Pajiba

I’m still dumbfounded that NBC has such a rule in the first place. What the hell is wrong with a person contributing their own money, non-publicly, to a political campaign?

What’s next? Will journalists not be allowed to vote because it *might* corrupt their integrity?

It’s just a stupid fucking rule. Goddamn giant corporations…grumble, grumble, grumble…

Should an American be able to contribute to candidates of their choice up to the legal limit? Of course they should.

Was his suspension justified? He broke the rules at this place of work, so it certainly was.

A better question is: should the code of ethics prevent contributing to candidates? I'd say no. What does that particular rule accomplish? It seems to be there to prevent only the appearance of bias. It doesn't prevent actual bias, which MSNBC clearly has, and it's not even effective at preventing the appearance. The rule is pointless at best and needlessly limiting of personal freedoms at worst.

As for FOX, I wish MSNBC would try to be better than they are. But in reality it seems that they're trying emulate FOX and simply aren't as good at it.

The issue here isn't that Keith Olbermann contributed money to candidates. The issue is that MSNBC (or just NBC, I'm a little unclear) has a policy that employees must seek permission from the network first, presumably so that they have a chance to provide some sort of disclaimer or full disclosure blurb.

Mr. Olbermann was suspended because he violated a company policy by not following the proper procedure to contribute.

The NBC vs Fox issue lies in the fact that Fox actually employs Republican candidates (Sarah Palin for one, and I believe Mitt Romney), and allows them to stump and fundraise under the guise of educating the masses as talking heads. They've also allowed candidates to come on their shows and literally ask for money. NBC is genuinely trying to maintain some semblance of journalistic integrity by having a policy in place, and Mr. Olbermann violated it, plain and simple. He was punished (for two shows, actually, including tonight), and that should be the end of it, in my opinion.

It's a stupid rule and I think we all agree on that. So...let's set that aside. There are a lot of stupid rules in this world, but while the rules are in place, we have to obey them or pay the consequences.

He broke the rule of non-contribution and I think that he should have been more severely punished. No firing or anything like that stupid shit with Juan and NPR, but he should have had a longer suspension and we should have heard about a pay docking as a result of the suspension.

It's just about always better to take the high road unless you're being bullied. Bullies need to be put in their place no matter what. Fox is not bullying MSNBC so MSNBC should take the high road and stick to their code of ethics and punish those who break the rules. If you get pulled over by a cop for speeding, do you think she/he cares if you say, "whaaaa, the person in front of me was speeding, so why can't I?!" No, in fact, you just guaranteed yourself a ticket for being a whiner.

Unfortunately Republicans are often pretty darn cold and like to hide their fear and hate under the guise of small government. Unfortunately, the Liberals are often pretty darn stupid and like to hide their ignorance under the guise of big government and support.

Hmmmm, what can we do about it all?

Olbermann, O'Reilly, et al. are not journalists. They are commentators.

As I write this, I realise how cynical I have become over the years but I don't trust any of the news agencies anymore.

All 24 hour news stations have a target audience that fall along political party lines. They are in the business of selling you something so that they can stay in business. It is impossible to ignore that Fox sells it's ideology to Republicans and MSNBC sells the same to Democrats. I understand this and take everything they have to say with a grain of salt. People watch these stations to have their views reinforced and the stations are all to happy to oblige.

My view is that reporters should be better than me. Held to a higher standard and proud that they are a unbiased voice simply reporting the news. It seems fairly laughable and naive but I don't remember it always being this way (I was probably just too young to notice or just didn't care). Back in the old days, it seemed like the news was just the news unlike today, where it feels like views are being shoved down your throats.

I don't, for a second, consider Olbermann to be a journalist. THIS is the problem with the 'news' in this country; the erosion of the line between journalism and editorialism.

I don't even bother with televised news. An articulate person in a suit with a televised opinion do not a journalist make. Not even if their show uses the term 'news'.

A pundit's position is not comprised by making a political donation.

*DOES not a journalist make. Arg.

So how many people said "NPR has every right to fire Juan Williams for violating their policy" two weeks ago and are now crying over how unfairly poor Keith is being treated by his employer? just curious.

And why exactly does Fox News get pulled into a discussion of how NBC enforces NBC's policy on an NBC employee? How is it in any way germane?

But back to the issue at hand: It's a stupid rule from a bygone era where journalistic impartiality and integrity were considered important and networks felt an obligation to require it. Enforcing that rule against a personality like Olbermann is just ridiculous. The ideological slant to the news coverage on MSNBC is far more egregious than any modest donation to democratic campaigns, reported or unreported. The two-day suspension is a non-issue (spare us the media conspiracy theories) that seems more like a publicity stunt or an internal power play than any attempt to muzzle political speech.

