You brought up a tactic known as lying by ommission and even labeled it malicious so I felt it not out of line to show an area where the Democrats themselves have used the same approach.
I'm not a Catholic, though I do admire the religion, and I've on occasion tried to help lapsed Catholics get back in touch with the many fine qualities it offers when it seems therapeutically indicated. It has frequently provided material that allows for common ground in discussion with folks that have a devout background; I have some notion of what the church is talking about here, and once I mention the idea, they can get the drift of what I'm saying more easily, so it helps the talk along, especially when we're talking about addictions and stuff like that.
So you'll understand when I say that yeah, it's a tactic, and people who use it that way really are doing it in a malicious way. When the priests that I've spoken to talk to be about it, though, they talk about it in terms of it being a sin. They point out, often, that the root meaning of the word "sin" has to do with error, with making an error, so I guess they're looking at lying by omission in a more charitable way than I do. I think of the fact that it's something you have to do on purpose, more or less. I think the priests would more or less think of it in terms of a partly conscious form of self-deception.
I figure PR folks and Ad Agencies aren't paid to deceive themselves; they're paid to deceive the public, and that is something different entirely. And when they do that sort of deception to help others harm or even kill themselves for the profit of those who hire the advertising or Public Relation skills of these professionals, I fugure some sort of moral line has been crossed.
I pride myself on my pragmatics, and here I am talking about some sort of moral line. I have a lot of them, I guess; I simply doen't like to drag them into these discussions. People will start to upbraid me for being a Liberal trying to induce Liberal Guilt in other people when I'm simply sharing a personal dislike. That is, I don't like people who make money off the self destructive behavior of others; and especially those who say, "Hey, if I didn't do it, somebody else would."
You've got to wonder where the beginning of the line starts for people to volunteer for some of those jobs. Sure, I'll get people to buy more cigarettes. And so on. It pays well. (Sorry for the digression.)
Are there Democrats in who lie by omission? Sure there are. I'm sure that everybody does it from time to time, as well; it's not that the thing is so rare that nobody every came up with a name for it before. It's got a name because it's so very common. Should you be embarrassed because you got taken by so fast-talking dorks? No Sir, you should not. It happens all the time, and this sort of fast talking dork is so good at this sort of thing they are paid to do it, and paid very well indeed. It is their job to lie to well meaning people by telling part of the truth and doing so in a convincing way.
And I personally learned material from what you said and the stuff you quoted.
So I would be stunned if Democrats didn't do the same think, and didn't do it well.
The question that seems a useful one to my mind is what parts of the truth are they telling that you are throwing out because you assume them them to be lies? And what can you learn that ghets you closer to an understanding of reality?
If it is more proper to apply it solely to health care, no problem. Lying by ommission would be Obama declaring there were 46 million uninsured Americans needing health care without stating that over 9 million of them were illegal aliens, folks he claimed would not be eligible for coverage. (he later had to backtrack and adjust his figures, if you recall).
You had this discussion with Grinch, as I recall. If it was not you, it was in a discussion between Denise and Grinch. Grinch pointed out that the law was written to exclude illegals from coverage. He pointed out the exact text in the law, as I recall. In case it was to Denise and not to you, or in case it was to you and you've forgotten some of the details, you might try e-mailing for the exact chapter and verse.
Anybody may go into a hospital Emergency room with the reasonable expectation of life-saving emergency treatment, as I understand it, even without proof of identity or citizenship. I know that some hospitals on occasion try to turn some such folks away if they don't have insurance cards, or try to send them to "public hospitals."
This would be an example of ad hoc Death Panels and Health Care rationing on life and death matters being imposed in for-profit institutions today. I have the same feeling about this that Denise has expressed about the potential of such things being imposed in the future. It stinks. I regard it as institutionalized murder or manslaughter by depraved indifference.
It is also contrary to the oath that physicians take in order to become physicians.
Talk about having legislation interfere with the relationship between a physician and a patient! Holy Canolli. Mike. Thar she blows!
Lying by ommission would be declaring that the cost would be deficit neutral, which it will not be.
