubic health, like SAGE and WHO, have a better grasp on how best to deal with and prevent a pandemic than those of us posting on a poetry discussion forum.  If I were President, I’d give their opinion far more weight than that of those consumed by anger, fear, or with some sort of political ax to grind.

No, I don’t want to compare  “a health insurance program for seniors” with “ treatment/vaccine administration mandates by the government”. I simply asked if an age based health care program like Medicare was ok with you since you “believe that it is immoral beyond imagining that any age based criteria be implemented in the distribution of health care.” I’d gladly pay what the average SS recipient pays for their government provided health care program for a similar one for myself. Unfortunately I don’t have that option since I don’t meet the age requirement. Why shouldn’t I have access to the same sort of health care program as Seniors? Isn’t that age based discrimination?



Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

141 posted 2009-09-23 08:56 AM


I wouldn't trust SAGE or WHO, Jennifer. Their ideology seems the same as Zeke's to me.

I'm at a loss as to how those 50 and older, still out in the work force, are not as susceptible as those aged 18-49 and why children under 15 are not as vulnerable. What is the reasoning for that?

Seniors for the most part have a plan that they have paid into for the past 40+ years, so after you have done that, maybe you'll have it too...or maybe not. I wouldn't envy the seniors their health coverage just yet, Jen. The politicians seem intent on severely diminishing it.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

142 posted 2009-09-23 09:44 AM


http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=110710
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
143 posted 2009-09-23 10:22 AM


So we need a government takeover of health care to avoid pandemics??

If I were President, I’d give their opinion far more weight than that of those consumed by anger, fear, or with some sort of political ax to grind. Those people have a name...congressional Democrats...and their numbers are growing.

Yes,I realize it is popular these days to brand any dissident to the president's policies to be either unruly, Nazis, angry mobs, un-Americans, or any other such adjectives you may choose to employ. We have apparently moved passed the days when Hillary screamed out that it was every American's right to question, criticize, challenge and even rebel against party policies they did not agree with. Funny how things change with the location of the shoe..

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

144 posted 2009-09-23 12:46 PM


From what I've seen and read, the anger, fear, political ax description fits teabaggers more so than Democrats.
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

145 posted 2009-09-23 01:31 PM


“Funny how things change with the location of the shoe..”

Indeed.

“Twelve years later, by the end of George H.W. Bush’s presidency, it (the deficit) had exploded to $4 trillion. Reagan was a “B” grade movie actor and a doddering, probably clinically senile president, but he was a sheer genius at rewarding his friends by saddling other people with debts.

Bill Clinton reversed Reagan’s course, raising taxes on the wealthy, and lowering them for the working and middle classes. This produced the longest sustained economic expansion in American history. Importantly, it also produced budgetary surpluses allowing the government to begin paying down the crippling debt begun under Reagan. In 2000, Clinton’s last year, the surplus amounted to $236 billion. The forecast ten year surplus stood at $5.6 trillion.”

So where were all those teabaggers the last eight years when the Bush 2 Administration was turning billions in surplus into trillions in deficit? It took them eight full years to get their water hot?

I do envy Seniors their government health care program, Denise. What a single recipient is getting for less than a hundred dollars a month, I couldn’t get for thousands. To me that definitely seems like age based discrimination since I also pay into the Medicare system. Sorry, World Net Daily is not a credible source. It’s primary focus seems to be to inflame more impressionable conservatives. Should you care to offer a link from one of the many unbiased, credible sources like some of those Bob has mentioned, I’d be glad to read the material.


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

146 posted 2009-09-23 02:07 PM


While the seniors were paying into the system all those years they weren't able to use it during that time either, Jen. The payment was for a future benefit. And at the time they either had to pay for a private plan as well or had an employer plan as a job benefit, or did without, when they were younger.  Hopefully it will be there for us some day.

It's difficult to find real pertinent news and commentary other than at conservative sites, in my opinion, so I can't help you there if you want liberal sources.

And I doubt you'd find a single teabagger among the Tea Party participants. More likely you'll find them at MSNBC. They seem very familiar with the practice.

It took someone like Obama with his over-the-top, over-reaching, power-grabbing, socialistic/communistic tendencies to wake people up. If he had appeared to be a little more moderate or centrist people may still have been sleeping.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
147 posted 2009-09-23 02:31 PM



quote:
What needs to be done, today, is a serious effort at stopping the flood of illegal immigration.


I agree that immigration needs to be addressed Denise and I can give you plenty of reasons backed with facts and figures as to why. What I can't do is tie immigration to the strain on the health care system, not because it isn't a strain, but because there's no evidence one way or the other.

Mike, that was the only point I was trying to make really. As you rightly said emergency care won't change whether the bill passes or not and there's no provision in the bill to give illegal immigrants any additional cover.

If Obama used a figure for the uninsured that included illegal immigrants he was wrong, the problem though is proving how wrong, if at all, he actually was given that the numbers for almost all groups who are uninsured are, at best, basically ballpark guesses.

If for instance the number of illegal immigrants is actually double the highest estimates and all the other groups are roughly correct he's hyping the uninsured figure for legal citizens. If however the figure for illegal immigrants is correct and the legal but uninsured estimates are out he could be bang on or grossly underestimating the uninsured figures.

Personally I think the illegal figure is more likely to be wrong but I wouldn't trust the other figures much either. That's mainly because I don't think that national census information, where most of the figures come from, is even close to being accurate.

quote:
So we need a government takeover of health care to avoid pandemics??


I don't think so but I can see the advantages of the government formulating the national response and having enough control of the system to co-ordinate and implement the agreed response. That's how it happens in the UK. Private insurance companies play no role in vaccination and immunisation programs, the government forms the appropriate plan and the NHS implements it. The cost is picked up by the government, and ultimately the taxpayer, as a special and one off addition to the health budget.

How does it work in the US?

.

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

148 posted 2009-09-23 04:38 PM


So what you’re saying, Denise, is that a government run health care program is ok with you as long as it benefits Seniors like yourself.

And, in your opinion, a similar program for non-Seniors in desperate need of health care as many of us are, would be one of Obama’s “over-the-top, over-reaching, power-grabbing, socialistic/communistic” programs.

I didn’t ask for liberal sources, I asked for unbiased credible sources. Unfortunately WND is neither, WND is stuck in the hysterical birther death panel mode that feeds the fear, anxiety and anger of those whose dislike of Obama is colored as much by their personal prejudices as their  politics.

It’s been a pleasure chatting with you again, Denise. Take care.


Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

149 posted 2009-09-23 05:44 PM




Dear Denise,

          All flu doesn't behave the same way.

     Each flu attacks differently, within a limited set of parameters.

     Each flu has a different set of symptoms.  Some are more dangerous, some are less dangerous.

     Not each flu is dangerous to the same population.  Flu is not always dangerous to people at all.  Some flu is simply dangerous to ducks, which is why China is one of the big sources for flu.  They raise and consume a huge number of ducks.  This is why chicken eggs are often used to create the vaccine, because of the easy availability over here and because flu loves birds.

     When flu crosses over the line and infects people, each variety of flu finds different sorts of people more tasty.  Some kinds of flu love old folks, because their immune systems aren't very good.  This is not necessarily so good for the flu itself, because when it kills its host, it kills itself as well.  A lot of the structures inside your cells were once, we think, diseases that our bodies adapted to and reached a compromise with, good for our bodies and good for the illness as well.  The illness gets to survive as part of a larger structure much more successfully than it could have ever done on its own.  The body has made friends with an enemy, and now has a useful structure to, for example, do cell repairs.

     Flu is trying to reach a compromise with birds or people or pigs to make it more successful as an organism.  If it succeeds, it's good for everyone.  If it fails, it may kill us off or kill itself off.  It's trying a whole range of different ways of doing this very rapidly.  We have vaccines against at least three different strains of flu every year, but there are many more of them.  The H1N1 is not one of the three included in the usual three flu package shot  this year.  I am not clear why that is.

     The fact that it is being distributed differently, however, offers a clue.  The regular flu shot apparently goes after the usual people in the usual way.  So, in order to give it, they can all be bundled together in one injection and reach everybody who needs that shot, including you and me.  We are the people that the regular three flu bugs of the year find tasty.  We are the usual suspects, as they said in Casablanca.

     The H1N1 flu appears to be a different character.  He doesn't find the usual suspects as tasty.  If he took a bite out of you or me, he'd probably be likely to make a sour face and say pfui.  Then he'd spit us out as not being to his taste because what H1N1 wants is an experiment.  He wants to try the taste of other human folks who taste different than us and might give him a chance to survive longer and get a bit further down the line toward organelle status.  So he's trying a different evolutionary strategy.  It's important that if we're going to block that move, that we should target those people that he's going to find tasty.  You and me are not very high on his menu list, which is why we got special treatment for the regular flu shots, where we are high on the tasty dish list.  For H1N1, the order of tastiness appears to have been flipped.

     Near as I can tell that's the deal.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven  

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
150 posted 2009-09-23 05:46 PM


Reagan was a “B” grade movie actor and a doddering, probably clinically senile president

Well, at least he didn't grow peanuts. Carter continues to be what he has always been - an embarrassment to the Democratic party. It's so easy to view history in the way you want to see it...doesn't take any intelligence to do that. Thank God Reagan was around to cleanup Carter's mess.

Bedtime for Bonzo? A "B" movie??? You have some nerve!!!!!

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
151 posted 2009-09-23 05:55 PM



I don't think they should even be making the vaccine and I definitely won't be acting as an unpaid guinea pig even though I've been told I'm in a high-risk group.

The risk from the current strain is too small, as is the mortality rate, which makes the decision to produce a vaccine against such a mild strain, instead of the seasonal flu vaccine, an example of stupidity of the highest order.

.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
152 posted 2009-09-23 06:23 PM


So what you’re saying, Denise, is that a government run health care program is ok with you as long as it benefits Seniors like yourself.

Don't worry, Denise. I get the same stuff, since the VA picks up my bills. Somehow the years I gave my country just don't seem to matter to those who didn't in the same way that the 40+ years you paid into the system doesn't really count to those who have only put in a fraction of that time. We live in an "instant gratification" society where everyone  wants things NOW, regardless of how much they have or have not contributed.