Network executives acted without thinking and will take a beating from public opinion. Their fans and viewers will bash them and the only people who support them will be doing it for the wrong reasons (Olbermann haters and Fox News viewers). For these reasons it was a stupid decision by MSNBC. No one in this story occupies an ethical high road.

Littlejon nailed it in one. It's about holding oneself to a higher standard. If Fox can do it, then NBC doing it lowers them to Fox's standards. If you accept that Fox is behaving unethically, then you rise above their behavior not resort to it.

Of course Olbermann should be punished! If he's making campaign donations then how will he maintain his appearance of impartiality...AHAHAHA! Okay, I couldn't say it without laughing.

No he shouldn't be punished in the name of this antiquated rule. Does MSNBC truly believe people assume Olbermann is unbiased? Given the content of his show, I highly doubt anyone was surprised or offended that he made liberal campaign donations.

If he went out there every night reporting the news without editorializing then yes, he should be punished but the man has an obvious agenda and if they allow him to promote it on the network then why have the donation rule at all?

Yossarian basically beat me to it. It's funny that people will have pages-long discussions over whether someone who is obviously and hilariously biased every day on television should be allowed to betray bias with campaign contributions.

I'm still having trouble reconciling these sentiments:

- It's a stupid rule that servers no purpose and unfairly restricts KO from privately supporting causes he believes in (besides everyone knows he is a liberal anyway).

- following this rule is important because "we" must occupy the ethical high road and not sink to the level of Fox News &c.

I'm inclined to agree with the former but I honestly have no clue where you guys are coming from with the later. What is the ethical high road that you are trying to occupy? How does not donating (or being punished for donating) make any part of the MSNBC broadcast more impartial, more unbiased, or more sincere? Explain to me the ethical value of taking a stand here.

I get the silly part, just not the idealism part.

Before we lose the thread here, my understanding is that Olbermann was not suspended for making the contributions, but for not disclosing the contributions prior to interviewing the candidates. Had he done so, MSNBC could then have decided whether Olbermann was the right person to interview them, or if the task was better left to someone else there.

I understand the cynical view of this. But my question is, does Keith Olbermann call himself a journalist? If he does, then he shouldn't be surprised to learn that he's subject to journalistic standards.

BigTodd, networks don't deviate from a specific type of programing; they all have a message. The Food Network doesn't show kid's cartoons in the middle of the afternoon because they have nothing to do with food. Comedy Central would never play the movie Half Nelson because it's not funny. Deviating from a specific type of programing is unwise because it alienates your viewership. If If I'm watching Comedy Central it's because I want to laugh. If I'm watching the Food Network, it's because I want to learn how to bake a nice brisquet.

Likewise, Fox News is constructing a message that they are a "fair and balanced" news distributor. People watch because they are under the impression that they are going to be informed. They're actually called "Fox News." They're not called "Fox News and Some Other Stuff That Isn't News, So Don't Get Your Panties In A Bunch." Casually interjecting an hour of opinion interspersed in the scant few hours of actual news-reporting (in which they obviously and consistently skew things) does not excuse or forgive their message. It makes it worse.

Trust me, if they started calling themselves "Fox Opinions" people wouldn't have a problem.

So a company banning their employees from donating money to a campaign amounts to a violation of their first amendment right.

No it doesn't. Only the government can violate your right to free speech. Your employers can prohibit you however they like.

superasente I misspoke. Basically, what I meant is that such a public corporation, in my probably very naive opinion, wouldn't make such an imposing rule on its employees. While it doesn't necessarily look great that they have journalist-type employees donating money to candidates and causing a possible conflict of interest, they have a policy in place to cover both themselves and the employees doing the donating.

This are the value judgements I made about Fox News, Yossarian. Please review each point and pinpoint those things that you disagree with.

[Fox has] utterly abandoning journalistic integrity in favor of reinforcing a constructed message.
[They have a] fanatical right-wing, religious message.
[They create] a warped message and antagonistic perspective upon the opposition within their news.
[Fox News voices] their beleifs at the expense of responsible journalism.

Now, does any of that sound like an exageration? Have I lost my objectivity? Do you really think those comments are overzealous? Obviously I don't care for them, but I'm not exactly drinking the cool-aid here.

“Before we lose the thread here”

Consider it lost sansho1

Hey BigTodd, how do you like the fact that those fucking scumbag republicans (your brothers in arms) want to take out the provision in the health care bill that applies to children with pre-existing health conditions? And they want to roll back the tax cut you got this year, and not only privatize social security but raise the age before you get social security? I hope they do all that shit and more, I hope they literally skull fuck you and people like you that voted for these unhinged motherfuckers. But you’re too blinded by mom and apple pie to see that these republicans are going cane your ass into submission and I’m going to be standing on the sideline pointing and laughing at you.