You may be right, but I don't know. It would depend on the funding mechanism, wouldn't it? Then it would depend on which actual propgram is passed.
And without a bill in place for us to evaluate that, I don't think I could tell you. Furthermore, you have no basis to make that assertion to tell me. There have been various estimates, some of which look closer than others.
If the funding does include savings in the money spent on government drug purchases and the institution of a single payer health plan, it may indeed be budget neutral or close to it. If the whole notion of insurance and health care reform is scuttled, then it will not be.
The President seems bent on offering versions of the bill with substantial Republican input. See Jennifer's comments above, where she is able to substantiate that. Exactly how that affects the cost of the billis something I don't know. Are these ammendments useful or are they poison pellets, so that the bill will be doomed to failure even those it may be passed entirely without Republican support, assuming such a thing is possible. It may in fact be structured with costly additions, and I wouldn't know who added them, Mike. Nor, I fear, would you.
Is this Lying by Omission? Or is it a description of how the bill was constructed at one particular point in time or is it something else entirely?
I can't tell you because I really don't know,
Lying by ommission would be the ping-pong world of the public option,which he declares is vital, is not vital, which must be included, which is optional. Lying by ommission is just another way of saying the devil is in the details.
Do you have anything to back this up in context, Mike? It seems a bit vague to me.
The devil may be in the details. This is often where Fraud lies as well, and manslaughter and various other things where the crime is in not revealing the potential damage or in misleading or in offering false information.
You are trying to make nice and in the process coming across like a lawyer.
You call it malicious? Then you have to call all government actions using the same equally malicious.
Certainly I call it malicious. That's what I was saying, and I went about the business of saying where, how and why.
Now you are saying, If . . . then.
If this (private sector example of) Catagory I is A,
Then all (Government sector examples of) Catagory I are A.
If you're trying to get me to come out in favor of the Government lying, you've come to the wrong guy. If you want to jump on President Obama, you've never had to ask permission.
Your comment about the German Jews of 1935 makes absolutely no sense at all.
I have said repeatedly that the drug companies were getting away with highway robbery and that they should have to submit competitive bids. I even said it during the time the legislation was being discussed and have said it loudly and frequently since. I usually accompany my comments about that with comments about the sweetheart deal that the then President Bush made with the drug Companies in the matter. I commented about the Republican role in the voting and the debt that that vote guaranteed to wrack up and I commented on the fact that the thing could have been done for much much cheaper and still provide the needed services. Perhaps you forget my comments at that time. You should be well aware of my comments since, if only because of the reasonable frequency with which I have voiced them.
I also will stop to criticize the spineless quality of the Democrats who didn't hold out for a more taxpayer friendly version of that bill. They were wimps. This is a misinformed thing to criticize me about, Mike. I'm sure you can find other, more appropriate things, authentic flaws that I can learn from.
God knows I am no fan of insurance companies . . . .
Yes, I do know that, Mike, and I respect you for it, and I even appreciate you taking time out in the middle of the discussion to say so. Comments such as this are very important to me.
Obama is good about putting up wanted posters to vilify and incite the masses, be it banks, wall street, big business, insurance companies or anyone else he thinks will work (excluding ones he has made back door deals with, of course).
I realize you see this from your position, but I have trouble from mine. And I find it difficult to get a sense of his impact on those masses as well. I wish he were better about following through. I understand that this makes no sense to you, probably, and that you are probably grateful that he's not so good at these things.
Bob, when you hear the President or democrats talk, they always say one thing..."The American people want....", as if they are speaking for the American people, when, in fact, that is a bald-faced lie. Poll after poll, month after month, every poll shows that the American people do NOT want the democrat plan for health care, at least not the parts they are allowed to see. They want to see reform and cost-cutting procedures put into place but the majority do NOT believe that the proposed plan is the answer. How then can Democrat after Democrat proclaim that their plan is what the American people want when, in fact, the people have shown they want the exact opposite?
I am to some extent, with you on this one. Though I'm afraid that what I see here and what you see are different. That may not be so much a surprise.