That's just the way it is......

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

153 posted 2009-09-23 09:04 PM




Dear Mike,

           Red Herring, I think, Mike.  Both your service and Denise's pay in to the system count, and to suggest otherwise would be silly.  That's not the same as pay for as in cash money from an investment, though, is it?

     Neither my time paying in nor Denise's will pay for what we will get paid out monetarily if our lives proceed
predictably.  And your service didn't pay for your care afterward in any sort of fiscal way; nevertheless, it's an honor to fund it, and you deserve it in spades.  You are entitled to it as far as I'm concerned.

     The question that arises, to my mind at least, as to whether the medicare system and the VA hospital system are good systems.  When I suggested that there were substantial problems with the way the VA was being treated and that it's services had been compromised a year or so ago, you were very quick to tell me that the VA was a very fine system indeed.  I still believe that there have been some problems with the system in the areas I mentioned at the time, that is long term nursing home type care, and trauma care for head injuries and in treatment for depression and some of the psychiatric illnesses.  I don't know if you continue to disagree with me about these or not.

     Otherwise, you were very happy with the VA, which is much the sort of system that I believe many folks who look for single payer health care may have in mind.  It seems to be run well, according to what you tell me, and do a good job under public administration.  The Drug companies are not happy because they must actually bid to supply drugs and actually accept more realistic prices than most of us can obtain privately.  If you've had any person pressure from the VA telling you to kill yourself to save the rest of us some money, you haven't said anything that I've heard about it.

     If you have, let me know and I'll start writing letters of complaint to as many people as I can find.  

     A lot of people buy supplements to help with medicare, but other than that, I haven't heard a lot of complaints about the system itself.  It is defrauded by the private contractors on occasion.  If the private contractors were eliminated in favor of public employees, as it works with the VA, some of that problem might go away, of course.

     If these things endanger the private insurance venders, then perhaps the private insurance venders might consider acting in a competitive fashion instead of trying to suppress competition and tack on an extra 15% profits while continuing to raise premiums and reduce coverage and increase co-payments. I fail to see what's communistic about your VA coverage or, for that matter, Medicare.

     With what the insurance companies are taking from our corporate and individual citizens already, I believe it may well already to fund a substantial part of a single payer system, and perhaps all of it if we include actual bids for medication supplies.

     Thoughts for the day,

Hope you're feeling better, Bob Kaven

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

154 posted 2009-09-23 09:46 PM


The late Senator Edward Kennedy proposed Medicare for All, where all Americans would benefit and all would contribute to the financing of the program through payroll taxes and general revenues. If Medicare as it now exits isn’t considered a “socialistic/communistic” program, why would Medicare for All be any different?


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
155 posted 2009-09-24 01:18 AM


Bob, you have certainly heard me sing the praises of the VA and, at this particular time, you will hear me sing them louder than ever. I prefer it over any private hospital and it's doctors over any others. Does it have it's occasional problems? Of course but you will be hard-pressed to find any private hospitals that don't. Most seniors are very happy with their Medicare, also. Do you want to make the claim that this proves that socialized or single-payer health care is the way to go?

Few people are willing to talk about the truly massive unfunded obligations of Medicare and Medicaid ($33.4 trillion), which dwarfs unfunded Social Security obligations ($4.6 trillion) and the national debt ($10 trillion). The U.S. also has "$2.3 trillion unfunded liability for medical and disability benefits promised to civil servants and military personnel who retire." http://www.lesjones.com/posts/005074.shtml

Both of them are in dire financial straits. Even though there is a significant number of people who use them, that number pales in comparison to the 45 million Obama claims needs health care. If both of those entities are so deeply in the red (estimates say that Medicare can be completely insolvent by 2017), what do you think would happen if the entire 300+ million Americans were on a similar plan? It boggles the mind....and yet Obama claims it will not add to the deficit, a ridiculous statement by any measure. He also claims part of it will be financed by taking tens of millions from Medicare, which is already almost insolvent beyond repair. How can you think that a government which cannot run any business, from the post office to Amtrak to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to MEdicare without it going deeply in the red can handle single-payer health programs without the same result? Obama has already quadrupled the national debt....and now wants to go into an area which will add billions and even trillions to it. Why doesn't he just aim toward reducing the costs and waste that he claims he can do? SImple---he just wants the health care system to be government-run....period.

Jennifer, Yes, Teddy proposed a health care system for all but I've never seen anywhere his plans for financing it completely through personal contributions and payroll taxes. If you have, I'd like to see it. Kennedy, like Obama, have no experience running a  company at all and yet they both feel/felt they could run something as large as the entire health care system. History proves them wrong.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
156 posted 2009-09-24 09:23 AM


Democrats defeated Republican efforts to spare cuts in some areas of Medicare, the government-run insurance program for the elderly, and rejected a controversial measure sparked by the probe over a letter from insurer Humana Inc. to its customers.

Republicans also demanded more information on the bill's budgetary impact and called for the Democratic-controlled panel to slow its deliberations on the reform plan, which Baucus had hoped to bring to a final vote this week.

The panel, which has a 13-10 Democratic majority, rejected a Republican effort to delay a final committee vote until the bill could be put into legal language and posted on the Internet, and budget experts could estimate its full cost.

Baucus said Republican Senator Jim Bunning's proposal would create at least a two-week delay as the Congressional Budget Office completed its final analysis of the bill.

"If it takes two more weeks, it takes two more weeks," said Senator Olympia Snowe, the only panel Republican considered a potential supporter of the final bill. "We're talking about trillions of dollars in the final analysis. What is the rush?"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090924/pl_nm/us_usa_healthcare_17


This is a pretty clear indication of how the Democratic congress and Obama are working. The GOP simply wanted the final bill to be posted on the internet 3 days before the vote, along with it's projected costs. They wanted the public to be able to read it first and see the costs involved. Obviously, Dems don't want that to happen. They simply want it to get passed and THEN the public can see what they are saddled with, a la cap and trade and stimulus. A two week delay would be such a tragedy? Over what is probably the most important bill the government has ever authored?...a pathetic excuse to keep the public in the dark. They can veto whatever they want. Sooner or later, they will have to face the public....and a large part of the public is not pleased with their tactics.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

157 posted 2009-09-24 10:49 AM


I don’t trust WHO nor SAGE, Bob. We can only take their word for it regarding how this current flu is acting, and who it finds ‘tasty’. And our current administration espouses the same philosophy on age based treatment, and not only as it relates to this flu.


I am not a ‘senior’ quite yet, Jen. I’m almost 7 years away from Medicare eligibility. But do I get any credit, in your mind, for contributing toward it for perhaps 35+ years longer than you?  If Medicare goes away tomorrow, who is the biggest loser, you or me?

What I want, or think should be, in a perfect world, which this certainly isn’t and never will be, doesn’t matter. We cannot afford to provide healthcare for all, adding to the burden of what we are already obligated to under Medicaid and Medicare. Similar programs have been implemented in three different States and none have lived up to their stated objective of containing costs while increasing healthcare availability.


What I am opposed to, and do not want, is government rationing of healthcare based on age.


I suppose like most other things, credibility is in the eye of the beholder, I would consider most “main stream media” sources as the least credible in recent history. But here are three different sources, other than WND. I don’t know how credible you will find these articles, but here they are:

Commentary on Medicare for all:
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/19/medicare-for-all-crazy-socialized-and-unlikely/

There’s no free healthcare:

quote:
The test cases mirror Obamacare in one way or another. In 2003, Maine decided to cover the uninsured by expanding the state's Medicaid program and creating a government-run "public option" to provide health insurance with subsidized premiums. Controls on hospital and doctor costs would lead to reduced premiums and savings for everyone, without tax increases, or so it was claimed. Five years later, "the system that was supposed to save money has cost taxpayers $155 million and is still rising," the Wall Street Journal reported. Meanwhile, Medicaid enrollment has doubled to 22 percent of the state's population, and access to the public plan has been capped.
In Massachusetts, "universal" coverage was enacted in 2006 along with a requirement that everyone be insured or pay a fine. (By 2009, the fine was up to $1,068.) Again, the claim was made--a claim Obama repeats--that costs would decline once everyone was covered. Today, 97 percent of Massachusetts citizens are covered, the highest rate in the country. But costs have soared to the point the New York Times characterized them as "runaway." Spending on the state's health insurance program has risen by 42 percent. A major cause shouldn't have surprised anyone: The newly insured have flooded doctors' offices for medical care paid for by others. Now Governor Deval Patrick, a close ally of Obama, wants to impose cost controls.
The Tennessee experiment began in 1994 with one thought in mind: curbing the rise in health care costs. TennCare was established to cover everyone either on Medicaid or unable to obtain insurance. Rather than bend downward, the cost curve has steeply climbed. In a decade, spending surged from $2.5 billion to $8 billion. To cope with this, the state is cutting the TennCare rolls and reducing benefits. The program still consumes a higher share of the state budget than any Medicaid program in the country.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/973rqxkx.asp


Outrageous. Going after Humana for daring to alert recipients of Medicare Advantage that services could be cut under health care bill:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574427200839672342.html


The desire for ‘instant gratification’ is a big problem and on the rise, I agree, Michael. You can hear it in Acorn & SEIU chants of : What do we want? Healthcare! When do we want it? NOW!!!!

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
158 posted 2009-09-24 11:14 AM


Well presented, Denise. Three attempts - three failures...and on only state levels. And yet some people still want it on a national level, as if it's success would be a given. Amazing stuff....
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

159 posted 2009-09-24 03:56 PM


Thanks Michael. I don't know why people can't see that everytime it has been tried it has been a disaster.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

160 posted 2009-09-24 03:58 PM



     What would happen to the financial state of Medicare, about which many Republicans are justly worried, if the Republican sponsored bill of a few years back that forbade any competitive bidding on medication costs for that program were modified?  What if those medication costs were put out to competitive bid as they are in the VA?

     I am aware that there are problems here, but it might be useful to see what we might do if taking a little bit of this exceedingly generous payoff to the drug companies — originally a Republican payoff and now, perhaps, a Democratic payoff — might do to make insurance reform and health care reform more viable.