In case anybody's wondering if there actually is a code of ethics that real journalists (not faux journalists like Olbermann and his ilk) are expected to follow, there is, and you can find it here (it's lengthy, so I won't cut and paste it here):

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

Read it and ask yourself how many "journalists" it describes in America today.

If you were getting the actual journalism you deserve, none of this would be unfamiliar, but for most of you, I bet it is. It's sad, what's become of real journalism in this country. It was pimped out long ago by the giant corporations that own almost all of the news you watch and read.

Seriously, I'm reading the code of ethics now and could almost cry at how few media outlets bother to abide by even half of it. I think most of the ones that do are print, which of course, is a dying medium.

Pookie FTW!!

At the end of the day, I go back to my belief that all televisions should be stamped "For Entertainment Purposes Only".

Consider it lost sansho1

Hey, thanks for the warning!

Can I just say that this whole thing is indicative of why so many younger adults now get their news from The Daily Show. The absurdity of this whole situation just makes me want to laugh and cry at the same time.

Olbermann violated a company policy by openly contributing to candidates whom he personally supports without permission. This is something akin to an NFL player being penalized for complaining about officiating after a game, and getting fined or suspended for voicing an opinion which everyone knows he held.

Olbermann was dumb for breaking the rule, the network was dumb for so publicly reprimanding him about it, the rule itself is dumb because it is only enforced selectively (since permissions for exceptions are usually granted when asked), and the notion that this somehow is a statement of higher or lower journalism is the most absurd thing of all.

The reason that CNN is so bland and insipid is because they go out of their way to avoid appearing biased in any way, and this leads to the instinct in their journalists that if their reporting shows any leanency towards one point of view or another, they will wind up being labled as a partisan mouthpiece. So instead, they work themselves into a pattern of spouting neutral, benign statements of whatever facts don't specifically endorse one point of view or another, and then keep repeating these and other neutral platitudes for the duration of their report/three hour program.

Many, if not most of the reporters and hosts on both FOX News and MSNBC are openly promoting political agendas (though the general consensus is that FOX is much more blatent about it). That's fine though. Iron-clad conservatives and liberals have their own enclaves with their own value priorties intact (conservatives want their issues clarified as clearly as possible, liberals want their facts as straight as they can be).

CNN tries desperately to be the true-neutral alignment in the cable news network kingdom. But any Dungeons and Dragons vet will tell you that the true-neutral character will be the dullest, most irrelevant character in the entire party. Better to recruit a haughty elf or an surly dwarf instead.

@Yossarian,

The value of taking a stand is to show that, though most MSNBC pundits have a liberal point-of-view and spend much of their time displaying their liberal opinions...MSNBC wants to make it clear that they, as an organization, do not use their power (and money) to support certain candidates. I think its a stand worth taking.

@supersante,

I wish you would not mistake the republican agenda for a "religious" agenda. The religious and moral values of the Republican party and Fox News are superficial at best, and blatantly hypocritical at worst.

As for this integrity of the journalist thing goes, I think we ought to redefine those code of ethics. I would much rather know where a political "journalist" stands, instead of that journalist attempting to be objective when he/she will inevitably color the news in one fashion or another. What I loathe about Fox News is that rarely, if ever bring the other side to the debate and when they do, they shout and scream over them so that person's opinions are never heard.

Oh, and reporting false information as if it were fact. But the liberal media does that too...though maybe not as often and as blatant.

And I think we should privatize Social Security. The Government clearly can't handle it. You do realize even if we don't privatize SS, it will run out of money by the time we're senior citizens. Not to mention the money that people get from it now is hardly enough to live on.

Re: consider it lost

take out the provision in the health care bill that applies to children with pre-existing health conditions

Not that I want children to suffer and die, but coverage for pre-existing conditions is not insurance. It is the opposite of insurance. Insurance is a system of risk pooling where many people pay a little money periodically so that any of them have protection from catastrophic loss or damages. If you are already diagnosed with cancer or some other terrible and expensive disease and you sign up to pay $150/month to have all your medical costs covered that is not insurance. It may be admirable, it may be something we want as a society, but it is not insurance and it cannot be accomplished by private insurance companies. If you want a single payer system and government-provided medical care that is another thing, but if you pass a bill claiming that we can all be insured by private insurance companies through government subsidies and then you allow for anyone to have access regardless of pre-existing conditions you create a system that is unsustainable. It cannot work in the long term like that. Costs are going to increase dramatically. Insurance companies are going to make a lot of money in the short-run and then go broke and get bailed out in the long run because the helth care plan as currently written is not sustainable.

