Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Doom]

Bro-tip: We sort of have to agree that a fascist, jail-dissenters attitude is something we don't want, because it'll eventually be turned against us as soon as the party-in-power changes.

I guess there's also the issue of the principle, but I must confess that news such as what has just been posted makes me agree with Norondor a little bit more every day.

[Mongrel]

I'm going to sound like a prick, but...

The problem is not with your news organizations, or the laws governing them. Reinstating the fairness doctrine or whatever won't restore intelligence or evenhandedness to American public discourse.

The fairness doctrine etc. were put in place in response to a people and a culture who - even if they didn't want such things - at least accepted them and recognised their purpose. The removal of such restraints was merely a flag for something that was already happening and continues to happen to this day.

Laws don't make a stable, prosperous society, a culture of sensible intelligence does.

God help us all, I can't think of any countries that still have one.

[Pacobird]

No countries have EVER had them.  The spirit of good government lies not in its wisdom or policy but in its ability to counteract inevitable corruption.

[Mongrel]

Oh, there were a few countries that had them last century, for at least part of that century. Same thing happened the previous century.

The main problem is that the winnowing process that induces it is kind of severe (never mind that it is wholly unreliable) and the benefits rarely last more than two generations.

We also seem to be hitting the drug addict's point of diminishing returns.

[Saturn]

Setting all the lobbyists on fire could help.

[Thad]

So, so much I could write on this, and so little time.  (PS: Stop feeding Drethelin, guys.)  Here's something I whipped up over lunch and told a friend to summarize to the local meeting of district Dems in case I don't make it on Thursday:

I read an article on MSNBC today ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32461751/ns/politics-white_house/ ) that started with:

While President Barack Obama's concession on a health care "government option" continues to draw complaints from liberals, it is failing to gain interest from his conservative critics — another sign of the daunting challenge to find middle ground in an increasingly partisan struggle.

That lede needs to be taped to the desk of every Democrat in Washington.  They need to memorize it, and think of it every single time they’re thinking of backing down from their principles.  Because that is why the Democrats fail: they push ineffectual compromises that don’t win them any converts and simply serve to demoralize their existing supporters.

The Democrats need to stop trying to win over people who get their news from Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly.  It’s not going to happen.  They could concede to the Republicans on EVERYTHING and the right-wing noise machine would still demonize them.

The Democrats don’t need to compromise.  They need to defend their core principles with the same ferocity that Republicans do.  Stop making concessions; conceding is what you do when you're wrong.  Stop acting like you're wrong and start trying to convince the public that you're right.

I think winning public support is simple – and, in fact, simplicity is itself the key.  Most people don’t care about details, about complexities.  They care about the immediate and the concrete, the things that affect them, the things that concern them and, yes, scare them.  This is why Republicans have a natural advantage in so many areas of public policy: they provide simple, visceral responses, while Democrats offer complex and abstract concepts.

On terrorism: civil liberties are abstract; being killed in an attack is concrete.
On welfare: the sociopolitical causes of poverty are abstract; a portion of your paycheck going to people who don’t work is concrete.
On immigration: the various causes of the current recession are abstract; it’s much easier to blame it on people who look different and speak a different language.

Here’s the hell of it: healthcare is one of those issues where DEMOCRATS have a natural advantage.  Socialism is abstract; people dying because they can’t afford a doctor is concrete.

Democrats have the natural advantage on this one, and they’ve ceded it by being craven and compromising their core values.

The argument from the Democrats’ end shouldn’t start with policy.  It should start with the story of the 17-year-old girl who died because her insurance company refused to pay for her liver transplant (http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/16/former_insurance_exec_wendell_porter ), of the nurse whose insurer wouldn’t cover her breast cancer because she’d failed to disclose a dermatologist visit for acne treatment, and the man who died of lymphoma after his coverage was rescinded for failing to report a possible aneurysm and gallstones that his doctor never discussed with him (http://www.democracyforums.com/frontpage/?page=3&p=vB29576 ).

Hammer those stories.  Go for the gut, for the emotional reaction.

And THEN explain why your policy will keep that kind of thing from happening again.

Obama himself has done a decent job of this by telling his mother’s story, but the rest of the party needs to do the same.  Get off the defensive.  For God’s sake, how did we even get to a point where the party had to defend itself against allegations that it just wants to kill old people?  The Democrats have the policy, the brains, the facts, and the emotional appeal on their side, they just need to start ACTING like it.

Also, only skimmed the thread, but I didn't see this being brought up (it's also perfect Daily Show fodder, but I haven't been catching that regularly either): the funniest thing that anyone will say during the course of the entire debate has been said.  Via an op-ed in the Investors Business Daily explaining why socialized medicine doesn't work:

People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn’t have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.

The article has since been corrected, with a blithe opening paragraph pretending that it is a minor detail and does not in fact completely disprove the op/ed's entire thesis.

[Catloaf]

Isn't that what the American Insurance companies think of Hawking?

And how can people not make the simple connection of Not for profit=Will work harder to heal you?  All the problems we have with the Insurance companies are because they're for profit.  They're bastards who don't care about making people better and just want your money so they come up with ludicrous reasons to keep the money away from you and leave you to fend for yourself and possibly die.

[Disposable Ninja]

God damn it. Now that Thad got me thinking about it: why the holy hemorrhaging flying FUCK have we not heard a single fucking peep out of someone, anyone, who was straight-up screwed over by their private insurance company? We know they're out there. Micheal Moore made an entire movie about them. Shit, I'm one, if just barely an example.

[Brentai]

I think I've heard half a dozen from you guys alone.  You might not be paying attention.