     We might also look at the National Health Service in the U.K. and at the various other successful health care delivery systems in the industrial world that work better than ours and see how they finance them.  All of them spend less than one out of every six dollars in their economy on health care and still manage to cover everybody pretty darn well.  

     If people from overseas come to the U.S. for some of their health care, it's a sure bet that some of the people in the U.S. would like to come to the U.S. for their health care too, only they can't afford it.  Very very high end care is beyond the resources of most people anywhere, with few exceptions, and to pretend otherwise is to distort the picture.  If you have insurance, you may be able to afford it, depending on the quality of the insurance.  If you're in the VA system, yes; if you're in Medicare, perhaps, though for some services, such as long term nursing care,  you may have to give up your house and everything you own.

     In case you hadn't noticed, we have Americans going overseas for some medical care, too.  Many Americans go to Canada for eye surgery, for example, as well as their medication.  

     To spend one out of six dollars for medical expenses in our economy, and to have that figure on the rise, and to have the return we get for those dollars on the decline when other countries proportionately  pay considerably less and have a reasonably stable cost suggests to me that we, my friends, are being cheated badly.  And the people who are cheating us are putting on one heck of a fight to be able to continue to do it.  

     If what we're doing is cheating us, I'd suggest that we look very hard at the things the cheaters are yelling loudest about, and think very deeply about them.  The odds are they they are not yelling about them to protect us; and the sounds they are making are sounds of pain that they might actually have to supply some of the services that they've been advertising and bragging about for all these years.  And that the things that they're telling us to be afraid of may be the things that they're already doing to us, in spades, and would like top do more of, if we let them.  Let's not let them.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
161 posted 2009-09-24 06:13 PM


It's so interesting the Chicago-style tactics being employed here. Humana tells it's members where they can expect a reduction in benefits under the proposed plan and Congress issues a gag order on them.

The Democrats are trying to blitzkreig the bill through congress without letting the public know what's in it, beforehand, the same way they did the stimulus and cap and trade.

Shona Holmes, the Canadian lady who spoke against the Canadian health system, said she would have died if she had not received treatment in the states. SHe stated that Ontario, which is large, has only 69 neurosurgeons and what Canada doesn't advertise is the waiting time for diagnostic testing. She claimed that there is even a website where one can check to see where they are on the waiting lists for testing. SInce making this public, she had recieved a large amount of hate mail and death threats.

SOmebody is certainly afraid of something....maybe the truth?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
162 posted 2009-09-24 06:25 PM


Bob, I would welcome competitive bidding on medication. That is always an excellent way to bring costs down. The government doesn't have to take over health care to do it. I would also welcome people being able to shop for insurance nation-wide, the way congress does, instead of it being limited to their own state. Democrats won't include that, saying it's too complicated.

How does England and Canada afford to do it? I don't know the quality of their services, as compared to the states. I don't know how much in taxes go out of their paychecks.

I also have no problem with going after the insurance companies. The government does not have to take over health care to do it.

Obama wants to take over health care for the same reason Hillary (not Clinton) climbed Mount Everest....because it was there.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
163 posted 2009-09-24 06:32 PM


quote:
estimates say that Medicare can be completely insolvent by 2017


2015 according to Medicare - and they should know.

Medicare is a flawed system, it's a good idea but it breaks the basic rules of a health care ponzi scheme - not enough people putting money in and too many taking it out.

It's easier to see the problem if you scale it down a bit.

If ten people put a dollar into a hat every week and one of them gets to take out $40 every four weeks the system is self-sustainable. If you increase the number of people taking out to two you have to either double the amount each puts in or halve the amount they each take out. If you don't you run out of money pretty darn quick, unless of course you can increase the number of people to 20.

That's what Obama is trying to do, he can't increase the amount being put in or reduce the amount being taken out - the only option is to increase the number of people putting in.

BTW Bob - That's one of the reasons why the system works in the UK - the more people you can get putting in the better, and it's also the reason that it'll ultimately fail. Ponzi schemes always do, the balance between those putting in -  the amount they're putting - those taking out -  the amount they're taking out - simply can't be sustained.

.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
164 posted 2009-09-24 06:50 PM


...and when you increase the number of people putting in, you increase the amount that will be taken out...and the two amounts are not equal.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
165 posted 2009-09-24 07:29 PM



quote:
...and when you increase the number of people putting in, you increase the amount that will be taken out...and the two amounts are not equal.


I'm not sure I understand what you mean Mike.

If you mean the number of people taking out increases as more people join then no, that's not technically correct. The percentage stays the same. If ten put in and one takes out that's 10%, if 20 put in the number taking out goes up to 2 but that's still only 10%.

If you mean the amount of money goes up then that's questionable too. In the money in the hat example there's no reason for the output to increase. In health care there's a very strong argument that the outputs (costs) would actually reduce due to economies of scale.

That's all theoretical of course. In reality it wouldn't work in America because there's no control of the end providers who ultimately determine the cost, which harks back to Bob's question regarding the disparity between the actual cost of health care in the US in comparison to other countries.

.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
166 posted 2009-09-24 07:57 PM


Well, if ten put in and only one takes out, I can understand the comparison, as long as the amount one is taking out is not greater than the ten putting in. I find it unlikely that only one out of ten will be taking out. We're talking about health here, not getting hit by lightning. It would be interesting to know the average medical bills one rings up during a normal lifetime. I feel fairly confident that it is higher than the amount one puts in times a bunch. If you open free health care up to everyone then those costs will increase because people will use it much more often than they would with private insurance, where they would have to first meet a deductible.

The other factor would be timing. Right now we baby boomers are in our 60's...an awful lotta people reaching the area of expensive health needs. Amounts going out will certainly exceed by far any amounts coming in.

The only answer I see is not having more people pay in - it's reducing costs - insurance, pharmaceutical, legal and waste. The government does not have to take over health care to do that.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
167 posted 2009-09-24 08:51 PM


I'll  explain my math another way.

Let's suppose that for every ten dollars one paid into health care,one received twenty dollars worth of care. I consider that to be a very  low estimate.

So, with ten people putting in ten dollars and getting twenty worth of health care, you have 100 going in and two hundred going out.

Make that one hundred people and you have 1,000 going in and 2,000 going out...a difference of 900 between the two examples. Make that 300 million people  and tell me what you've got. The amount of people going in definitely does make a difference.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

168 posted 2009-09-25 01:34 AM



     Yes.  And everybody who goes in at the beginning, doesn't necessarily  end up collecting, either.  Men in particular have a bad habit of dying younger.  This, by the way, one of the excellent arguments for immigration, which is figured into the system as a plus.  Those immigrants pay for a lot of boomers.  And the illegals pays for some of them too.  By the way.  As I mentioned a few posts back.

     When people first started paying into the system, it was basically men who paid in, and their input covered their own retirement and survivor's benefits for their spouses and kids.  It was very meager, and it was never meant to be a full retirement income.

     Now, of course, everybody who works puts money in, roughly doubling the base, at least proportionately. Of course the money that was meant for social security is regularly stolen by congress — borrowed, I think the word is that they use for other purposes.  It is a very large pool of liquid cash, and the congress has never been very good about keeping its hands off.  What I do not know and would love to find out is how good they have been about paying that money back and what form that payback has come in.  That is, has the payback come in a form that is as spendable as the form it was borrowed in.  If there has in fact been payback at all.

     For that matter, is it true that we have borrowed money from the Chinese and are only paying back interest on the principle.  How good a deal is that one for us, while we're looking at places to get a little bit of money coming in.  How about paying down that principle, folks?  That should free up a lot of money for the programs that we're talking about.  What genius saddled us with that sort of ongoing gift?  Any credit card company in America would love to have that sucker on a hook, thank you.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
169 posted 2009-09-25 09:00 AM


And everybody who goes in at the beginning, doesn't necessarily  end up collecting, either.  Men in particular have a bad habit of dying younger.

I considered that, Bob, and on the other end of the spectrum, you will have people who need an extremely large amount of treatment, due to cancer, leukemia, dialysis, transplants and so on. Health care, along with population, is not a zero sum game. If it were, with more people being born than dying, health care systems would never run out of money. It doesn't work that way, which I'm sure you know.

For that matter, is it true that we have borrowed money from the Chinese and are only paying back interest on the principle.  How good a deal is that one for us,

Not a good deal at all, Bob! How about telling Obama to stop???? How can we pay down principal while he had quadrupled the debt.....and continues? We have watched him put our future generations in so much debt they have no chance of repaying it and you're wondering why we are not paying down principal??????? Surely you jest.....

What genius? I'll give you a hint (he's a lousy bowler)

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
170 posted 2009-09-25 02:14 PM


Mike,

The odds of getting struck by lightning are closer to 1: 280000 than 1:10.



You are absolutely spot on though in some respects when it comes to my simple example and Medicare.

My example however was to show how a single payer health scheme works and to show the options for balancing the books when it doesn't. I wasn't specifically talking about Medicare - that's a far more complicated beast - but the basic rules are the same.

Medicare is a flawed system as I said earlier, it's neither fish nor fowl but I think I can explain why it's flawed if you like. I can also explain why I believe that Obama thinks that increasing the number of people will reduce costs.

It's a long story though, it'll take me a while to get it into a half-understandable form but I'll give it a shot if you're interested.

.

[This message has been edited by Grinch (09-25-2009 03:08 PM).]

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

171 posted 2009-09-25 04:21 PM


Maybe this will wake some people up about the intent of our politicians regarding healthccare.
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0909/Ensign_receives_handwritten_confirmation_.html


Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
172 posted 2009-09-25 04:53 PM


Sorry Denise but I don't get it.

If a law is passed that makes it illegal to not purchase health cover and you don't purchase cover what do you expect - a glass of milk and a cookie?

If anyone makes a conscious choice to break the law they have only their selves to blame when they face the consequences of their decision - criminals get no sympathy from me.



Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
173 posted 2009-09-25 06:59 PM


.


“If anyone makes a conscious choice to break the law they have only their selves to blame when they face the consequences of their decision - criminals get no sympathy from me.”

Wasn’t it against American law one time to aid and abet runaway slaves?