And they want to roll back the tax cut you got this year

Why shouldn't this happen? The so-called Bush Tax Cuts were a mistake when they were passed. Roll 'em back, for the rich and the middle class alike. If we are going to have Federal spending at the rate we currently have it then we don't have the means to be buying taxpayer goodwill by giving tax cuts at the same time. (and for the record, this was an evil Republican idea in the first place, the party of tax less and still spend).

raise the age before you get social security

Again, why is this a bad idea? The only reason it is a bad idea is because of the effect it has on unemployment (if older workers stay in the workforce there are less jobs available for younger workers). But I don't think that was your point. Why shouldn't we raise the retirement age? People are living a lot longer and requiring a lot more money to take care of in the final stages of life (especially since we have a new health care law). Why is it so unreasonable to expect them to work as long as they still have the ability? Do you actually think through the implications of entitlement programs like social security when the retirement age stays the same but benefits increase and life expectancy increases? The program goes cash-negative. You have more money going out than coming in. It becomes unsustainable.

Do you not understand that you can't just have a bunch of good things without ever worrying about the costs?

well actually Pookie I manage my own (I've invested wisely over the years), plus one day I'll have military benifits, so nice try there, but fail as always douchie

No one could ever make Glenn Beck look sane. Congratulations on making yourself look crazy.

RE Eep: "I agree, Slash, but I wonder how useful straight reporting of the things politicians say would be to the average citizen. There's just too much context for someone who spends most of their day making a living in a different field to keep track of. This isn't an endorsement of most of the talking heads yacking one party line or the other, but I think the role of giving an informed opinion, which is bound to be biased, is valid. As long as you, as the news consumer, don't take any particular person's word for it."

As far as I can tell, most opinions on TV news shows are either uninformed or self-serving, ie, serve a particular agenda, such as to make one's favored candidate/policy look good or make an opponent/differing policy look bad. Self-serving opinions aren't always uninformed, but they're not objective, either. Which makes them not news.

A news show isn't supposed to have opinion. It just isn't. Opinion isn't news. I don't want Olbermann or any of those assholes on Fox to tell me what they think about anything. I don't care what they think. If they can't tell me what actually happened, without injecting any of their worthless, preening opinion, they are useless. They may as well be Paris Hilton dispensing the "news." In fact, I think I'd prefer that. Hilton at least doesn't pretend to know more than I do. She'd giggle and say something stupid which would make her ... exactly the same as Fox and CNN and MSNBC right now, except she wouldn't presume to call herself a journalist. Probably.

Also, a country that spends as much free time as ours does watching sports and "reality" programming and porn has plenty of time to absorb fact-based information. Most people just don't want to.

and the last 8 years shows us the gvt unchecked is far worse...

Re: Yossarian

“Not that I want children to suffer and die, but coverage for pre-existing conditions is not insurance.”

What it is, is protection from insurance companies that routinely drop coverage at the whiff of having to cover expensive medications.

“And they want to roll back the tax cut you got this year”

Except that there’s a 700 billion dollar tax short fall when we don’t tax the upper incomes in relation to the money they make. Corporations have closed up shop here in America and have relocated overseas just to avoid paying taxes, on top of having made record profits, and on top of the fact that some have paid lower taxes to begin with.

“Raise the age before you get social security”

So now you want people to work longer because people are living longer? And what quality of life do you think they will have in retirement? Why don’t we just require people to work until they drop and if we’re able to revive them then they can apply for their privatized social security.

Yossarian, of course things (entitlements) cost money I’m not into ponies and rainbows. I’m weary of people that use the word “entitlements” negatively, usually they receive entitlements but always have a problem with people that are less fortunate receiving them.

“beleave it or not Pookie there was a time in this country where you were supposed to take care of their own retierment and if they could'nt it was your families responsiblity to help take care of you SS was started to HELP out in the last couple of years of life not the last decade or 2 sorry it sounds cold but that is the simple truth”

Posted by: BigTodd at November 8, 2010 6:29 PM

Who are you trying to fool Todd, you know damn well that as soon as you’re eligible for social security you’re going to apply for it even if you’re healthy.

“well actually Pookie I manage my own (I've invested wisely over the years), plus one day I'll have military benifits, so nice try there, but fail as always douchie”

Posted by: BigTodd at November 8, 2010 5:41 PM

Yeah Todd, you’re a regular Michael Milken. Your investin’ and your military benefits (government administered no doubt) should keep you on easy street. See folks it’s like taken candy from a baby, he rails against the big bad gubment but he trust them to administer his benefits.

I think it's kind of funny that BigTodd probably thinks most of us dislike him for his beliefs when in reality the majority are more than likely fuming over his spelling and syntax errors.

I don't even care about most of the issues debated on Pajiba. I'm Canadian so I really don't care much about US political arguments. I read the site because basically everyone on here writes in an intelligent and eloquent manner. Even when they're talking about boobs and human centipedes. they're thoughtful and interesting. I'm not even picky but you go so far past normal writing errors. I feel like I'm reading a text from a 14 year old every time I get to one of your many posts. Take time to edit.

