posted
Lisa, did you see the "Here's what's in the Obama health care bill" email that made the rounds a while back, sourced to the Free Republic? It was basically nothing but a mass of lies and half-truths?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I'm fairly certain that if the Obama Administration correctly anticipated that they would be able to silence Americans by threatening them by putting them on a list, they would have also anticipated the upcoming need for an industrial-strength anti-spam solution for their email hotline.
Sheesh. If the Obama administration was capable of seeing future repercussions of present actions, there would have been no bailouts, no cash-for-clunkers, and most certainly no Obamacare.
Hold on, so the Obama administration is incapable of anticipating the future *except* when it comes to ways of intimidating Americans?
(If anything, my criticism of the bailouts would be that they knew about the likely consequences and went ahead and did them anyways.)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, good. God forbid the President use his position to *do* things. Crisis averted there. Now if only he'd just take more vacations.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Lisa, did you see the "Here's what's in the Obama health care bill" email that made the rounds a while back, sourced to the Free Republic? It was basically nothing but a mass of lies and half-truths?
Although this isn't directed to me, and I haven't seen the Free Republic thing you speak of here -- my question for you, Tom, is whether you've checked the bill yourself to confirm they are lies and half-truths?
From the bill text that I'm plugging through, I can see where BOTH sides can say it says, or doesn't say, things, because it's so general and unclear that it doesn't really address specifically whether certain things CAN or WILL happen. In other words, what they say might be truth (if the bill is unclear one way or another on it, or doesn't even address it to prohibit it). There is so little actual detail, it is like everyone is interpreting what can happen in all the loopholes.
(I'm not for or against at this point - I'm asking)
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: When an insurance company does that, it's possible, at least in principle, to find different ways to obtain the care. Under Obamacare, it won't be.
Could you elaborate on this? In particular, if an insurance company denies coverage what courses of action are open to me that would not be under the proposed plan?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Farmgirl, Do you agree that the bill can be read to have sections in it to set up Death Panels?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: That's not entirely true.
Arguing cause and effect is one thing, making crap up that isn't in the bill and saying that it is, is a lie.
Give an example. Or stop making this claim.
quote:From Sarah Palin: The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.
If you can find the part of the bill that lays out the death panels, and that the criteria they'd use in deciding who dies would include the "level of productivity in society" of the citizen, then I'll withdraw the charge. Otherwise, there's Sarah Palin front and center.
By the by, what or who is she quoting there? There was no source linked at the end of her statement, so I'm assuming we're meant to believe she is quoting the bill itself.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: What is it that people are afraid that the Obama administration is going to do with this information?
God, you sound like Joe McCarthy. "If you're innocent, you have nothing to fear." Garbage.
It was a question, not an assertion, for one thing. I was not stating "you have nothing to fear" (in the sentence you quoted, anyway). I was asking what you fear.
Second, there's a clear threat implicit in the "if you're innocent" condition in the McCarthyist quote you compared my question to. I have no authority, and was making no implicit threat.
This flag thing is at least COMPATIBLE with thought policing, but I see no indication that there's any such intent, partly because it'd be a laughably craptastic way to implement that kind of policy. To adapt a line you've used in this thread, find someone who feels intimidated.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"No, Paul, you won't. Because there's a line past which you won't be able to, and anything short of that line, you'll still be coming up with one excuse after another."
Right. I forgot. Lisa knows me better than I know me.
Of course, I wrote teh following email to my brother on april 19:
This flag thing is at least COMPATIBLE with thought policing, but I see no indication that there's any such intent, partly because it'd be a laughably craptastic way to implement that kind of policy. To adapt a line you've used in this thread, find someone who feels intimidated.
Political donations are in the public domain. That's probably a much more meaningful measure of enmity.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:While I don't disagree with you, Katie, I find myself wondering: let's say that you, as the President, find your policies opposed by a massive, hydra-headed disinformation scheme. You wish to respond to the most important pieces of disinformation in a timely way, before they become part of the national intercourse and thus accepted as "true" by default among people who are inclined to believe that sort of thing.
Tom, one very simple way he could do that is by asking people to copy and past the talking points onto his website. Or he could address the points that Congress debates. Some republican congressman have parroted the Right's illegitimate talking points. Some have given fantastic concerns, like Michelle Bachman.
What I find disconcerting is the Democratic Parties push to tie the protesters to the Timothy McVeighs of the world. Not all critics are out of control hillbillies who ironically don't even have insurance. There is a masterful job of lumping us together.