Sorry Grinch, just having fun . . .


.


Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

174 posted 2009-09-25 08:02 PM




     Also witches.  I think there was some sort of law about runaway witches, and if you threw a physician in a pond and he drowned he was innocent, but if he floated he was guilty of tort reform.  All these were early Republican trial balloons, or that's what me and all my Liberal friends say down at the Liberal caucus and saloon, where all the lunches are free seven days a week.  Yessirree, Bob.  

     And I ought to know, cause I'm Bob.

     Just a little Off-Left of Center humor there.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
175 posted 2009-09-25 08:03 PM



quote:
Wasn’t it against American law one time to aid and abet runaway slaves?


Yep.

And it's still illegal in New York to flirt or walk around on Sunday with an ice cream in your pocket.

In Idaho riding a merry-go-round on Sunday is illegal and you can't give your fiancé a box of candy weighing less than fifty pounds.

Wyoming has a law that prohibits you from taking a picture of a rabbit from January to April without an official permit.

They may be dumb but they're all laws with associated consequences if you choose to ignore them. You don't get to pick and choose which ones you want to stick to and which ones you want to ignore because you happen to think they're dumb. If that were the case rapists and murderers would be walking the streets in pretty short order.

You don't ignore dumb laws and break them, you change or repeal them, which is why slavery is no longer legal.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
176 posted 2009-09-25 11:14 PM


Many things are no longer illegal because there was rebellion, which resulted in laws being changed. When people see no way to have unjust laws repealed, they rebel...prohibition comes immediately to mind, along with the fact that we don't sit down for afternoon tea.

Yes, there are many silly laws on the books, there only because nobody wants to waste time going through the books and repealing them, since they are never enforced anyway. Let me know the next time you hear of someone being arrested in Idaho for giving their honey a five pound box of chocolate. I would even go so far as to say there are probably stores there that sell boxes of chocolates that weigh less than fifty pounds. I've heard of no scheduled raids to shut them down.

Thanks, grinch, for the offer to explain the foibles of Medicare but it's not necessary. I'm sure you could do an excellent job of it and I doubt I would disagree with your assessments. Why someone would want the entire country operating on similar principles is beyond me.

As far as Obama's thoughts on having more people enrolled as being a good thing, it wouldn't sway me, either. More people in means more money going out and, since the money coming in would be far less than the money going out, more people would simply magnify the cost. No smooth delivery by Obama would convince me otherwise.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

177 posted 2009-09-25 11:21 PM


We have to make sure none of this government money-grabbing nonsense, which is supposedly about compassion for those without health insurance, being pushed by the 'party of the people' (what a joke) never becomes law.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/bg2325.cfm

And for those counting on a subsidy from the government to help offset the cost of purchasing insurance? I heard somewhere else that doesn't kick in until after a person has spent $5500 per year in premiums and copays first.

If the IRS involving itself in your healthcare insurance doesn't make your blood run cold nothing will.

If you are a minimum wage worker or unemployed, and can barely cover your rent, utilities and food, well that's just too bad. If you don't buy insurance you will have to pay a tax penalty, and if you don't come up with that payment you could find yourself in jail for a year and/or a $25,000 fine.


Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

178 posted 2009-09-26 03:18 AM




Dear Denise,

          As with many of the scary consequences predicted by Republicans should the government have anything to do with healthcare, your fear of the IRS being involved should the Democrats have their way has been a fact for a while now.  If you wish to take a deduction for healthcare expenses, you have to show healthcare expenses, beyond insurance payments, of over a certain percentage of your income.  The country has so far survived.

     If you're going to show contempt for the Democrats as being the Party of the People, perhaps you might suggest how one might characterize Republicans?  

Sincerely, Bob Kaven

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

179 posted 2009-09-26 06:35 AM


If you’re a minimum wage worker or unemployed perhaps going to jail wouldn’t be such a bad thing, at least you’d get fairly decent medical care, care that you couldn’t afford because of exorbitant insurance rates, and you wouldn’t be denied care if you have a pre-existing condition.


Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
180 posted 2009-09-26 08:10 AM


Can anyone else see the contradiction here?

First we're told that paying for health care for all those people who can't afford it isn't right and that people without insurance are destroying the system. Then were told that that those people who can't afford it are going to end up in the cooler for a year and that isn't right either.

So who's going to end up behind bars?

It won't be the people who can't afford health care - they get it paid out of the contributions paid by everyone else. It won't be the people who can afford health insurance and in fact already have private insurance; they'd be complying with the law. So the only people who'll suffer are those who can afford it and choose not to pay it - those rebels Mike's talking about - and the illegal immigrants who don't have it because they aren't eligible. The folk that Denise insists are bringing down the system with unrecoverable losses.

I honestly don't see any problem with that.

quote:
Why someone would want the entire country operating on similar principles is beyond me.


Because part of the reason Medicare is a flawed system Mike is that it doesn't cover the entire population.

Take a close look at the NHS system in the UK and it’s easy to understand why. There are four segments of the population that are covered under the NHS system.

Those that are too young to contribute
Those that are too old to contribute
Those that are unable to contribute
Those that are able to contribute

The last group are the one's that fund the system - they don't mind though because they get four things out of the system. They get cover when they're too young to contribute, cover when they're too old to contribute, cover when they are unable to contribute and cover while they're contributing. The system works because the last group who put in all the money but who take out almost nothing while they're doing it funds the high costs incurred by the first three groups. It's not perfect, there are some minor flaws in this system that I'll happily point out and some real problems when the balance between groups shifts but on the whole it's a good system.

How does Medicare and Medicaid compare?

We'll the groups are the same. The only difference is that those paying the lions share don't get cover while they're paying. They either have to take out private insurance to fund their own cover, which reduces their ability to contribute to the universal system, or they do without cover and join the masses of the uninsured. Both of these take money and potential benefits out of the universal system and doom it to failure. Medicare and Medicaid has hived off the most costly sector of the population and marginalized and reduced its potential funding base.

So why does it have to be the government that runs a universal system?

The answer is it doesn't. The health care system in the US is generating more than enough funds to cover everyone, only at the moment most of it is going to private entities as profit. In the UK any profit is churned back into the system to keep down costs. If you want a non-governmental universal system all you need to do is make private health care cover compulsory and force the private companies to cover everyone out of the profits they make. Hey presto you'd have universal coverage - though that's about as likely to happen a porcine aerobatics team doing a loop-de-loop over Florida.

It doesn't really matter who runs the health care system as long as all the groups are covered. Though the ideal is that whoever controls the actual health care providers, the doctors and hospitals etc. are the ones who control the purse strings. That way there's real pressure to reduce real cost of health care to maintain adequate cover.

Will it ever happen?

In the UK and other countries it already does. My own personal view is that in the US there isn't a cat in hades chance in the short term. Your health care system will get a few tweaks and band aids, costs will rise, cover will fall and it'll all collapse in a heap at which point you'll have to start again from scratch.

"If I was starting from scratch I'd build a single-payer system"

So would I Mr President, so would I.

.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
181 posted 2009-09-26 09:06 AM


grinch, you called it a Ponzi scheme, which I agree with wholeheartedly, but in a Ponzi scheme people contribute with the hope or promise that they will get more than they put in. With more people taking out, how is it expected to survive? Someone always gets left holding the bag in these schemes.

What are your thoughts about health care in the UK? WIll it continue financially secure? Is it headed for bankrupcy at some point in the future? What would happen if the private insurance part of it were scrapped and the system picked up all the tabs? Would it survive?

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

182 posted 2009-09-26 09:21 AM


Historically, for the most part, Republicans have been the party of 'smaller government' intrusiveness, although some seem to have forgotten that in recent years, while the Democrats have been the party of 'bigger government', Bob. And if this current plan goes through, it won't be a matter of 'if you wish', any longer, will it?

Maybe you would like to take a poll of those people, Jen, and see if they agree with you that they may be better off fined and/or in jail in order to receive 'free' healthcare. My guess would be that most sane people would rather maintain their freedom and more of their limited financial resources and utilize free health clinics or emergency rooms if needed.

The problem, Grinch, is that it will be the government who determines those who really can't afford it. There are plenty of folks out there who are not technically poor by government standards but can't add a dime to their monthly expenses.

When I was going through a divorce 22 years ago I was earning slightly above minimum wage with two children to support. I thought it would be wise to have a lawyer  represent me during a child custody/visitation hearing. I checked around to get attorney fees for such a hearing. They were beyond my ability so I went to Legal Aid (I had spent my last $900, from a home equity loan, for the divorce). During the consultation I was told that I made 50 cents per hour more than the qualifying salary to receive a free lawyer, and there wasn't any sort of sliding scale to allow for a lawyer at some sort of reduced fee. They only offered free representation or no representation depending on income. I had to go to the hearing unrepresented. At a subsequent hearing for child support (again without representation) I was told there was nothing that could be done to receive payment from my ex since he didn't have a job on the 'books' (He quit his job in order not to continue having child support garnished from his wages (due to failure to pay voluntarily), and found employment 'under the table'), but since it was nothing I could prove, legally there was nothing the court could do for me.

These are the people who will be hurt most, the ones who typically fall between the cracks, not eligible for government aid, but who don't make enough and must go it alone.  

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
183 posted 2009-09-26 10:05 AM



Mike,

It is a Ponzi scheme, of sorts, you just have to get your head around the fact that for the majority of the time they're running there's nothing inherently wrong with Ponzi schemes. Ponzi schemes work absolutely perfectly for 99.9% of the time they're in existence, they work perfectly right up to the 0.1% point at the end of their existence when they spectacularly collapse. The only difference between Universal health care and other Ponzi schemes is scale and the length of time that they are capable of working perfectly. If you get it right a health care ponzi scheme can run for hundreds of years before the inevitable collapse - that's a lot of time when the system is working so in that respect it's a creditable option.

So is it inevitable that it'll collapse?

There's never been a Ponzi scheme that hasn't but health care has one ace in the hole that might just extend its longevity indefinitely. Ponzi schemes fail because the amount going out overtakes the amount going in, in health care the amount going out is directly related to how many people require treatment. While it's true that there's a normal tendency for that number to increase there's also a factor that's working to reduce that number - namely medical advances. If in 20 years they eradicate flu like they've eradicated other diseases the outlay comes down, if cancer is ultimately defeated think of the cost savings. It's arguable whether universal health care can last to see those savings but it's not impossible.