I can't wait for the Republicans to suggest getting rid of Social Security. That will be delicious.

Wow. This has turned into a debate about actual politics. BORING. UGGG....

I think I'll go watch Fox News.

I see what you did there Littlejon. And I liked it.

Well ... backtracking for a moment to the NPR / PBS / CPB vs. Juan Williams kerfuffle, here's the "NPR Chief" stepping in it again:

http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/08/npr-chief-denounces-defunding-calls-in-speech-on-future-of-journalism/

So, now that it looks like defunding might get some traction public funding is a big deal. What amateurs.

Now, on to the thread thus far, dissecting NBC, Olbermann, and Journalistic Ethics(tm).

@Yossarian said:

There aren't a whole lot of objective sources of information these days and I strongly encourage anyone who is serious about being informed to seek out multiple sources ...

Exactly so. Everyone has an agenda. Even folks trying to be objective are influenced by their experiences, world view and available sources.

If they are unwilling to show you their sources & make their whole argument, their conclusions are not worth listening to, for all values of "they."

...question everything, especially the stuff you are being fed by the side you are supposed to be supporting.

Hear, hear! I sometimes think everyone should be required to read Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" from time to time as a kind of inoculation against getting spun, especially by their own side.

http://orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit

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

Mr. Olbermann, of course, practices tremendous language abuse in his ?reporting? - er - ?commentary? - um - performances. Yeah, his schtick is a kind of performance art.

@Eep said:

... I wonder how useful straight reporting of the things politicians say would be to the average citizen. There's just too much context ...

Well, the "reporting" could start by providing footnotes & links to sources. There's no reason not to, with this here interwebs thing. "Opinion journalism" seems to be strangely internet-proof. You'd think the spewing and misconstruing would go away, what with all those facts just a keyboard away. Since the ranting persists, It seems that Olberman and his colleagues ain't about informing people.

@sansho1 wrote something similar:

At the end of the day, I go back to my belief that all televisions should be stamped "For Entertainment Purposes Only".

Or at least Caveat Emptor.

So, on to Olby at last, who as a paragon of Journalistic Integrity(tm) and objectiveism (See what I did there?), violated a contract with his employer, then got his nose out of joint over their response.

- NBC's suspending him was legal, and stupid.

- His violating contract terms means either he can't read or he's making a point. We've seen him read.

- Journalistic Ethics(tm) really has nothing to do with any of it.

Still, I do wonder what would happen if some of the time spent shouting conclusions were spent walking through the facts and reasoning, maybe even a bit less loudly.

I realize it is self-serving, because you agreed with me, but well said BierceAmbrose

@Pookie
Corporations have packed up shop because of a number of reasons and the tax cuts were nothing more than a band-aid on a bullet hole.

State Business tax rates like we have in my home state of Michigan, have contributed to crippling small businesses and causing other business to look elsewhere. Our newly elected governor(a republican thank god) is repealing the MBT as one of his first acts. His second move of action will be to turn Michigan into a Right to Work State and that brings me to my next point of fact.

Unions are killing America's ability to be competitive in the global market. It's no surprise that all the blue states in America aren't right to work, the union lobby is very rich and very powerful. Look at the south, where things are right to work, job loss and unemployment rates can't compare. When there is a new Toyota, Honda, VW(they just put a massive plant in Tennessee), Hundai plant that is going to be built...where is it being built? Not Michigan. Not Ohio. Not Indiana. We have the largest skilled automotive labor pool to pull from in the world and yet these jobs are going down south to right to work states. Where the guy sweeping the floor isn't being paid $28 an hour, where you have a powerful union backing you is making it almost impossible for you to get fired. Where you help contribute to pension deficit that could pay the salary of every fast food worker in America for 2 years. Why do you think your Chevy Colbalt has a shoddy quality rating and all the parts come from Mexico? Cause you have a mostly lethargic work force that has an unbalanced pay scale. Look who went begging to the federal government. GM and Chrysler. And the one who didn't is the only one in the black right now and their product is among the best on the road.(Ford)

The entire liberal fiscal agenda is utter lunacy. You can't tax the crap out of large companies and expect them not to find a way out of it. (What do you do when you feel cheated?) Those large corporations sign a lot of American paychecks and by offering reasonable and competitive tax benefits will lure them to you. That will allow them to CREATE jobs. Like stated above, that Volkswagen plant in Tennessee was 2000 jobs. That could have been 2000 Michiganders who were able to reenter the workforce and stop taking unemployment checks and paying taxes on their VW checks if our states non-right to work and tax policy hadn't driven VW south. And ya know what? We would have built better cars because we have a work force experienced in doing it.