What I have seen and heard over and over is that the congress is not pushing for what a large portion of what the people want, which is a single payer health plan. There are people, like you, and Threadbear and Denise who are really deadset against such a thing, but the polls that I hear about seem to show a large part of the public wants that as at least a strong option. I think that the Democrats are pretty much in the pockets of the insurance companies and the Drug companies, with no real excuse for it. The Republicans are in the same pockets, but they haven't campaigned in the same way and for the same set of interests, and I think they're weakness is more understandable. I don't like it, but I understand it.
Let me try to be clear, I think the Democrats are doing a better job on the whole of trying to speak for the American people, but the whole political process is so much in the hands of the multinationals and the money guys who can help a legislator into office or help an opponent get him out of office that we need the equivalent of a constitutional ammendment to get that money out of politics and get the regular folks back in.
The decision in the Supreme Court about Money and Free Speech still makes me gag. It's like turning over the country to the highest bidder, the folks who can get together the highest advertising budget for tv ads and publicty blitzes and October surprises.
Btw, your concern for my being "upset" by your words or thoughts is very thoughtful but don't let it bother you, my friend. Things in real life can upset me, although I try my best not to let them. Here in cyberspace, I can only get bemused or slightly irritated at best by what you or anyone else says, which dissipates the moment I press the Power Off button and return to real life. Perhaps you feel the same. In real life, I would be happy to sit down and buy you a beer or the beverage of your choice and speak of Michaelangelo.
A couple of adult beverages would be nice some time, especially if you're ever in this neck of the woods. I sometimes get to the Charleston area. Maybe we could work something out at some point. It's be a lot of fun.
Are are you in Florida?
As for being concerned with treating you well on line, I continue to be concerned with treating you well on line. I do think and feel about things after the power button is off. I think about friends I haven't spoken with in 30 years, and have mental conversations almost as though they were still there. When I meet them, it's almost as though I'm meeting a stranger, sometimes, because I've got this self-created person in my head who's my old friend from 30 years before and here in front of me is this person that I have to get to know all over again. Maybe we'll get along, maybe not, but I've still got my inner pal. How strange! I think sometimes. I'm such an introvert.
The fact of the matter, Bob, is that this isn't for the American people. This is personal. This is Obamacare. Obama wants to be known as the president that finally passed health care. The Democratic congress wants to be known as the congress that passed health care. That's what both want to be their legacy. God knows they need something. With a Democratic President, Democratic House and Democratic senate, with the power to pass anything they feel like, they have been singularly inneffective. Even several of the democratic congressmen have admitted that they need health care passed because they need SOMETHING to take back home to show voters they accomplished at least something.
Again, I think you're on to something. If only they could work together and get it actually done. I want to leave a legacy, too. Many people do, but a lot of us poets want to leave a legacy in the form of poems that people will read. This is basic to what people are and how people operate.
Obama just wants it for himself. With the vast majority of public opinion stating that unemployment is the major issue of the day needing to be resolved, Obama still throws the majority of his effort into health care, a program that will not even take effect for three years. If he threw 10% of the effort he has expounded in health care into job creation and employment, the country would be a lot better off, but then that would add to his legacy, would it? Health care overhaul is his baby, whether the American people support it or not.
Not sure I'm with you so much, here. Jobs and employment can be a legacy as well. Think of FDR. Whatever your thoughts may be about FDR, coming as you do from the Republican standpoint so often, and I've heard Republicans give a whole range of opinions on the man, you've got to acknowledge that there are a lot of people who are sure as can be that FDR brough us jobs and led us out of The Great Depression. Kenneth Roberts, who hated the man, had an ashtry made of Roosevelt-head dimes, so that he could put his cigarettes out on FDR's face every time he reached for a new one.
It really can be a legacy.
Americans want health care as well. It sells better when their working, though. As the Clinton Campaign said, "It's the economy, Stupid!" and it's still true today. When more people are working, health care will be a more immediate part of the economy, though, and will shoot people in the wallets more directly. It's still the leading cost of bankruptcy far as I know.