Will the UK system last?

It'll definitely last for a long time because the potential for burning the candle at both ends is so great. The amount I'm paying is a pittance compared to what I'd pay in the US, I could pay three times what I pay now without breaking sweat. So the amount being paid in could be increased. In addition, and if push came to shove, I'm quite happy for some of the cover I get to be reduced if necessary to maintain the system. Which reduces the amount going out. Most people in the UK are of the same mind, there's a consensus that we have a good system, not perfect but definitely worth maintaining.

Would it survive without private insurance?

Absolutely.

Private insurance is paid in addition to national insurance; it's paid by people who want it NOW. What that means is that the public system is effectively getting some of that money for free which funds cover for everyone else. So would the system cope if they had to supply something for that money? The honest answer is probably not but that ignores a very important part of the equation - the extra money that people are paying for Private Insurance. If all that were paid into the NHS it'd more than cover the cost of the increased treatment.

Again Mike I'd like to make it clear that an NHS type system wouldn't work in the US. The American health care system is too entrenched; you'd have to basically start from scratch and to do that you'd need a far greater consensus in favour of such a system.

.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
184 posted 2009-09-26 10:23 AM



quote:
These are the people who will be hurt most, the ones who typically fall between the cracks, not eligible for government aid, but who don't make enough and must go it alone.


You're looking at non-existent cracks Denise.

People who don't have an income don't pay; people who do have an income would pay at source for the public option, those on low incomes would pay a reduced rate. The only people who won't be paying under the proposed system, and consequently end up behind bars, will be the cheats and liars who say they have private cover and haven't.

I say throw away the key.

.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

185 posted 2009-09-26 10:37 AM


quote:
And now, we Americans are being deluged with frantic propaganda about two other imminent dangers – a health care system that is so inadequate and expensive that it threatens to bankrupt the nation, and a global-warming climate change that will turn the whole world into a Mad Max hell.

The proponents of drastic measures to avoid these cataclysmic disasters, including our current administration, are virtually screaming the modern equivalent of "THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!"

And as they do, they urgently propose big-government takeovers as the only possible solution to both alarms. Notice it's not conservative, free-enterprise leaders and thinkers who are making these proposals – it's folks who already favor big government as the answer to everything, and they feel they've found the way to enforce that at last.

I'm just one guy, but I do a lot of thinking, and I have loved this country and the way we normally do things for a long time. I really get nervous, even agitated, when I feel our citizenry is being steamrolled, even bamboozled, into precipitous and likely counterproductive actions. I "got took" by the Y2K snake oil salesmen, and I don't want us to be stampeded into foolish behavior again.

I've got a couple of proposals, but first I'd like to share a few stats from a whale of a speech made by Rep. Bob McEwen to 11,000 students at Liberty University a couple days after President Obama addressed both houses of Congress. See if McEwen's words – far more salient and wise than the president's – don't affect your thinking as they have mine.

He pointed out that the USA has just 4 percent of the world's population. Still, we have contributed – through our free-enterprise system – more of the technological, medical and scientific advances to bless our earth than any other nation. Russia, in comparison, larger than China and Canada together, with huge oil, metals, natural gas and gold reserves, has a GDP (gross domestic product) smaller than New Jersey.

Twenty-six Arab nations, with all their oil billions and other resources apart from their vast land mass, have a GDP less than half that of California. The world's fourth-largest nation, Indonesia (where Barack Obama spent his childhood), also with incredible natural resources and oil reserves, and with 300 million people, has a GDP smaller than Louisiana, with its 4 million people.

As Rep. McEwen asked, "Why is that? What is it that makes our country so much more productive, with so much more to contribute to the whole world, than any other nation on earth?"

And the answer is plainer than the noses on our faces. It's our free-enterprise, independent, voluntary system of living that inspires and enables our people to see something that's needed or wanted – and to create answers and products and methods to meet those needs. In turn, we share it with the world and bless everybody. And yes, incidentally, we do make a profit from all this, enabling us to keep on making other advancements. That's what rankles a lot of other people, most of whom haven't created anything, but resent those who do.

All these other nations not only pour more unfiltered sewage into the world environment, and produce far less that the world really needs – but they are controlled by their governments, some by dictators. In totally socialistic countries, basic human needs may be provided by excessive taxation, but the incentives to innovate and produce are greatly inhibited.

Two things are starkly, incontrovertibly true. In any nation, the greater the freedom, the greater the wealth and opportunity for all. The more oppressive and controlling the government, the greater the poverty and lethargy. When incentive is suppressed, individual initiative is rare.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=111060

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

186 posted 2009-09-26 10:43 AM


The cracks do exist, Grinch, I've lived it. It is the government that determines 'low-income', and you can be sure it is done to the government's advantage.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
187 posted 2009-09-26 10:56 AM


Thanks, grinch. I appreciate the in-depth reply.
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

188 posted 2009-09-26 11:03 AM


The point you don’t seem willing to address, Denise, is that there are people in this country suffering and even dying because of a lack of health care. Why don’t most who want it have it -  they can’t afford the insurance that would help them get the care they need or else their insurance won't cover treatment for their condition. I have no insurance and have two pre-existing conditions that I’ll never be able to get covered under a plan I could afford even if I worked two full time jobs. One condition could leave me partially blind and the other could kill me. I’m not the least bit bitter about contributing to Medicare that helps Seniors like yourself. And I’m not asking for a government handout, all I’m asking for is a chance to put in a little more and get some sort of minimal coverage for myself and others in the same boat as I am.


Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
189 posted 2009-09-26 01:04 PM


quote:
The cracks do exist, Grinch, I've lived it. It is the government that determines 'low-income', and you can be sure it is done to the government's advantage.


There's certainly a potential for cracks Denise and I certainly wouldn't want to minimise any that do exist. I've lived long enough to fall down a few myself but from what I've read about the subsidised payments for the public system your government seems to have this particular crack fairly well covered. If anything they've actually gone over the top.

Your concern doesn't worry me too much but I understand and recognise it as reasonable. The most interesting part of your reply to me however is this:

quote:
and you can be sure it is done to the government's advantage


I've noticed this mistrust of the government before, a general and underlying belief that goes beyond the suggestion that they've inadvertently got something wrong, an unfortunate but understandable failing we all have. There seems to be a real belief among Americans that the government, far from working to your general advancement and well being are actually colluding and scheming against the people with clear intent. When I hear it from people who are opposed to whichever particular party is in the majority I take it as sour grapes. When I hear it from you, who obviously supports your government alarm bells start to ring.

Is this a belief shared by the majority of Americans? If so why?

In the UK we don't like some of the stuff our government does but we put it down to bumbling stupidity rather than the out and out malice that you seem to portray.

Just curious.

[This message has been edited by Grinch (09-26-2009 04:21 PM).]

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

190 posted 2009-09-26 04:02 PM




Dear Denise,

          I will pass on the free swing at the Republicans.  But thank you for the invitation.

Gratefully yours, Bob Kaven

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
191 posted 2009-09-26 04:18 PM


According to polls, it is definitely a feeling shared by the majority of Americans.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

192 posted 2009-09-26 04:42 PM


Jennifer, there are things that can be done to address the needs of people like yourself with pre-existing conditions. The GOP has tons of proposals that the Dems won't even listen to, much less consider. It doesn't require a take over of the entire system by the government. They will only make things worse if experience is any indicator.

And as I mentioned before, I am not yet a senior citizen. I've got about 6 1/2 more years to go, so I am still paying into the system.

When the government sets itself up as an advesary of the people, Grinch, instead of its servants, and you fight tooth and nail against their outrageous proposals, and they turn a deaf ear, you tend to mistrust them and question their agenda, and it seems to be a view that is growing with each passing day.

When we came out in force at the Tax Day Tea Parties we were ignored by most and called racists and ptotential right-wing terrorists by others. When we came out in force at the August Town Hall meetings, we were called Nazis, Astro-turf, racists, and right-wing terrorists. When we came out for the March on DC 2 weeks ago, estimates ranging from anywhere from 10,000 to 60,000 to 80,000(main stream media) to 1.5 to 2 million (event organizers, and having been there myself, I'd put the number easily at 1 million) we were again labeled racists, right wing terrorists and rabble-rousers, and we heard from the White House that Obama didn't even know anything was going on in DC that day (even though his helicopter flew right over the mass of people on his way to his next campaign stump).

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
193 posted 2009-09-26 04:43 PM



Thanks Mike.

To be honest in my stupidity I thought Jen made the original comment - hence my initial surprise but the more I think of it the more I realise that Americans, at least those I've spoken to don't seem to trust their government.

That's a bit of a revelation to me to tell you the truth and a very interesting revelation.

It explains a lot, it explains why I've been sitting here reading bills like the health care bill and the Internet security bill thinking, "there's nothing sinister here - why all he vitriolic criticism?"

It all makes sense if from your perspective the government is always trying to screw you. Under those circumstances I can understand some of the reactions the bills have received. I guess it's true - you learn something every day.

.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
194 posted 2009-09-26 05:04 PM



Denise,

I'm not sure.

The more I think about it the less sense it makes. If this mistrust of government has always existed and is a belief that's held by the majority of Americans how has your system of government survived?  Where does this belief come from? Is there any evidence that this government - any of your previous governments have actually set out to systematically do the people harm?

I know there are examples where harm has been done - but you seem to infer that it's planned and purposeful - I find that hard to believe and I think I'd find it hard to find any support for that notion in the UK regarding our government.

The government may do some stupid things but there's no doubt in my mind that they're done with the best intentions. To think otherwise is a little alien to me. It may take me some time to digest this.

.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

195 posted 2009-09-26 06:56 PM


It might be in our DNA to mistrust government, Grinch. After all the Constitution was intended to reign in government, to protect the rights of the people from an over-reaching govenrment. And I guess the more power-grabbing and arrogant those in authority appear to be, the more the level of distrust rises.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
196 posted 2009-09-26 07:11 PM


So what has your government done in the past that leads you to believe that their sole intention is to stitch you up given half a chance?