I can understand how someone can be socially liberal.(It's only a problem when one side tries to tell the other they are wrong.) Social policy is a matter of opinion but fiscal policy is not. I don't understand how someone can be so altruistically selfish as to pay no regard for someone else time and labor. I do not show up for work at 8am everyday because I want to. I would rather sleep in till 9am, play some video games, take a nap, go fishing and take in 18 holes of disc golf. That would be awesome... But no, I work everyday from 8-5. And every time I get my check I see hundreds and hundreds of my money disappear. Last year, I had an ex-college roommate was making more money collecting unemployment checks than he was at the job he was let go from. You should see the TV he got...71" Mitsubishi. I get to pay for that. I get to pay for people who abuse a flawed system. And starting in a few years, I get to pay for lazy 25 year old's who are still on their parents health-care. You want to turn our country in to Europe while the European economy is in an utter tailspin and is two years from utter collapse.(look at the strikes, Greece, Spain, Ireland, Portugal, France...) I'd rather not collapse the infrastructure of the largest and most needed military in the history of the war. How'd that work out for Rome when they debased their economy and had no means to upkeep their army? Don't shoot try and shoot sunshine up my ass. The only thing holding this world from a third World War is us. Are you gonna drop a nuke on your neighbor when 20 American nukes can hit all your major cities by the time your celebrating your bombing? Would a country ever consider invading Canada when their neighbor to the South can black out the sun with F-22's and stealth bombers? Is anyone willing to cross the Rhine to meet the might of our combined Army and Marine forces as we defend our allies? You see any countries openly harbor terrorists since 9/11 like the Taliban did for Al Qaeda?

I'm done now.

I realize it's long, but there are a lot of excellent points in the above post byPiratey and it's a viewpoint that is seriously underrepresented on this site.

You don't have to agree with him, but I assure you he is not Hitler. Some people need to stop framing these issues as 'the people' vs 'the rich corporations'. Sure, it's easy to win when you set up a straw man like that but it doesn't amount to very much. When you claim that Conservatives and Republicans just want to protect their own wealth at the expense of the poor you are arguing on BigTodd's level (sorry BT, but you might want to take a step back and ask yourself what you hope to accomplish by just pissing everyone off back here). The real issues are a lot more complicated and nuanced than that.

Re: Yossarian

“You can't "get rid of" social security. But what probably will end up happening is that the retirement age will be pushed back and they will implement 'means testing' to determine if you are eligible to receive it. Those of us who are well off and have enough saved to live comfortably will get nothing. (and hey, if I'm fortunate enough to be in that category I'll consider myself lucky and gladly make that sacrifice.)”

Yossarian, “means testing” has already been in effect, it’s called reaching a certain age and having a case worker go over your medical and financial records just to be able to receive the on average couple of hundred dollars a month to live on. To live on. And god bless you if you’re eligible because many won’t be. But what could save many people from total ruin would be a single payer health care system. That way those in retirement wouldn’t have to choose between paying for medication or food.

“And I appreciate the responses from Pookie but I'm sticking to my guns on extending the retirement age. I'm a little shocked that it is such a hard sell. Shouldn't there be at least some rough correspondence between the amount of money paid in to the system and the amount drawn out? And are you suggesting that the objective of Social Security in retirement is to make sure your golden years are work and worry free? You are encouraging me to use the term "entitlement" in a negative connotation.”

So you’re a little shocked that it is such a hard sell? The answer to your “rough correspondence between the amount of money paid in to the system and the amount drawn out?” If only it were that simple Yoss. No matter what you put in, usually it’s not enough to sustain you throughout your retirement. And of course nobody is asking to retire in the lap of luxury, but one should be able to avoid eating dog in their golden years also.

“And finally, on the insurance issue, it's still not something that private insurance can provide. You can't have unlimited benefits and no accountability for costs. If you want government-sponsored programs to take care of kids with serious medical issues that is one thing. I think we already have programs like that. You cannot force private insurance to do it and still expect them to not raise rates accordingly. I'm not saying the system is perfect and I am not saying there weren't abuses and failings. But the new system is far from perfect and it will do little to nothing to keep costs down. The only honest reason I can think of to support it is that you acknowledge that it will fail and you expect that the government will be required to pass laws to fix it that come closer to what you actually wanted in the first place- single payer, government provided, universal health care. The program we passed in 2010 will fail as written and will need to be amended or replaced.”

Nobody is saying that insurance companies can’t make money even though every major insurance company has made record profits last year. The problem comes about when a person has made their premium payments on time and without fail an insurance company can drop their coverage without suffering any consequences of any kind, that is a problem that happens all the time. Now onto the rate issue, insurance companies should be allowed to raise their rates, but not by in some cases fifty percent after making record profits, and by not notify the customer of said insurance hikes. I bet you didn’t know that the new law makes insurance carriers spend also 85 percent of each dollar they make on actual care as opposed to the 30 to 40 percent that the carriers spent in the past? I would prefer a single payer system, one in which every one would be covered.