That disturbs me on a mild scale. Having a forwarded email to the executive branch that might contain citizen IP addresses seriously disturbs me.
I think it is benign in intent but ominous in scope. By the very fact that everything is archived for the white house, they have created an opposition database. The mere existence of such a database will quell free speech.
There are less threatening ways to deal with opposition. There is so much power in the executive branch, particularly after the patriot act, that the the psychological effect for a significant portion of the population in having their identity reported to the executive branch should be enough to discontinue the program.
This makes me think less of Obama as an effective uniter or communicator. I see the concerns over the website as very legitimate. Tho I am anti Republican, particularly during the Bush years, I am glad they are opposing the "flag" reporting.
EDIT: Linking to one of Michelle Bachman's speeches is not an endorsement of her. I find it reprehensible that she called on members of congress to be investigated or her "anti-Americanism" accusations. Her usual tactics is one of the reasons I dislike the republicans; I just found this speech as being reasonable.
posted
Do you mean she is taking the quotes out of context, or that the quotes and who said them should have no relevance to the discussion, or that the advisers are standing on morally superior ground and offer good reasons to go with the health care plan?
For example, I could see someone saying, "So what?" to doctors being required to think about social justice and how money might be spent better on some one else.
My mom, a nurse, has talked about how many times she has seen old people being given hip replacements when they are in dementia, are bed bound, and have a year to live. The doctors did it because medicare will pay for it and they make good money.
I can see a case being made to just give them pain pills and use those resources in a more socially effective manner. Is that your position? Or are you just dismissive because it is Bachman, a republican, or not in support of the agenda?
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, thanks for posting that Salon article, Paul. That is the sort of thing the "mainstream media" is shirking its duties by not covering.
Unfortunately, it's not the sort of thing Trig Sixpack wants to hear about in his no-spin zone either, so it just goes largely un-covered.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Oh, stop with the strawmen. No one has suggested jackboots at the door. But this is a blatant attempt to intimidate people who disagree. And even if we aren't at jackboots right now, the government should not be allowed to gather lists of people who disagree with them.
No "strawman"; I don't know what it is your side is afraid of, and up until recently, you've been incredibly vague, so I'm forced to speculate. Actually, as far as I can see, the opposition still kind of vague- the context under which we're supposed to blithely accept that this is the Spawn Of Satan seems to switch back and forth between "it's mis-use of public resources" and "its intimidation of those who hold to these positions" as either side gets refuting arguments.
Now, credulous and naive disciple of the Cult Of Obama that I am, I am actually willing to countenance the possibility that getting e-mail from supporters of the health care plan about mis-information may actually be nothing more than it says it is: an effective way to see what's out there, where it's coming from, and where particular ideas show up most densely so that responders in town hall meetings and press conferences can effectively address their energies and possibly reduce the amount of being shouted down by out-of-district firebrands and hung in effigy, both of which I find significantly more sinister than the slight possibility that Obama's administration might actually be collecting names for some other purpose.
I might be wrong about that. But I'm also not taking seriously statements from people like Sarah Palin who misread things about hospice care so badly that they start seeing elite liberal star chambers that decide whether people's parents and children will die. And given the choice, I tend to find more credibility in the people who are calm about the subject.
Is it really likely that the government is going to waste its increasingly sparse resources on harrassing people who spread misinformation about their policies? And since you guys seem perfectly happy to define our reality for us in such hysterical terms, let me fill that one in: the answer is no.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:There's only so much money, regardless of how much Obama runs the printing presses. The government is going to have to place a limit on payments for medical treatments. When an insurance company does that, it's possible, at least in principle, to find different ways to obtain the care. Under Obamacare, it won't be.
You're referring, I presume, to out-of-pocket payment for treatments. That will still be legal under Obamacare.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Oh, stop with the strawmen.
You first:
quote:I'm kind of wondering what the "Obama can do no wrong" excuse-makers will have for this. "If you hear of anyone saying that Obamacare isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread (whole wheat, natch), let us know. We won't really collect the names <wink, wink>."
posted
What's funny to me is that those of you who honestly think this is some kind of Big Brother spy scheme don't think the government already knows exactly who you are.
Have you been under the radar up until now, and you would have gotten away with it, if it weren't for those nosy kids and their Interwebs?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This program to me seems to be a system for informing the government as to what is being said, not who is saying it. Obama did have a similar system setup when he was running for office so that he could put all the prominent misstatements in a simple easy to read page that supporters could link to opponents who had been suckered.