I can't think of a single example off the top of my head but there must be one otherwise your mistrust doesn't make much sense.

.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
197 posted 2009-09-26 07:26 PM


Grinch, I don't think mistrust of the government is necessarily a bad thing. That's why we have watchdog groups keeping track. People have mistrusted their governments since the days of pyramids and kings. How have we survived? Because governments are smart enough not to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. They take what they want but leave enough to keep the citizenry pacified. The old "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" is truer nowhere more than in politics. There are decent people in the government and there are those who are not. The public has the final say, after all, and it is their job to keep the decent ones in office and boot the others out. Up until now, they have done a pretty good job of doing so.

I think, with Obama and company, we face our greatest challenge.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
198 posted 2009-09-27 11:32 AM


This is a one-question  poll conducted by Yahoo with regards to Obama's actions since becoming president...one  question, no hidden agenda.

It will give you an idea of how people are thinking...
http://js.polls.yahoo.com/quiz/quiziframe.php?poll_id=46067

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

199 posted 2009-09-27 12:14 PM


I just voted 14 times in that poll. Yahoo polls, by their own admission, are for entertanment purposes only and not scientfic and on many of the polls, such as this one, you can vote as many times as you like. Perhaps that poll's been freeped?

Another recent poll by a far more credible source indicates that of those polled, 65%favor the public option. Does that indicate what the majority of people are thinking?

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

200 posted 2009-09-27 12:22 PM


Governments, unchecked, tend toward power-grabbing and eventual tyranny, Grinch. I would think most people have a general distrust of those in power to one degree or another. Perhaps it is less so in countries where citizens have been brainwashed into believing that government in generally benevolent.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
201 posted 2009-09-27 12:41 PM



By brainwashed I presume you mean, "Convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary".

I can't think of a single act that my government has ever undertaken with premeditated determination to do me or the rest of the country harm.

.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

202 posted 2009-09-27 03:41 PM


No, it could be as simple as indoctrinating people from the time they are children that it is the job of the government to take care of them with a myriad of social programs from cradle to grave in exchange for a good pertentage of earnings in taxation, thereby restricting economic freedom and the innovation that comes with real economic freedom.

I think that qualifies as harm. Of course the leaders may not view it as harm themselves if that is what they were taught also.


Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

203 posted 2009-09-27 05:34 PM




Dear Denise,

          I don't take my theology from Pat Boone or my political advice from Pat Boone.  I don't see that he's got any particular expertise in either.  

     If the Republicans have tons of proposals, please give me some references for them.  I'd be interested in seeing some proposals that don't have poison pills in them for any sort of reform that involves single payer systems, or that didn't give huge advantages to the insurance companies while hurting premium payers.  I'm certainly willing to be proven wrong, however.  

     And could you please quantify "tons" for me:   Hundreds?, dozens?  tens?  How many?  and from whom?

     Inquiring minds want to know.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
204 posted 2009-09-27 06:12 PM


...and I'd like a link to the poll that showed 65% of the people for a government option.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
205 posted 2009-09-27 06:25 PM


Actually, Jennifer, polls are conducted on the assumption that people  are basically honest, like not voting 14 times, for example. They can't really do much about people who aren't.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

206 posted 2009-09-27 07:22 PM


I don't have any links available at the moment, Bob. I supplied a few earlier a while ago, don't even remember which thread now. I'm sure you could find quite a few if you google it.
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

207 posted 2009-09-27 09:56 PM


Then you need to tell the freepers that, Balladeer. They often put out the call "freep this poll" which means as many can vote as many times as they can to slant the poll results in the direction they want them to go.

Bob, I've read a few of the Republican  plans online. They tend to be extremely vague, lacking in details and basically pander to conservatives by speaking in generalities such as "make premiums for those with pre-existing conditions more affordable" yet don't mention how they plan to make that happen. I guess they think  insurance companies are suddenly going to have a change of heart, lower their profit margins and premiums. I don't plan on holding my breath.

I'm sure Denise has more information. I too would be interested in reading something about the Republican plans that goes into specifics.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
208 posted 2009-09-27 10:09 PM


...which doesn't make it any less dishonest.

Still waiting for the link to the poll you mentioned, btw.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

209 posted 2009-09-27 10:40 PM



Dear Mike,

          I'm unsure which sort of polls you're talking about.  If you're talking about polls that are used for gathering research data, then the gathering methods themselves control for this sort of thing, as does the analysis of the data.

     The other sort of poll, the sort without controls and without methodology is valueless for information gathering.  It is a form of entertainment or tug of war.  Your comment about dishonesty in this context makes no sense at all since there are actual no rules to conform to or not to conform to, much as the voting on some of the entertainment programs on tv — America's most astonishing vocalist or America's this or America's that, where people will vote multiple times even though it costs them money each time they vote.

     The straw polls — those without controls — seem like a colossal waste of time to me unless you want to think of them as another sort of competitive sport.  They don't yield much by way of actual data at this point, though you've got to wonder if there might not be some way of using them to get information on crowd dynamics, given the proper mathematical instruments.  Not me, mind you.  I use my fingers to count to 2, and even then I loose count.

     Sincerely,  Bob Kaven

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

210 posted 2009-09-27 10:48 PM


Glad to oblige, Balladeer, all you had to do was ask. http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/09/25/us/politics/25pollgrx.html

I totally agree, those freepers just can't be trusted!!!


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
211 posted 2009-09-27 11:01 PM


Bob, Jennifer is perfectly capable at showing outrage if she thought I was calling her dishonest. Your ride to her defense is really unnecessary unless it is to stoke the embers to create a fire. I'd like to think it's not.

Jennifer pointed out how easily polls can be manipulated. I was pointing out that polls are normally conducted on the assumption that in people will do them in the spirit in which they are offered. Those who don't are not bank robbers or criminals....they are typical. After all, we live in a country where one of the favorite jokes is VOTE EARLY AND VOTE OFTEN.

btw, in tv contests for the best whatever, people are encouraged to vote as many times as they like.

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

212 posted 2009-09-27 11:20 PM


Outrage, me? Certainly not! When did I ever get my feathers ruffled?

I'm sure Bob knows he doesn't have to come to my defense. I can take whatever you've got to dish out, you old softie with a bark far worse than your bite. (insert winkie here, I forget the code.) Anyway no, I didn't think you were calling me dishonest, (this time) I'm sure you knew I was kidding about voting 14 times. Reads to me like Bob was just giving his opinion on polls in general, nothing more, nothing less and I totally agree with him.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
213 posted 2009-09-27 11:28 PM


Yes, it does read that way....now that he has changed it and deleted the part I addressed.

Shame, Bob

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
214 posted 2009-09-27 11:51 PM


Yes, I did ask in reply #204. Thank you for furnishing it.

I will accept that 65% agree with having a government plan that would compete with private health insurance plans Problem is that many of the country's top experts claim that the government plan would eliminate private health insurance....and there is nothing in the proposed bill that says it won't. I would like to see that question asked if they supported a government plan that elimiinated private health insurance programs. I think the results would be different.

Interesting that the same poll, the results show the following, that most Americans......

Don't understand the health care reforms under consideration
Believe it will worsen Medicare coverage
Believe it WILL help illegal aliens get health care
Believe it WILL  create government organizations that will decide when to stop medical care for the elderly

I hardly consider that poll to be favorable to the proposed health care bill being offered. It basically says that people (1) don't believe Obama has explained it well enough, (2) don't believe him when he claims Medicare will not be affected, (2) don't believe him when he say no illegal aliens will get health care benefits and (4) believe there WILL be governmental "death panels" with regards to stopping treatment for the elderly.

SInce this is a poll you consider to be credible, you must agree with these conclusion, I suppose.

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

215 posted 2009-09-28 12:58 PM


You need to re-read what I wrote and note the punctuation, your supposing's a wee bit off.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
216 posted 2009-09-28 01:05 AM


Another recent poll by a far more credible source indicates that of those polled, 65%favor the public option. Does that indicate what the majority of people are thinking?

That's what I referred to. If there's some hidden meaning which negates it, I'm too tired to find it...off to bed. Nite nite.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
217 posted 2009-09-28 05:55 PM



quote:
Interesting that the same poll, the results show the following, that most Americans......

Don't understand the health care reforms under consideration
Believe it will worsen Medicare coverage
Believe it WILL help illegal aliens get health care
Believe it WILL  create government organizations that will decide when to stop medical care for the elderly


The first result sort of explains the others.



I don't take much notice of those straw polls, I think the results are questionable at best, but the above sparked a question in my mind.

Whose fault is it if some people don't understand the health care reforms under consideration?

Is it the Democrat's for not explaining them? The Republican's for misrepresenting them (or vice versa)? Or is the responsibility down to the people themselves who seem to be averse to actually reading them?

Perhaps there's a case that can be made, as Denise suggested in another thread, that the language used in the health bill and other bills naturally leads to confusion. What do you think?

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

218 posted 2009-09-28 07:39 PM




Dear Mike,

          On some thought it seemed that the text didn't support the charge, so I changed my response.  

     You were not drawing a suitable distinction between two sorts of polling and the sorts of data produced.  You were suggesting that those who participated in the entertainment type poll were dishonest.  People who use the information of those polls without making clear that it is from an entertainment poll whose results are not expected to show statistically reliable data may well be less than honest in the matter, especially if they are aware of the difference.

     I believe you were not aware of the difference and that your use of the data was mistaken because your sources used it mistakenly.  For a news source to use data like this is, I believe, dishonest.  They should know and respect the difference as a matter of training and experience.

     This leaves you holding the bag, for which I am sorry.  You might consider blaming your news source for having mislead you, whomever that source might have been, instead of venting in other places.

     Should I wish to build a bond-fire, I tend to be more ham-handed about it.  You give me too much credit.  

     The finger-wagging and reproof seems out of place for a message that was retracted and redacted inside ten minutes or so,by the way.  In my opinion.