“You can't "get rid of" social security. But what probably will end up happening is that the retirement age will be pushed back and they will implement 'means testing' to determine if you are eligible to receive it. Those of us who are well off and have enough saved to live comfortably will get nothing. (and hey, if I'm fortunate enough to be in that category I'll consider myself lucky and gladly make that sacrifice.)”

Yossarian, “means testing” has already been in effect, it’s called reaching a certain age and having a case worker go over your medical and financial records just to be able to receive the on average couple of hundred dollars a month to live on. to live on. And god bless you if you’re eligible because many won’t be. But what could save many people from total ruin would be a single payer health care system. That way those in retirement wouldn’t have to choose between paying for medication or food.

“And I appreciate the responses from Pookie but I'm sticking to my guns on extending the retirement age. I'm a little shocked that it is such a hard sell. Shouldn't there be at least some rough correspondence between the amount of money paid in to the system and the amount drawn out? And are you suggesting that the objective of Social Security in retirement is to make sure your golden years are work and worry free? You are encouraging me to use the term "entitlement" in a negative connotation.”

So you’re a little shocked that it is such a hard sell? The answer to your “rough correspondence between the amount of money paid in to the system and the amount drawn out?” If only it were that simple Yoss. No matter what you put in, usually it’s not enough to sustain you throughout your retirement. And of course nobody is asking to retire in the lap of luxury, but one should be able to avoid eating dog in their golden years also.

“And finally, on the insurance issue, it's still not something that private insurance can provide. You can't have unlimited benefits and no accountability for costs. If you want government-sponsored programs to take care of kids with serious medical issues that is one thing. I think we already have programs like that. You cannot force private insurance to do it and still expect them to not raise rates accordingly. I'm not saying the system is perfect and I am not saying there weren't abuses and failings. But the new system is far from perfect and it will do little to nothing to keep costs down. The only honest reason I can think of to support it is that you acknowledge that it will fail and you expect that the government will be required to pass laws to fix it that come closer to what you actually wanted in the first place- single payer, government provided, universal health care. The program we passed in 2010 will fail as written and will need to be amended or replaced.”

Nobody is saying that insurance companies can’t make money even though every major insurance company has made record profits last year. The problem comes about when a person has made their premium payments on time and without fail an insurance company can drop their coverage without suffering any consequences of any kind, that is a problem that happens all the time. Now onto the rate issue, insurance companies should be allowed to raise their rates, but not by in some cases fifty percent after making record profits, and by not notify the customer of said insurance hikes. I bet you didn’t know that the new law makes insurance carriers spend also 85 percent of each dollar they make on actual care as opposed to the 30 to 40 percent that the carriers spent in the past? I would prefer a single payer system, one in which every one would be covered.

No matter what you put in, usually it’s not enough to sustain you throughout your retirement. And of course nobody is asking to retire in the lap of luxury, but one should be able to avoid eating dog in their golden years also.

I'm not denying the need for a social safety net, our disagreement is a matter of degree. Why is it unreasonable to extend the retirement age a couple years so that able-bodied persons can continue to be productive earners and instead of a burden on the system? Why is that mentioned along side 'literally skull fuck you' on the Right-wing agenda? It seems reasonable to me, especially considering how the aging baby boomers and the increasing life expediency (and the dismal economy) are going to constrain which noble objectives we can realistically accomplish.

@Pookie

You operate under the pretense that the health care bill that was passed is a fine piece of legislator. Have you actually seen what's in it? The amount of bureaucracy created? The amount of money wasted? It's a nightmare of a bill, a monstrosity. But that's not what matters does it? What matters is the symbol it represents. It's a horribly written, inefficient and bloated bill that could end up costing us BIG TIME. But it was "the health-care bill", it has been THE feather the dems have been gunning for and they passed it...But they passed it at the cost of it being a terrible bill. It's nothing more than a very expensive, very restrictive, symbolic act.

I'm gonna pay a couple thousand extra bucks a year,(guess I can't re-carpet my basement..) and wait longer when I go to the doctor who's further away. The added bureaucracy will extend the amount of time needed to get approvals and will cost lives. Ever been to a Canadian Emergency room? How about British Emergency rooms? The wait time is legendary. A guy in Liverpool sat in the waiting room for 3 hours with 3 severed fingers in a bag of ice. A.That guy is a badass B.That doesn't happen in America.

If they got the bill right you wouldn't see the outcry you see for it now. We don't want babies to die, the need for a revision of our health-care system is much needed. But they are serving us a giant steaming pile of horse shit on a platter and telling us it's steak, eat up. If it smells like a turd and it looks like a turd...I'm not bitin'.