Paul: Thanks for that link, that definitely worries me and I wonder why the Obama administration seems to have taken that line for prisoners in Bagram. I know it's a nightmare situation, but I think the administration needs to be open about what it's thinking.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Farmgirl, Do you agree that the bill can be read to have sections in it to set up Death Panels?
I can only agree that it doesn't exclude some possibility of someone in the future deciding who will/won't be covered. So much control (in the bill) is given to some mythical "Commissioner" that will oversee all of these details, and said person doesn't exist yet, or his/her staff. We have no idea what details they will decide, especially if the system begins to lose money big time.
Trusting soul that I am, I certainly hope no one would lord that kind of authority over us.
See? This is the whole CORE of the debate! The Democrats are saying "this is the way this plan is supposed to work, how we are designing it, setting it up" while the Republicans are screaming "but -- worst case scenario -- this is how this bill/plan/power can be abused... what it possibly could allow to happen!"
Too much open space
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I certainly don't want the president bullying people to shut them up, but I want Americans to start paying attention to the quality of the information they believe...
This has me wondering. What type of person is not only going to receive but read and also report an email forward full of disinformation? Probably someone who doesn't regularly concern themselves with quality anyhow, so how are they supposed to recognize the quality or lack thereof of information, presentation, etc. of an email that does not advocate health care reform? (Put another way, who still reads email forwards, whether they hold them as truth or not? Those are the people who will be getting these and forwarding along the disinfo to Flag.)
quote:Are you aware that I am capable of sending both this post, along with your forum name and posting history to the website? Has this chilled you so far? Are you sufficiently chilled? Are we witnessing the effect of this move on you at this moment?
Perhaps not, but one person refusing to keep silent despite the 'threat' does not mean that others won't be quelled by it. It would be a shame to have what a great deal of you are saying is an opening for dicussion and revelation of disinformation be turned into an opportunity to threaten and silence some. That's a total supposition, but at least a possible outcome.
quote:But anyone who argues that providing universal care is unfair because it will limit access is, to me, basically just saying that the poor can't have knee replacement surgery because the rich would be put on a waiting list.
Frankly, the poor can have knee replacement surgery NOW. A woman from my church did prior to attending, and she and her teenage son were homeless until our congregation started helping them out (yet not in paying any bills for said surgery).
quote:Oh, good. God forbid the President use his position to *do* things. Crisis averted there. Now if only he'd just take more vacations.
Um....I think perhaps kat may be referring to when he actually DID use the word "stupidly" a few weeks ago.
quote:What I find disconcerting is the Democratic Parties push to tie the protesters to the Timothy McVeighs of the world. Not all critics are out of control hillbillies who ironically don't even have insurance. There is a masterful job of lumping us together.
That disturbs me on a mild scale. Having a forwarded email to the executive branch that might contain citizen IP addresses seriously disturbs me.
I think it is benign in intent but ominous in scope. By the very fact that everything is archived for the white house, they have created an opposition database. The mere existence of such a database will quell free speech.
There are less threatening ways to deal with opposition.
lem, I think you put it well.
Posts: 691 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: And yet, we already have Death Panels. And the only question that drives their decisions is "How can I make more money?"
I disagree with that statement. Yes, insurance companies do limit what they cover, so you could interpret it like that. But currently we still do have private-pay option, or options of changing insurance companies. I don't know that we will have those options any more, which would make this plan's decision quite final.
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Yes, insurance companies do limit what they cover,"
They also delay payment for expensive procedures, stop your insurance if you get an expensive condition, etc.
This bill does not remove private pay options, nor does it ban insurance companies. Its not even a worse case scenario with this bill. Comparing the worst case scenario with what is in the various forms of this bill, there is less to fear in terms of death panels, than with what exists right now.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Traceria: Perhaps not, but one person refusing to keep silent despite the 'threat' does not mean that others won't be quelled by it. It would be a shame to have what a great deal of you are saying is an opening for dicussion and revelation of disinformation be turned into an opportunity to threaten and silence some.
It's a shame that we need police despite their opportunities to beat suspects and abuse their positions. People are flawed, I'm not shocked by it and I'm not more concerned than prudence demands. These other people- I don't know who they are. Its their supposed fear and susceptibility to intimidation that is meant to scare and intimidate me, but I'm not afraid of any of it. I have yet to see something that concerns me, and I won't chase specters in the insecure fright of a person who thinks that he's not going to see trouble when it does come. I have a little more faith in myself and others than that.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Comparing the worst case scenario with what is in the various forms of this bill, there is less to fear in terms of death panels, than with what exists right now.
I think the important difference between now and what may be is that now the power is divided among many whereas it may be more focused in future.
I hope that makes sense. I'm in the post-lunch-need-a-nap phase.
Posts: 691 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want to point out that the "Switch insurance companies" is not a viable choice once you are diagnosed with a serious disease, in the hospital, or awaiting treatment--with our committing the crime of FRAUD.
You are asked up front if you have a "Pre-existing condition." If you lie you are committing fraud. They then have the right to not serve you, or set premiums so high that you can not meet them.
I heard a Radio announcer say the same thing the other day. "Today I have a choice, to choose the insurance I think fits me best." In truth I have the choice of going with my employer subsidized health care, or paying at least four times as much getting private insurance which, since I am alone and not with a big group, is always more expensive and with less benefits. So I am stuck with what ever my wife or I can get through our employer, or something worse.
Further, this bill will in no way stop private pay, or charity work.
Kat, you are reading the bill saying, if it doesn't say they won't do it, you bet they will. This is a democracy, (or a republic). Do you honestly think that if a government backed health care plan started killing off grand parents and we'd remove whoever was in power and replace them with sane people?
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: I want to point out that the "Switch insurance companies" is not a viable choice once you are diagnosed with a serious disease, in the hospital, or awaiting treatment--with our committing the crime of FRAUD.
I'm aware of that. I was speaking more of elective procedures, not serious diseases/conditions.
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Frankly, the poor can have knee replacement surgery NOW. A woman from my church did prior to attending, and she and her teenage son were homeless until our congregation started helping them out (yet not in paying any bills for said surgery).
It was a random example, but you get the principle yes? Expanding coverage is going to mean more people have access to the system, and the more people that have access means more people using a finite amount of resources. Isn't that the idea behind rationing? If not, then what is anyone worried about?
Once things smooth themselves out, I don't think that'll be as much of a problem, but whenever I hear the argument against rationing care, it sounds like they want to exclude people from partaking in the system in order to protect those that already have access.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not really- you've made a number of statements where you've clearly stated that an interruption of your access to care is unacceptable. That has been at the forefront of your objections, at least in appearance. Perhaps you can elaborate on why your care should be unaffected (you are, after all, a supporter of reform in the end), or if it is acceptable for your care to be affected, what would be acceptable, and what not, and why?
As a corollary to that question, since you support health care reform in principle, what are you willing to sacrifice of your current personal circumstances in order to attain that goal? What do you feel is an acceptable average sacrifice on the part of those currently financially in a position to contribute to universal care? Becuase so far I've seen you say you want UHC, but also that you aren't apparently willing to accept any temporary changes in your situation. Do you feel that you simply contribute or have contributed too much already to make further contributions? If so, who should be responsible for those contributions, and why?
For my part, I'm willing to contribute more in taxes, and to endure prudent rationing of care, if the system set up is resilient and aggressive enough to ameliorate shortfalls in the longer term, and is held to a rigorous and high standard of outcomes, and duly supported financially, legislatively and logistically. I know there are people working around the clock to retard the progress of reform so that I will find it unpalatable. It disgusts me, but I'm still airing on supporting reform as a means to further reform. I'm not so blithe as to believe we could get where I want to be in one step, no matter how attractive an option it is.
But really, this is not a question that will affect me much. I'm in my mid twenties, make around 22,000 dollars a year, pay absolutely no U.S. (living abroad), and already have access to state subsidized care in my country of residence. So me asking anyone to contribute more than they do already may be reasonable, but it is still slightly unfair.
posted
Kat, your earlier response to the idea of paying any more than what you're currently paying for entitlements was "that is not acceptable." I'd love clarification on exactly how far that goes, and how many caveats there are for you, if any. You said it, not me, so don't let me use it against you if you don't think I'm being fair. Respond like the grown up you claim to be when lecturing me about exactly the same things.
Kat, your skills at deflection are in top form, but your actual willingness to communicate needs to be there for people to take you seriously. A series of prescient questions, the answers to which would do wonders to enlighten the several people who are no doubt terribly confused as to your position on this whole topic, gets a one line ad hom from you. You know what ad homs are... we talked about this before, but I still think you don't really know. Your scatter shod and inconsistent engagement with this debate helps nobody to understand what you're actually in favor of, much less does it convince anyone you're actually right about anything. Now post about how I'm condescending to you, despite the very pleasant and open post I had just made, for which you slapped my hand away and spit on my shoes.
:and with that, Orincoro imploded into subspace, and disappeared from space-time forever, having discovered both the meaning of, and meaninglessness of his existence as an online identity:
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: while the Republicans are screaming "but -- worst case scenario -- this is how this bill/plan/power can be abused... what it possibly could allow to happen!"
I don't think that that is an accurate description of what the Republicans are screaming. That may be what you want them to scream, but I'm not seeing it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
FG--what you are saying is that now, if I wanted reconstructive surgery over a burn injury I have the choice of having it covered under my insurance, or if they turn me down paying for it myself.
That is still possible under the proposed health care reform, as is having my church take up a collection to pay for it.
It seems that those opposed to health care reform want opposing things.
They don't want what we have now, but the shoot down any proposed changes.
They don't want it to cost to much, but every step made to limit costs is met with overblown disaster predictions.
Finally some of the opponents are starting to vilify those who get sick. I keep hearing, "Why should I have to pay for those who got sick." as if the ill and maimed decided, "hey, lets go rob some other folks by getting ill and making them pay for our coverage."
There is a morality I see here that says, "I shouldn't be billed for other peoples illnesses, because those ailments were not my fault." This implies that those who are sick are at fault.
For the majority of people, ailments are not their fault either.
Sure, smoking, bad diet, no exercise all contribute to diseases, as does promiscuity. However, Genetics, accident, and random variables account for the majority of it.
What roll does luck have in our society? Do we see it appropriate that those who are unfortunate enough to be in need of medicine should pay all the costs while those fortunate enough not to need it should consider that fortune, that luck, as untouchable?
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. I should have said that. Damn you Darth and your eloquence and even temper. You don't deserve it! Since I was born with less, you have to now give me some of yours because I'm not willing to work on anything for myself, develop my own opinions, or speak civilly to others.
... I got lost there for a second and forgot what I was mocking... well, anyway, I still think you're lucky in the brain department.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: while the Republicans are screaming "but -- worst case scenario -- this is how this bill/plan/power can be abused... what it possibly could allow to happen!"
I don't think that that is an accurate description of what the Republicans are screaming. That may be what you want them to scream, but I'm not seeing it.
Honestly, I'm seeing less than that. That would imply an engagement with the people on the other side of the aisle. What I am seeing is what appears to be a heavy use of scare tactics and easily remembered, simplistic phrases, aimed at the citizenry with an eye towards causing them to pressure their representatives into compromising or voting against any kind of reform.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So can you sign yourself up for this list? "Hi Big Brother, you better mark me down at the top of your list, because I will gladly support my fellow citizens in their peaceful protests to any government proposals they disagree with."
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
I would like to sign myself up for your list of rebels and rabble-rousers. I do not approve of using the power of the United States Executive Branch to collect information about people exercising their right to free speech. Each citizen has the power and responsibility and (at this time) the freedom to decide for him or herself what information to read, distribute, and BELIEVE. If the President and his marketing team are unsuccessful at selling their plan to the American public, then it is time to humbly step down and allow our citizenry to go in the direction they choose. Even if it isn't what he or they want, even if you think it is unhealthy for our country. People have the right to choose whether or not they want the government to take over health care. Even if they ARE sheep following a different shepherd than the one the President set himself out to be. I am no sheep. I support the rights set out in our Constitution to my dying breath. While I am not active in this health care debate, and I tend to quietly vote my conscience in political matters, I will indeed speak out against abuses of power. Kindly address your concerns and those of the American public with more sensitivity and respect in the future. Right now, you are coming across as Big Brother, and not as someone to be respected.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You don't have a constitutional right not to have the government govern because you don't like it. I'd pay a lot more heed to these complaints if they weren't so infantile, and I suspect Obama would as well. Spouting off about your rights as if you understand them, along with the governments role as if you understand it, though you demonstrate a lack of insight into the roles of either, doesn't help your case. And I don't think you're at all a dim or uninformed person- you're just not putting any of your smarts into an argument, and anyway you're arguing from really the entirely wrong footing.
Write Obama a letter and tell him you're against the plan. Don't write Obama a swan song and weakly insist that you have a right to be against his ability to make plans. There's really no reason why arguing from such a position will ever help your case in the least, whereas simply stating your position on the actual plan, and doing so thoughtfully and concisely, might do something you'd be proud of having done. It's these half-apologetic, half dejected dear-Obama letters and oblique ramblings about rights and the spirit of our constitution that make the general opposition to reform (which is still a vocal minority to me unless shown to be otherwise), so limp-wristed and pathetic.
Do you think George Bush blinked at suggestions of power madness and overreaching his intended authority in his first term in office? And I mean, this guy launched two wars and helped kill a couple of hundred thousand people at least in the process. We're talking about an entirely different problem, but interestingly enough, despite the massively smaller scale of Obama's plans in comparison with Bush (think in terms not just of dollars, but of global political fall out and international trade relations, to name a few spheres of effect), the fact that they might actually find some real contact with the daily lives of Americans scares the ever loving shit out of the same people, some of whom were in favor of nuking various middle eastern countries 6 years ago.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I am not that bothered by this healthcare plan, not like I was bothered by the warmongering of our previous Administration. What I don't like is the attempt to demonize the opposition. Everyone is spinning their own stories, including the White House. But it does bother me that people would be encouraged to report on their family and friends who might be forwarding emails that support their opinions. Most folks, I agree, are woefully ignorant of the actual texts of proposals in bills and the greater ramifications of their language. In my own house, my hubby and I come away with fiercely different ideas of what is being said in source material. I think, Orincoro, that encouraging people to state "your position on the actual plan, and doing so thoughtfully and concisely," is wonderful. Encouraging people to read the plan for themselves, and to learn about the issues involved is healthy. But only getting information from the White House is not healthy, because as we have seen throughout history, people in power DO have their own agendas. It makes sense to glean as much information as you can from a variety of sources, and to evaluate your sources for reliability. Raw data and statistics are wonderful, if you know how to read and interpret them. Unfortunately, those skills aren't taught much in schools. But I thought this thread was about the government's appeal to citizens to forward to them information that is unfavorable or misleading about their plans. It comes across, since the government does take a "parental" role in deciding what's best for the country, as an experiment in being Thought Police. For my part, a better way to approach this issue would be presenting the data they have to support their positions and also offering basic, neutral instructions in interpreting data so that the citizens could become informed and then make their own decisions. Links to articles and data put forth by the dissenters might be too much to ask, but it certainly would give people the opportunity to compare and make informed decisions. And I don't appreciate language such as "limp-wristed and pathetic" or implying that dissent is due to partisan resistance. It shouldn't be about choosing the "right" side, because all the plans I've seen put forth have their problems. That's reality. I do appreciate the attempt that the White House is making to clarify their positions...it's just clumsy in my opinion, and somehow whomever is coming up with these flag plans and writing the text needs to understand how their work is coming across.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jenny, I don't know how much you've been paying attention. But the opposition in question is pretty busy trying their absolute best to make Obama into the devil, and anything and everything he does into the devil's spawn, and anyone who supports him into his demons.
He's being called Hitler, by prominent conservatives - including those in congress. Members of congress are being shouted down and not allowed to speak by a small minority at their own town halls. There are so many obscene lies and ridiculous falsehoods being thrown around by the right - many by the Republican party's prominent leaders both in and out of congress - that it's almost impossible to filter out the truth.
Obama's not asking you to report on the people propagating the opinions. Only the opinions themselves so that he can debunk them and answer the fears fueling them. He's trying to speak the truth in a storm of lies, fear and propaganda. And he's asking us to tell him what truths he needs to speak.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Why is it weakly insisting?
Are you kidding? I just wrote a whole post about how it was a weak way of framing the argument, turning it more into a swan song than an actual position. Honestly, do you read my posts or just spot check for phrases and then contradict them with no explanations? Because if it's the latter, I'll just remember that you aren't reading what I'm writing. This is at least twice in a row that you've posted a one line virtual non-sequiter with almost zero follow up to one of my rather longer posts. Are you doing it just to be a pain? Because it's more confusing than annoying.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I seem to hear the same sorts of speech from liberal/democratic people, too. Conservative opinions are put down as uneducated, uninformed, selfish, and biased by religion. It's just as ugly to belittle informed conservative positions as it is to demonize liberal opinions. I find both extremes rather ridiculous. Where do we find the balance, where people realize that the President is neither a savior nor a devil, but only a man who is trying to do his job the best he can, and sometimes he goes about things well and sometimes poorly? And people will get riled up about issues they feel are important. I think a little more grace is needed all around, giving others the benefit of the doubt that their intentions are good and that their concerns matter. Not assuming they are uneducated or unkind or unwilling to look at other perspectives. And even if you are unable to convince someone through your logic and data, embracing that person as a fellow citizen and neighbor, and modeling healthy public discourse in your own behavior.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