BK
    

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

219 posted 2009-09-28 09:39 PM


So, how about those Cowboys, and have you heard, Palin finished her book, "Going Rogue, An American Life". Can't wait to read that one, already at the top of my Amazon wish list!  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
220 posted 2009-09-28 10:04 PM


Bob, after that stunt, your opinion no longer matters to me....you were deliberately insulting and accusatory and then deliberately erased it after I called you on it. Au revoir....
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
221 posted 2009-09-28 10:05 PM


Jennifer, I'm one of the biggest Cowboy fans alive
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
222 posted 2009-09-28 10:38 PM


s it the Democrat's for not explaining them? The Republican's for misrepresenting them (or vice versa)? Or is the responsibility down to the people themselves who seem to be averse to actually reading them?
The Democrats for not explaining them? That's a given. You may remember that Obama wanted it shoved through Congress before they left for recess. He wanted it passed before the public even knew what was in it. WHen democrats were asked about the bills in the town hall meetings, there were no answers given. The best the democrats could say was "We can't answer that question because the bills actually haven't been written yet".  That was their out. That is not supposed to cause confusion? Last week Republicans entered a bill that would compel the Democratic congress to post the final health care bill publicly three days before it was to be voted on. The democrats refused. They do not want the public to be able to see it before it can become law.

The Republicans for misrepresenting them? Could be if you can show me where the republicans have misrepresented something. What they have done is point out the misrepresentations in Obama's speeches, like that it will add nothing to the deficit, that it will not be harmful to private coverage, that there will be no government panels deciding when to cut off treatment to seniors, etc, etc, etc. SHould they just be quiet and not point them out? How fair would that be to the American people?

People who seem to be averse to actually reading them? On what do you base your conclusion that they are averse? What final health care bill has been made available to them? I've seen where they have DEMANDED to see it. I don't understand where your comment comes from.

I agree that the legalese is difficult for the average person to understand but I don't know what can be done about it. I doubt anyone is going to get Congress to write things in terms understandable to the man on the street.....regardless if congress is of either party.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

223 posted 2009-09-29 03:11 AM



Dear Mike,

quote:

Bob, after that stunt, your opinion no longer matters to me....you were deliberately insulting and accusatory and then deliberately erased it after I called you on it. Au revoir....



     Sad then that yours matters to me.

     I thought your comments I've quoted above just a touch out of line, especially when compared to the actual posting times.  

     The issue with the straw poll is not your fault.  The place where you got your information should have known better to pass it on to you in that form; it exposed you cynically or ignorantly to people who actually understand the difference between the two sorts of polling.  Shooting the messenger who points out that you've been mislead doesn't supply you with trustworthy information.  It simply means that it helps to broaden your sources to get confirmation about this sort of thing.

     If I think I've done something wrong, I have nothing against saying so.  It's good for my humility and my perspective.  If I don't think I've said something wrong, I see no need to say I did.  I acknowledged exactly what I did do, which I feel was acceptable.  I changed the text that I disliked so quickly that the fact that I revised it wasn't even noted on the text.  The text I substituted hasn't been addressed, and piques no apparent interest on your part.  Since that is the text that I wanted to stand, I'm sorry you choose to be blind to it and to focus on something you believe you can fight about.

     Should you wish to fight, please don't involve me.  I'm more interested in the issues such as I see them.  

     Some of the things that I see as issues, discussed recently above, would include the suggestion that private insurance would be damaged.  The suggestion is so wide as to be meaningless.  Some private policies are quite good and should be guarded carefully.  Some need to be given a dose of competition and not have their profit margin government protected at 20% and raised to 35% as some companies are lobbying to do.  

     Companies with that sort of profit margin guaranteed by government should be raising loud screams on the right.  You would think that they would believe this was government intervention, you I haven't heard anything about it from the right.  Perhaps some of my friends on the right can tell my why this sort of Government intervention seems all right while other sorts of government intervention do not?  There would be some exploration, to my mind, on that issue that could be worthy.

     The notion of Death Panels also seems to me to be a misrepresentation by the right.  All insurance coverage is reviewed even today for suitability by private insurance companies who follow strict guidelines that do not necessarily follow the rules that would otherwise be laid down by the relationships between patient and doctor.  The people who make these decisions are often not physicians, and on occasion are not even nurses.  Decisions as to what procedures a company will pay for or not pay for, or what proportion of a procedure a company will pay for or not pay for can often make the difference between whether or not a patient can have that procedure or not.  It is the same way with which drugs a company will pay for and which it won't and at what level they will demand a co-payment for the drugs they do allow.  These are designed to make the patient decide not to take certain drugs that their physician believes will be helpful for them so the insurance company can make additional money.

     Such practices amount to pushing some patients toward a premature death.  That is the health insurance system that the right wing suggests that we keep.  For some of us with very high end insurance, this is a good thing.  It is not such a good thing for others.

     To suggest that such horrors will only come to pass when the government becomes more involved in the health care system is terribly misleading.  This is the case now, and the motive for it is nothing less than profit and the bonuses that insurance executives gather for themselves.  Grinch is probably right about the superiority of a national health system over a hybrid system in terms of the longevity of the system and the quality of the care overall.  If folks want additional high end care and want to take out a policy to make up for the difference, they should be able to do that as well.  

     These are issues worth talking about.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

224 posted 2009-09-29 03:50 AM


“Could be if you can show me where the republicans have misrepresented something.”

Isn’t that exactly what you did, Balladeer, in the opening post of your “Oh, those Little Details!!” thread where you quoted from a source Congress.org which was created to help lobbyists such as those for pharmaceutical and insurance companies push their agenda on the public via the net?

“On page 425 it says in black and white that EVERYONE on Social Security, (will include all Senior Citizens and SSI people) will go to MANDATORY counseling every 5 years to learn and to choose from ways to end your suffering (*and your life*). Health care will be denied based on age. 500 Billion will be cut from Seniors healthcare. The only way for that to happen is to drastically cut health care, the oldest and the sickest will be cut first. Paying for your own care will not be an option. Interviews*”

A particularly despicable example of the lies and fear mongering conservatives and republicans have been tossing about in order to confuse and influence the public.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
225 posted 2009-09-29 06:12 AM


Actually, Jennifer, it DID say that everyone would have mandatory counciling every 5 years. Democrats have since taken it out of the bill based since it got exposure. Obama DID say that Medicare funding would be reduced as a means of paying for the new health bill. There is also a video (can't recall where it was presented here) of a television interview with Obama where he stated there WOULD be a time when doctors would have to decide that treatment for pain would be the only course of action for the oldest and the sickest. Who would decide that? Government boards or doctors under pressure from government boards, no doubt.

Fear mongering? Hardly....more like bringing details out of the shadows and exposing them to the light. Obama's speeches on  health care have been rife with contradictions, from his "Single payer system is the only way to go" to "Public option is a consideration that is not necessarily vital to the new plan" or from his "Medicare will not be touched" to his so many billions will be taken out of Medicare to help pay for the new system. Not only  have these contradictions confused the public, they have also confused many Democrats, who are more than just a little angry with their top gun. If you want to claim that bringing these contradictions to light is fear mongering, be my guest. Obama and  congress has done everything they can to keep the public in the dark concerning the details of the health care bill. If Obama had had his way, it would have been passed with no fanfare before the public even knew anything about it and Congress could then have escaped to their recess and Obama to his vacation spot on Martha's Vineyard. Looking at the handling of the cap and trade bill is an excellent example of how they like to work.

Why has congress refused to allow the final health care bill be posted on the intenet 3 days before the vote on it? Why was a gag order placed on Humana for advising their members that their benefits could be cut? You want to talk about disregarding the constitution....there is no better example than that. Democrats want the details of their brave new word helath care system kept hidden. Republicans aren't letting them get away with it so easily.

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

226 posted 2009-09-29 06:20 AM


Only have time right now to address one point.

"Actually, Jennifer, it DID say that everyone would have mandatory counciling every 5 years."

No it didn't and a big for repeating the same fear mongering nonsense again.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
227 posted 2009-09-29 07:29 AM


OK, no sense beating the same dead horse again. All republicans are fear mongerers and all democrats are innocent victims being picked on by those bullies. You've won me over.

Have a nice day....

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

228 posted 2009-09-29 09:35 AM



Dear Mike,

          Exactly.  There's nothing like having distorted words placed in the mouths of the opposition, now, is there.

     As one of the correct Democrats, I thought that you might actually want to see the text of the letter to Humana Heath Care that you've been drawing conclusions about.  Quite possibly not, since when a Democrat appears to have a point, it looks as though you leave the field in a huff.  (I think Huffs are a new British electric cars, aren't they?  The affordable version that they're trying to fund over here instead of in the U.K. for family use, not as sports cars?  Perhaps I've got that mixed up.)

quote:


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 7500 Security Boulevard Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850
_________________________________________________________________________________
September 18, 2009
Ms. Gail Miller, VP, Strategy and Product Development Humana, Inc. 500 West Main Street, 17th FL Louisville, KY 40202
Ms. Laura Kelley Medicare Compliance Officer Humana, Inc. 500 West Main Street, 17th FL Louisville, KY 40202

Dear Ms. Miller/Ms Kelly:
CMS has learned that Humana has been contacting enrollees in one or more of its plans and alleging that current health care reform legislation affecting Medicare could hurt “millions of seniors and disabled individuals [who] could lose many of the important benefits and services [emphasis in original document] that make Medicare advantage health plans so valuable.‖ The message, which is included in an envelope that states it contains ―important information about your Medicare Advantage plan—open today!,‖ makes several other claims about the legislation and how it will be detrimental to enrollees, ultimately urging enrollees to contact their congressional representatives to protest the actions referenced in the letter (see attachment).
CMS is concerned that, among other things, this information is misleading and confusing to beneficiaries, represents information to beneficiaries as official communications about the Medicare Advantage program, and is potentially contrary to federal regulations and guidance for the MA and Part D programs and other federal law, including HIPAA. As we continue our research into this issue, we are instructing you to end immediately all such mailings to beneficiaries and to remove any related materials directed to Medicare enrollees from your website.
Page Two – Humana, Inc.
Please be advised that we take this matter very seriously and, based upon the findings of our investigation, will pursue compliance and enforcement actions.
If you have further questions please contact [staff]. Sincerely,
Teresa DeCaro, RN, M.S. Acting Director Medicare Drug and Health Plan Contract Administration Group
Attachment  



     You will find the letter referenced at the Reuters news site and may check yourself , should you wish.  Certainly their version will preserve the more professional spacing and font set-up that I haven't been able to here.