@Pookie

You operate under the pretense that the health care bill that was passed is a fine piece of legislator. Have you actually seen what's in it? The amount of bureaucracy created? The amount of money wasted? It's a nightmare of a bill, a monstrosity. But that's not what matters does it? What matters is the symbol it represents. It's a horribly written, inefficient and bloated bill that could end up costing us BIG TIME. But it was "the health-care bill", it has been THE feather the dems have been gunning for and they passed it...But they passed it at the cost of it being a terrible bill. It's nothing more than a very expensive, very restrictive, symbolic act.

I'm gonna pay a couple thousand extra bucks a year,(guess I can't re-carpet my basement..) and wait longer when I go to the doctor who's further away. The added bureaucracy will extend the amount of time needed to get approvals and will cost lives. Ever been to a Canadian Emergency room? How about British Emergency rooms? The wait time is legendary. A guy in Liverpool sat in the waiting room for 3 hours with 3 severed fingers in a bag of ice. A.That guy is a badass B.That doesn't happen in America.
If they got the bill right you wouldn't see the outcry you see for it now. We don't want babies to die, the need for a revision of our health-care system is much needed. But they are serving us a giant steaming pile of horse shit on a platter and telling us it's steak, eat up. If it smells like a turd and it looks like a turd...I'm not bitin'.

Posted by: Piratey at November 8, 2010 8:36 PM

P, just to catch you up to speed. I’ve already said in the past that this bill is far from perfect. Every bill that has ever been put into law wasn’t perfect coming off the presses, but over time and with alterations the bill became better. If I were a republican I wouldn’t use democrats have been gunning for a solution to rein in health care cost as some sort of retort. In what universe will you have to pay a couple of thousand extra bucks a year for health care? Pete, please don’t bring up wait times in America’s emergency rooms, if I had a penny for every time I’ve seen on the news that someone expired in an emergency waiting room I’d have enough money to retire.

@frank_247

Yes, what I was saying was that all British doctors terrible and everyone that goes there, goes there to die...

No, what I am sayings is that on average and especially your extremes, your wait times are much higher than we currently have in the US.

@piratey

I was in the ER 20 mins, had been assessed and was being transferred. 20 mins in transit, then 20 mins to have my procedure done.

Within the hour, I was in a room, with its own tv and lavatory, and under observation.

I thought that was pretty good value for my taxes that paid for it.

If it had happened to me in the US, I shudder to think of the consequences.

Do you spend much time in hospitals, or are you just repeating hearsay?

Speaking of impartial journalism. Did anyone else watch the Obama interview on 60 minutes?! I typically vote democrat, but I'm no fan of Obama. I still can't believe that interview. It wasn't an interview at all, but a full out attack. I could tell that Obama felt that he was being attacked throughout the interview. A journalist should ask questions, not verbally assault someone. Matt Lauer did a much better job interviewing Bush than that dude did attacking Obama.

Anyone who judges the NHS on the back of stories like that "3 hours 3 severed fingers" nonsense is a moron. Not because the story is unsourced bullshit of the most unlikely kind (triage does know how important immediate re-attachement of extremities is), which Google returns nothing about on multiple tries... but because it's unrepresentative anecdotal bullshit.

Why are anecdotes bullshit? Because sometimes shit goes wrong. People get forgotten, mistakes happen, and unless you have statistics to say that 'this kind of mistake happens more often' then all you have is evidence that the NHS isn't perfect... like all human run health services.

If the cost of free surgery several times in my life, and again tomorrow for a potentially cancerous tumour, is that I have to wait a bit longer for treatment rather than using my wealth to buy myself health or risk bankrupting myself with necessary surgery, then I'm all for it.

Frankly the old American system is something you should all have been ashamed of, and one day, when you're used to living like civilised people, rather than Darwinian 'survival of the richest' barbarians, you'll all look back and wonder how you could have been so callous.

I should have known this wouldn't die on its own.

(Pulls out .357 and shoots post in the head.)

Hopefully that worked and I don't have to unpack the .50 cal.

Well, in the category of Godtopus provides, right when we're debating Journalistic Ethics(tm), there appears on the Interwebs a mashup of Rachel Maddow calling Fox a political operation for letting politicians solicit on their air with politicians schilling for $ ... on NBC.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txjXBx9-2c0&feature=player_embedded

Pot (the cooking kind) meet kettle. A pox upon all of their houses.

The problem, really, is too much air time vs. too little brains. So, we get ranting, shallow "gotchas", and the subjects on the air plugging their thing. Broadcasters need more content than they can afford to produce so they look for people who can provide it for free. There ain't always money changing hands, but it's always a transaction.

It all makes more sense once you realize that broadcast politics is just this culture's favorite blood sport.

@Yossarian, thanks. I hope I didn't mess with your credibility or Sansho1's or Eep's by building on your points.