Personally I'm okay with my insurance, but that's because I actually got to select and pay for it myself, rather than getting one handed to me by an employer who bought from the lowest bidder.

[A²]

God damn it. Now that Thad got me thinking about it: why the holy hemorrhaging flying FUCK have we not heard a single fucking peep out of someone, anyone, who was straight-up screwed over by their private insurance company?

Because retelling the past 15 years of my life over and over again gives me a sore throat.

[JDigital]

Personally I'm okay with my insurance, because it's free (thanks, NHS!). Is there really a benefit to private insurance? If two identical people get identically sick, surely they need the cure equally much?

[Royal☭]

Personally I'm okay with my insurance, but that's because I actually got to select and pay for it myself, rather than getting one handed to me by an employer who bought from the lowest bidder.

Would I be correct in assuming you also haven't had a major need to use it yet?  Are you saying you're happy funneling money to your insurance company for a service they haven't proven they'll render yet?

Personally I'm okay with my insurance, because it's free (thanks, NHS!). Is there really a benefit to private insurance? If two identical people get identically sick, surely they need the cure equally much?

Poppycock.  The rich are smartest and hardest working citizens and thus deserve the best health care first.  That CEO breaks his back and sweats everyday playing golf, looking at that Excel spreadsheet or making sure his super-trading computer is making the most economically viable possible trading deals at a speed regular traders can't keep up with.  He needs that health care more than that dumb, lazy factory worker who makes $8/h while lifting 50lb boxes and who had his leg crushed after a pallet fell off the assembly line.  Lazy fuck.  Suturing his wounds with crazy glue and a towel out of the linen closet will work as "health care" for him.

[Brentai]

Would I be correct in assuming you also haven't had a major need to use it yet?

Well at least you asked before assuming something about me.

Answer's no, I've bled that insurance as much as possible to get most of my dental work done.  Which doesn't sound major until you realize that without insurance, the dental work I needed would have cost more than my car.

Is there really a benefit to private insurance?

In theory, you have some control over it.

In practice, not if private insurance is the only option.

[Disposable Ninja]

Answer's no, I've bled that insurance as much as possible to get most of my dental work done.  Which doesn't sound major until you realize that without insurance, the dental work I needed would have cost more than my car.

Yeah, I've got more fillings than you can shake a stick at myself. And those were all paid for by my mom's insurance as well.

Doesn't change the fact that, when I needed it most, they decided not to pay for the anesthesia. Likely because of all the fillings I needed.

[Brentai]

Okay, well, mine did.

[PhilosopherDirtbike]

Even if it is late to do so, I will say I do oppose things like the fairness doctrine because of the opportunity for abuse that they create. That said, I still feel like I know almost nothing about this bill as commercials I have seen for or against it appeal more to the heart with emotions ("They are gonna kill my grandma by making her wait in line!", "I think I saw a swastika!", etc) than to logic with the facts (such as having a townhall with a bunch of economists and doctors who can clearly explain exactly how this will effect every aspect of healthcare and the economy in heavily cited and fact based terms).

Maybe they did have something like that and the news felt it wasn't interesting enough to cover or I simply missed it. I'd like to see a panel of experts go through every right wing talking point and lying, fear-based criticism and disassemble it in a clear, concise way. It isn't that I don't appreciate or trust President Obama but... Well, I really don't trust Obama or any politician. They are in the business of getting re-elected, for the most part. I'd like to see a bunch of neutral experts citing harder to explain pages of the bill and explaining them to me. That would sell me on it, anyways.

[Transportation]

Even if you're cynical, some marginally effective UHC scheme is in the Democratic Party's best interest as it'd essentially give them one-party rule for a decade or more.

Which makes all this compromise, general watering down of the bill and the possible removal of a government insurance option all the more bewildering.

[Norondor]

Even if it is late to do so, I will say I do oppose things like the fairness doctrine because of the opportunity for abuse that they create.

I'm going to drink your heart's blood, PhilosopherDirtbike.

You are never going to escape me.

I swear that one day i will end your life with these two hands of mine and not even God will stand in my way.

[Disposable Ninja]

Even if you're cynical, some marginally effective UHC scheme is in the Democratic Party's best interest as it'd essentially give them one-party rule for a decade or more.

That'd never happen, even WITHOUT the democrat-esque tendency towards self-sabotage.

I mean, throughout the last eight years, we've had 9/11, Katrina, skyrocketing gas prices, a horribly mismanaged economy that led to the worst recession since the Great Depression, two mismanaged wars, and the Vice President shooting a man in the face. By the end of Clinton's administration, gas prices were low enough that Hummers were considered "cheap", we had a great big surplus, and everyone was genuinely pretty happy. Clinton got impeached, the worst Bush got were a pair wingtips.

The simple fact that the Republicans stood a chance in '08 is outright horrifying. And it doesn't matter what the Democrats do, what good they accomplish, how many millions of people are well-off because of them -- the Republican party at large is such a vile mess of inhuman scum that they'll do everything in their vast power to destroy the accomplishments and humanitarianism of the Left, including inciting the easily misled or otherwise painfully stupid (many of whom in fact have the most to gain from Democratic policies) into violence.

And the only reason they do this is to keep the money running through their dirty, grimy hands; money they don't even need. You could take some of their money, feed the entire continent of Africa for a year, and each one of those slimy cunts would still have enough money to buy their own personal army of Asian sex-slaves.

[Norondor]

Gee, if only there was some governmental regulatory body empowered to ensure that the media (the so-called "fourth estate" of American democracy) was called upon to report equitably on what the right's been up to for the last decade.

If.








































Only.


(I will still claim your head, PhilosopherDirtbike. Your life is forfeit to me. You will never be free of the shadow of death that stalks you, even now.)