     The point of the letter is that they are trying to pass themselves off as being representative of Medicare as a government agency rather than than as a private insurance group representing their own financial interests and using their Medicare-generated health care client list as a data base for a political mailing.

     The law treats this last little bit as a violation.  It is using private medical information for the financial good of the company and HIPPA prevents it and has for almost 20 years.  It is not done for the patient but for the company.   Not being somebody for whom medical confidentiality is a professional obligation, I'm not sure if you understand this.  It's the same law that protects patients from having their private records published and their confidentiality breached.

     The other piece is that Humana is trying to present themselves as a public agency, according to this letter.  Is this fraud?  You'd have to be more qualified than I am to say, and I'm not qualified at all.  But if it's honest and aboveboard, why go to the bother?

BK

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

229 posted 2009-09-29 04:24 PM




     About the three day prior posting for the health care bill.  It seems to me that a three day prior posting would be a good idea in many ways.  However, let me raise a few points that came to mind while I was doing a Google search.  

     The posting in at least a few of the sources that I checked was supposed to be in plain English.  Plain English is terrific, and would be even better if that's how the bill were written in the first place.  Since it is written in legalese, this means that the bill would have to be re-written with congress debating every comma and nuance of the bill all over again.  This would amount to completely different bill being presented to the public than the one that was being voted on, and a whole reconciliation process.

     Three days my foot.  By the time the foot dragging was done, another five years would have passed.  This is more Republican delaying while they continue to mount a disinformation campaign against the whole concept of health care reform.

     If people are interested in what the bill contains, they can follow the progress of the bill though house and senate and then through reconciliation and know what the contents of the bill are ahead of time.

     It might be a very good idea indeed if future bills were actually written in English rather than legalese, at least as an experiment.  I can understand the frustration here, having been through it myself on THE PATRIOT BILL and on some of the more difficult bills of prior administrations.  Plain English ought to be the language the bills are written in to begin with.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
230 posted 2009-09-29 04:41 PM



quote:
Could be if you can show me where the republicans have misrepresented something.


Do you mean stuff like this Mike?
/pip/Forum6/HTML/001845-3.html#54

Where's the evidence that people are averse to reading proposed bills?

Well the first piece of evidence has to be the initial post in the same thread I've linked to above, where you posted outlandish and incorrect claims rather than read the relevant bill to verify if the claims were correct.

Then there's your own conclusion that no politician has read it (odd because I'd been reading it for months when you first made the claim).

Finally there's the fact that I keep having to correct all the false claims - like those in the above link. It's obvious when you read the bill that the outlandish claims are patently false and obviously written by someone who was averse to reading the bill itself.

It's a point I've raised before.
/pip/Forum6/HTML/001845-4.html#88


Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
231 posted 2009-09-29 04:57 PM


quote:
Plain English ought to be the language the bills are written in to begin with.


I agree Bob,

I've read quite a few of them, yes I know it's sad but if you're trying to argue a point you need to read the source document to get at least some idea regarding the subject at hand. In most cases I don't have a problem, reading contracts and legal documentation for years has tuned my ear to the convoluted contortions that are common parlance in such documents. There are parts though where you really need to read and re-read parts to distil the actual meaning; I usual get the meaning on the third or fourth pass, even when faced with the most contorted effort, but plain English would be a whole lot easier.

http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/examples/before_and_after.html

.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
232 posted 2009-09-29 05:39 PM


Grinch, the politicians themselves have claimed not to have read it. It's right there in the town hall videos on youtube...hard to believe you haven't seen them, since the links were posted here. No, you haven't read the final bill because there is no final bill yet. SOmehow I seem to recall you pointing out that there is no final bill to prove some kind of point defending the town hall democrats.

Also, I don't see where the initial response to the topic you highlighted means that people are averse to reading the health care bill. How many people? All of them? The majority of them? On what basis can you judge "people"? What is written there to lead you to that conclusion. People may misunderstand something but that really doesn't mean they are averse to reading it, is it? Your judgement of "people" strikes of sounding a little egoistical on your part, I think.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
233 posted 2009-09-29 06:01 PM



I haven't read the final bill Mike because the process of amending and refining the version that'll get voted on is a continuous process and until that process is concluded the final version doesn't exist. I have read the original version, the amendments to the original, the version debated and altered by committee, the alternatives offered by the Republicans and several of the suggested amendments put forward to be included in the final bill.

To all intents and purposes I have read the bill as it stands today and, thanks to your governments open access policy, I'll have the components of the final bill - the final version to date plus any subsequently agreed amendments - before the stenographers and document writers have got their pens out.

I just don't understand why I seem to be in the minority.

quote:
Grinch, the politicians themselves have claimed not to have read it.


I believe you, 100%, no argument. People, including politicians, are averse to reading the bill.

I go back to my original question. Why are they so averse to reading it Mike?

.

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

234 posted 2009-09-29 06:05 PM


Dare I use one of “their” favorite words? Yep, “Thugs"!

The Lie Machine
GOP operatives are running a secret campaign to kill health care reform, and it's based on Karl Rove's old playbook

“In fact, Scott's own group had played an integral role in mobilizing the protesters. According to internal documents obtained by Rolling Stone, Conservatives for Patients' Rights had been working closely for weeks as a "coalition partner" with three other right-wing groups in a plot to unleash irate mobs at town-hall meetings just like Doggett's. Far from representing a spontaneous upwelling of populist rage, the protests were tightly orchestrated from the top down by corporate-funded front groups as well as top lobbyists for the health care industry. Call it the return of the Karl Rove playbook”
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/30219673/the_lie_machine

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
235 posted 2009-09-29 06:23 PM


quote:
What is written there to lead you to that conclusion. People may misunderstand something but that really doesn't mean they are averse to reading it, is it?


Mike,

Your first post in the link I supplied was an out and out lie by someone else that you repeated. You could have found that out yourself by reading the bill it referred to, as you rightly point out though it's also possible that you read the relevant section and simply misunderstood it. If so I may owe you an apology for presuming that you hadn't read it, I thought the section of the bill was very clear but I could be wrong.

So which is it Mike?

Did you misunderstand the bill or didn't you read it?

If you didn't read it would you mind explaining why you didn't you read it?

And why do you think that the politicians (those we agree didn't read it) avoided reading it?

.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
236 posted 2009-09-29 06:39 PM


I go back to my original question. Why are they so averse to reading it Mike?

Which takes me back to MY original question..how can you pass judgement on the "people"?

Perhaps there are those who are not in the top 2% of MENSA. Perhaps they have a little more difficulty than you have. I confess I got lost in it. Does that make me averse to it, too? Why didn't the politicians read it? For the same reason they admitted to not reading the stimulus bill and the cap and trade bill. Obama wanted them passed....period. That was enough to get their votes.

There are over 600 amendments recently added to the bill in Congress. I assume you have read those, also?

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
237 posted 2009-09-29 07:32 PM



quote:
Which takes me back to MY original question..how can you pass judgement on the "people"?


Where's all this "passing judgement" stuff coming from Mike?

I asked a couple of simple questions looking for opinions and all of a sudden I'm Hitler's evil twin!



Here's what I asked:

quote:
Whose fault is it if some people don't understand the health care reforms under consideration?

Is it the Democrat's for not explaining them? The Republican's for misrepresenting them (or vice versa)? Or is the responsibility down to the people themselves who seem to be averse to actually reading them?

Perhaps there's a case that can be made, as Denise suggested in another thread, that the language used in the health bill and other bills naturally leads to confusion. What do you think?


Which bit of the above has wound you up so much Mike?

You suggested people were confused and I offered some possible causes for discussion, the questions seem quite innocuous to me. Have I goofed and used one of those words that means something completely different in the US?

.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
238 posted 2009-09-29 07:58 PM


LOL! No, Grinch, I do not consider you to be Hitler's evil twin. Soulmate? Well, that's something else...

Actually, Grinch, I have more respect for you than you think. At times, though, speaking as if you know everything can be irritating to those of us who do.

My problem with the comment? Or is the responsibility down to the people themselves who seem to be averse to actually reading them? I took that to mean that people were averse to reading them. If I misinterpreted you meaning, I apologize.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
239 posted 2009-09-30 07:41 PM



quote:
At times, though, speaking as if you know everything can be irritating to those of us who do.


I actually agree with you here.

Quite a few times while reading through old threads I've started to say "You condescending bast.." then realised I'm reading my own post.



I don't do it on purpose; it just comes across that way sometimes. A failing caused perhaps by trying to be succinct and precise in an environment where misunderstandings of intent are easily made. It might help if you imagine me whispering rather than shouting as I type - I very rarely shout.

I think you'd actually be surprised if we ever met, I'm not the pompous, overstuffed, bombastic know-it-all that I sometimes come across as.

quote:
Actually, Grinch, I have more respect for you than you think.


I never doubted it Mike and the feeling is mutual. We may disagree, argue and misunderstand each other from time to time but two threads down the line we're having a nice chat. Granted it doesn't take long for us to start to disagree, argue and misunderstand each other all over again but there's no real harm in that.

quote:
I took that to mean that people were averse to reading them. If I misinterpreted you meaning, I apologize.


I can see how you could have read it that way - it wasn't my intent. When I wrote averse I was aiming for a meaning closer to disinclined but even that was posited as an option to be accepted or rejected along with the others. A bit like this:

Is it the bears fault that some campers are attacked? The park rangers? The campers themselves for being averse to following the no food in camp rule? Or is it the nature of the bear itself that almost guarantees attacks will happen?

All of the above are options Mike, offered to instigate discussion, hopefully you can see the similarity in the above and my original post.

Sans bears, obviously.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
240 posted 2009-09-30 08:21 PM


Yes,I do
Post A Reply Post New Topic ⇧ top of page ⇧ Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.
navwin » Discussion » The Alley » The times...

Passions in Poetry | pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums | 100 Best Poems

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary