Pajiba

Running for political office is for selfish preening assholes and bullies. Anyone with a shred of higher morals or ideals is stomped to death by the ruthless character assassins running against them. Poor Obama can't work a damned thing because he didn't know what the fuck he was talking about. Maybe his next campaign will focus on reality and workable solutions, not fantastical miracle cures and impossible-to-impose "sweeping reforms". If it sounds too good to be true, it is.

Also, is it too much to hope that John Stewart sucker punches O'Reilly with a concrete-filled brick loaded with explosives?

They had plenty of time to push a healthcare bill through and the GOP aren't the only ones against its many iterations. There are still a few good Democrats who listen to the people instead of the party. For us to assume things (especially in reference to politics and legislation) will ever be an obvious good vs bad argument is folly, however fun it may be. That's why so large a percent of television is political- two uncompromising people "debating" is only worth the entertainment value. So...thanks for the video!

Kballs:

Perhaps when you make assertions such as "Obama didn't know what the fuck he was talking about" you might want to back it up with some actual examples and analysis. It's comments such as yours that really irritate me. Spout something off with no real basis.
I'm sick to death of people who know nothing about health care policy or the process to pass legislation in this country making their grandstanding statements. Have you read any iteration of the health care bills? Can you analyze any components of them?

When did Dennis Miller become a Republican for God's sake?

O'Reilly claims people know his show is an opinion piece. My father, his mother, and my late boss's husband all think he's a news program and constantly spout out his opinions as facts.

That's exactly the problem, Fox News gives the American public (not everyone) far too much credit. Or perhaps they don't and know they can get away with it.

Running for political office is for selfish preening assholes and bullies.

Perhaps, but running for public office is usually out of a desire to do good. At least in the lower levels of government.

I have GOT to get this off my chest and Dustin's 2nd paragraph set me off: Scott Brown, Shmott Brown, LET THE REPUBLICANS FILIBUSTER THE HEALTH BILL!! I don't know what the fuckity fuck the Democrats are so damn scared about--the other party has to do all the work! Sleep standing up while speaking! Pee in glass bottles or wear depends so an errant bathroom break doesn't break the filibuster! Talk on and on inanely about your grandmother's kidney stone! Good grief, does any of that sound like FUN? How long do you think they'll be able to keep it up before a saner member of their party gives up and compromises a little, eensy, bit(Olympia, I'm looking at you)? I swear, Democrats ARE pussies if just the slightest whiff of a filibuster causes them to drop the healthcare bill completely. Sheesh.
/rant

Aaaaahhhhh! Political flame war!

*Runs out and slams door*

Perhaps, but running for public office is usually out of a desire to do good. At least in the lower levels of government.

Posted by: admin at February 4, 2010 10:52 AM
---
I think this is true, and then the get-along-to-go-along corruption seeps in, and before you know it you've sold your soul.

I've always thought that to run for office higher than, say, county commissioner requires the candidate to have a sociopathic/psychotic personality. To run SUCCESSFULLY, I should say. The ruthlessness, the evasiveness, the pandering, the groveling for money, the sense of entitlement, the out-and-out lying required to win ... what kinds of human beings ARE these people?

I know a couple of my local politicians, both Democrats, and I like and respect them both. I regularly vote for one of them (the other's retired), but he hasn't aspired higher than the state Senate. Until now. Now he's running for Congress.

God have mercy on his soul.

Amen, ,, the Republican Party right now needs to replace their limos with clown cars.

I've always thought that to run for office higher than, say, county commissioner requires the candidate to have a sociopathic/psychotic personality. To run SUCCESSFULLY, I should say. The ruthlessness, the evasiveness, the pandering, the groveling for money, the sense of entitlement, the out-and-out lying required to win ... what kinds of human beings ARE these people?

Again from my own frame of reference, I think this is also true. I cannot see myself holding public office any higher up than county government. I simply couldn't take all the bullshit. Plus, I think the power of a high office goes to a person's head and I simply don't want to turn that type of corrupt politician.

My main complaint lies in his "health care reforms" that would basically hand it over to the government. Being a veteran myself, I can tell you first hand that VA hospitals are death traps and the doctors are borderline incompetent. If he thinks he can allow them to run just a little portion of it and they won't make underhanded moves to take over the entire (lucrative!) program, then I seriously question his judgement. There are other issues with 401K's, senior taxes, limiting/monitoring CEO salaries, etc., but this is my main gripe. I was screaming at the TV during the debates, knowing what will happen if he gets his way. It is a ridiculously slippery slope that will consume us all if he gets his way. This scares me nearly as much as the Patriot Act.

Oh brother. I think Stewart on O'Relly makes for interesting TV and I am certainly going to make time to watch this online since I missed the original airing. For that, I'm glad you made a post about it

...but that lead in was really sloppy and more than a little irresponsible, Dustin. I recommend no one take offense or get upset over any of the ensuing comments because the bar for discussion has been set subterranean this time. This has all the potential of being high on emotion, low on reason, and essentially everything worth criticizing fox news for. (I hope it's just laziness, and not an attempt to court controversy and kindle a cheap comment fight)

Take a breath, take a drink, and wait for some movie news. Remember, meaningful battles for health care and political ideology are not fought in message boards of movie websites. This is simply nothing worth getting upset over.

wsapnin--Dennis Miller became a republican after 9/11.

Up yours Dustin, you liberal commie!!!
You come around here puffin' out yer socialist man boobs when you ain't even knee-high to a hipster's fart! You like leanin' left? How 'bout you come over here and lean yer pretty mouth onto my left nut!
HEEEE-AWWWWW!!!!!

Hah! Good one, dammitjanet. Way to lighten the mood.

And good luck with your campaign, stardust. All politics is local, but some is way more local than others.

Eep, mon ami! Je suis toujours votre PaddyChien!

Kballs: There is huge variation in the VA system. Some VA medical centers operate very well while others are a mess. To condemn a move to try to cover millions of uninsured people based on your sole experience with the VA seems rather a limited view to me. I grew up with universal health care. I now live in a system that requires me to pay for a simple vaccination. Along the way, I have worked with VA centers, private hospitals, Mayo clinic, and Harley Street doctors. Is there a perfect system? No. Is it worth trying to change our current US system to move toward something that would be more equitable? Yes. I'm fully ready to accept that there are major flaws in the health care bills (how many people even know there's more than one of them?), but I'm so sick of the rhetoric and one-liners that people are swallowing hook line and sinker.

By the way, I have $100 that someone will think "cloture" is a typo.

wsapnin:

Dennis Miller became a right-winger in 2001. Yup, 9/11 happened but his career was also in the toilet at the time and he saw an opporuntity.

Eep & Sir Punctuation are getting me all hot and bothered with this Libertarian chatter. Seriously.

Any who. Believe what you want about "Choak"ley and blah blah blah, but the fact of the matter is that if people weren't passionate about sending a clear message about the way the Senate is ear fucking our government, then the Dems should have been able to dress a donkey and call it a candidate and still win. It was frakin' Massachusetts!!! Brown won because the people of wicked liberal Massachusetts wanted to vote in a Republican. A Republican was sent to replace Ted Kennedy, y'all. That took way more than just a so-so candidate. So put that in your pipe and smoke it, folks.

It's obvious that many Americans want health care reform, they just don't want the option they've been given. Congress needs to do some retooling and Obama needs to take a page out of the Clinton handbook and check to see which way the wind is blowing. He'll remain infinitely more popular and he'll be able to affect a little more of that "change" shit he keeps peddling.

Also, I wanna hug you, stardust. Please continue to get passionate about local government, it's where people can actually affect change closest to home. And y'all are right, the people in local government general have honest aspirations to keep their community well, not to bumblefuck around with the press while they say they're getting shit done.

Unless, of course, you're the Governor of North Carolina. In which case, ya know... You get license to do whatever the hell you want. Whether that be embezzle or completely ignore everything you promise in your campaign speech and whine and complain that people are being mean to you in the polls, even though you don't really care about what the polls say.

But I'm not bitter about Bev Perdue. Oh no. Why would I be bitter about straight ticket voters sending in the Lieutenant Governor of Sleazy Easley? GAH!

BY the way, those of you who think Scott Brown and the Mass vote was a big fuck you to health care, you do know that the Senate bill is virtually identical to the Massachusetts health care program that all of those "angry" voters benefit from (and will continue to benefit from if the federal bill dies) and that Scott Brown voted in favour of as a state representative????

Yeah. I thought not.

Also, the Republican probably won in Massachusetts for 2 reasons:

* The Democratic candidate was a dipshit
* Republicans skew older, and older people vote more often than younger people, esp. in gubernatorial and local elections. Bitch all you want, but if the only voting you've done in the past 10 years was the presidential elections, you're part of the problem. The city councils, state legislatures and school boards that most younger people can't be bothered to pay attention to are where the national politicians often start.

Yes, politics is icky and boring, but it's how we decide who gets to run everything. If you want someone besides dumbfuck old people running things, you're gonna have to actually take some precious time from Twitter and Facebook and YouTube and pay attention to what's going on in boring old government.

"Yes, politics is icky and boring, but it's how we decide who gets to run everything. If you want someone besides dumbfuck old people running things, you're gonna have to actually take some precious time from Twitter and Facebook and YouTube and pay attention to what's going on in boring old government."

Posted by: Slash at February 4, 2010 12:10 PM

_________________

My favorite post in a long while. So hilariously condescending (in the best way) yet absolutely true. I don't pay as much attention to politics as I should because it IS boring as fuck.

*pokes self on Facebook*

RE Posted by: Kballs at February 4, 2010 11:06 AM
"My main complaint lies in his health care reforms that would basically hand it over to the government."

You are touchingly naive that you think the U.S. government is not already firmly entrenched in health care. The government is health care's biggest customer by far. And the U.S. govt. funds a tremendous amount of medical research. As an example, it just spent a fuckload of money to vaccinate a couple hundred million Americans against H1N1.

Also, your testimony aside, most people who go to VA hospitals report greater satisfaction with it than those who use any other govt. med service (Medicare, Medicaid, etc.). If my recent readings are correct.

What Slash said.

And Kayanne, love. Dot. The Democrats DID dress a donkey up and run her. That was the problem.*

Any candidate who says it's not necessary for him or her to meet voters because that's what the head of the unions are for will not and should not win.

*A joke on her ineffectualness, not a misogynistic slight. I do not detest women, I swears it.

RE Kballs at February 4, 2010 12:18 PM
"My favorite post in a long while. So hilariously condescending (in the best way) yet absolutely true. I don't pay as much attention to politics as I should because it IS boring as fuck."

The problem with the way the media covers politics is that (and this is not an original observation, really, Jon Stewart has mentioned it many times), it covers the "controversy" and the "they said/they said" aspect, which really are boring as fuck. They broadcast the public statements of politicians, which are usually content-free, designed to rally their supporters and say nothing that might alienate them. The back and forth bullshit that the parties (and their allies in any given situation) waste OUR time doing, rather then telling us what we need to know.

It's not terribly easy to actually find out what the fuck is going on. It requires paying a reporter to research and go ask questions of some anonymous PhD or other person who actually works in the relevant industry, rather than regurgitating the press releases that the different interest groups e-mail to news orgs literally every single day. It's easier to just edit video of the Republican asshole saying something bad about the Democrats, and then the Democrats replying with something assholish of their own.

And the public is also culpable. When people (and not just young people, old people do it too, I've not observed that most of them are any more politically savvy, they just think they are) give their vote to whoever tells them what they want to hear, rather than someone who wants to fix what's wrong, they're perpetuating the bullshit system.

I have no hope whatsoever that this will change. Younger people are sweet in their desire to make stuff better (and stuff does get better sometimes, slowly), but they are working against a system that has been in place for, literally, hundreds of years now. The old rich people in charge of everything do not want to give up any of their power. And they ensure this by grooming younger people to replace them. They don't hire people who want to change things.

PaddyDog: Yeah, I figured I would get beaten up over the socialist comment. Also, I didn't say I'd spoken to healthcare people, I said those of us that work. At least near everyone I've spoken to or heard about the issue. From bars, to work, to family gatherings, to you name it.

Taking tax money from the workers to pay for a goverment run healthcare for everyone else is the problem. Perfect example is the much vilified Cadillac Plans. When Obama was campaigning, the Cadillac Plans were what he called the 60 and 70 thousand dollar premium executive plans. Somewhere along the way, this number was dropped to $8,000 per individual. This put mine, and all of my co-workers plans, in jeopardy. A point our employer made abundantly clear to us because of the tax they would have to pay on us.

Then amidst this worry on our part, the administration recently announces a deal exempting organized labor from the Cadillac Plan tax. How in the hell is that fair? Now since then one of the compromises was the $8K cap is for medical only, before it was all benefits combined. So we are exempted just barely and will hopefully keep our ok, not great, plan. But this is still complete bullshit and nothing more than reqarding a major supporter of the Democratic party. A back room deal, precisely what Obama promised he was going to do away with. Why else did they forbid coverage of the labor union negotiations on health care?

The US absolutely needs health insurance over haul. It does not need a gigantic government bureacracy to replace the current system. At least not the bill in its current form. They need to start from scratch with a more moderate bill. The US is not a leftist populace, and until the reps in the House realize this they will continue to run up against opposition.

Sorry this is long winded but I wanted to explain where I was coming from. For the record I'm a moderate Democrat/Libertarian.

Woops, yeah, * Kim Jong-Il

RE TylerDFC "Taking tax money from the workers to pay for a goverment run healthcare for everyone else is the problem."

You do realize that this describes Medicare, Medicaid and the VA system, right? And there are probably more examples I'm not aware of.

Pretty soon, a majority of Americans (if this isn't the case already) will be in a government-run health care system, regardless of whether health care reform passes or not. It is amazing to me how many people don't know this. And a lot of them are in the govt.-run health care systems I mentioned. Old people screeching about "socialism" when they benefit from the exact kind of "socialist" system they claim will destroy America. If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny. Well, OK, it's still pretty funny.

RE "The US absolutely needs health insurance over haul. It does not need a gigantic government bureacracy to replace the current system."

This, too, is hilarious. The current system is already a gigantic government bureaucracy. Medicare (old people health care) is about 13% of the federal budget ($462 billion in 2008). Medicaid (poor people health care) is over 7% of the federal budget and 14% of all U.S. health care spending ($333 billion, 2007 numbers; the numbers don't sound right because remember that Medicaid is paid by states and the feds, so it's a smaller percentage of the federal budget than Medicare, though it costs almost as much). Not sure on VA numbers, but I believe they are significantly less than the 2 mentioned above.

Anybody worrying about us creating a huge health care bureaucracy can stop worrying. We already have one. And have had it for about 50 years now.

Perhaps, but running for public office is usually out of a desire to do good. At least in the lower levels of government.

Posted by: admin at February 4, 2010 10:52 AM
Once you get to state level and large city level, there's epic amounts of money to be made and very little accountability. This has created something that breaks our Constitutional system seven ways from Sunday: career politicians.

If the entire focus of your life is to get re-elected, all your decisions are dictated by the election cycle rather than your conscience. This is why retiring congressmen frequently have all these huge reversals in their voting record and policies. When you're free of getting re-elected, you can stop worrying about how to sell ideas to the public and do what's right (or at least right as you see it).

Incidentally, Kballs, most veterans get substantially better healthcare than the average American. That's why the system needs fixing, and not just financially. Our standards of care are actually quite poor in most areas.

The active U.S. military has iirc, the 2nd best medical outcomes in the world and spends very little, and that's a wholly government run program. Interesting, that. Somehow, that gets very little play in the public debate.

The French spend less than half as much as we do, as a function of GDP (8%, I believe) and are in the top 5 in all outcome measures. We're spending almost 18% of our GDP on healthcare and we're rarely higher than 17th or so in the world at anything besides cancer detection.

Why the hell do we keep insisting we have the best healthcare system in the world? All the numbers prove that we don't. We do cancer detection really, really well. But our cancer outcomes aren't actually much better than anyone else's (so we're failing entirely to capitalize on what we actually do well), and our outcomes for everything else are at the bottom of the industrialized nations.

But no one wants to hear any of this. It makes us feel bad about ourselves. It attacks a status quo that we're mostly fairly comfortable with. We've been coasting on the notion that we're the best in the world since the USSR broke up. While we've been gutting all the programs that got us there ever since, the rest of the world has been going about the business of getting their shit together.... in most cases by doing all the shit that we used to do. Only most of them are doing it smarter and greener. They do, after all, have the example of all the things we got right and wrong to look at in the rearview mirror.

Another scary statistic: interest on the national debt is over 8% of the federal budget. And it HAS to be paid. We can't cut that number. And it's only going to get bigger.

Time to pack up the picnic. You people are actually talking politics and not just slinging mud. I can get that from the newspapers and the BBC. Where's the jello wrestling and propositions we all keep coming to Pajiba for?

Well said, PaddyDog. Cookie for you.

ChristianH
I think you're missing the point about the Consitution if you think of it as a power vacuum that invites tyranny. I thought I said this already, but maybe I didn't make it clear enough (or it got skipped over, which is fine; I skim too): what makes our Constitution unique from others in any meaningful way is that it was designed top to bottom as a way of limiting the power of the corrupt fuckheads that would eventually come into power. How do you abuse power you don't have? Of course a lot of that has been undone in the courts and elsewhere, but that was the intent.

Vis-a-vis healthcare, I think those on the left should understand that there aren't many (intelligent) people out there who support the status quo. I think our healthcare system is severely broken, I just disagree that more socialism is the best response. It may improve things temporarily and to some degree by steamrolling insurance company profits out of the equation, but long term removing the profits of any industry will deteriorate the quality of the service. I think there needs to be wholesale re-examination of how healthcare is regulated, but I disagree about where that should take us.

Which kind of brings me to an observation: two of the main points I've seen made by people on the left here are that healthcare in countries with government-run healthcare is so much better and cheaper than ours... and that our system is already much more government-run than we like to think. That makes me wonder whether the problems with our healthcare system have more to do with aspects of Americas demands and expectations of healthcare than the level of involvement of the government.

I'm Canadian so I have no opinion on US health care (no relevant opinion) but I would certainly lean more toward Paddy and Slash if it were my issue to worry about. That's not why I'm commenting though.

I wanted to say that I'm really impressed that this discussion is so civilized and that people are really trying to express themselves and understand other people's opinions. I feel like I learned a little more about it just reading your comments and I'm off to read a little more about the topic after this. I guess I just wanted to express that although some people find it irritating for some reason that everyone is passionate about this topic and they don't wanna hear about it I personally find the discussion interesting and always love reading a well reasoned (or even somewhat well reasoned) opinion.

I too am sick to death of people who have no idea how our health care system works or why we're in our current situation, yet insist on spewing their big fat mouths on the matter without educating themselves. I'm wrapping up a masters degree in healthcare administration, and let me tell you, it's been an eye opener. People have already brought up very good, and very *factual* points about patient satisfaction being highest with the VA, how much we already spend and that amount being inversely correlated with our actual outcomes, and how much of our healthcare system is already entrenched in the federal government and the recipients who would pitch a fit if their benefits were cut. Two other points that make me want to cut a bitch are conservatives who talk about their rights being taken away by being forced to purchase health insurance. Let me tell you ignorant assholes, if you knew one iota about healthcare economics you'd know that any politician talking shit about this particular point is basically saying that they want healthcare reform to fail. Flat out fail. Mandatory insurance is a requirement for reform, and would significantly and meaningfully cut our costs. And why is everyone so content to pay around $10,000 a year to a corporation who is just looking for reasons to deny people their treatments, but doesn't want to give this to the government instead (with the actual amount being way less after the proposed reforms) who would be their advocate in the system because they answer directly to all of us? Medicare patients get whatever treatment they want, except when elective or experimental, with no pre-existing clauses and no pre-authorization requirements. They just pay hospitals and providers less for their services.

Why do people in this country trust greedy corporations who have time and again shown their contempt for us, over their own elected government?!? Grow some perspective, morons. Stop regurgitating what you're being told by those who only want to buy and sell your loyalties.

Having watched one of the videos, Stewart handled it as he should have. Could he go on O'Reilly's show and act like a dick (as O'Reilly would richly deserve)? Sure. But what purpose would that serve? There's a way to disagree with people that lets both sides behave with dignity, and there's a way to do it (like O'Reilly usually does) that makes at least one side look like a colossal asshole. Stewart chose the first one. He's got plenty of time on his own show to let on that he thinks O'Reilly is a dick. Is there any doubt that's his real opinion? Being courteous to someone in (essentially) their own home isn't a bad thing. O'Reilly was more restrained in his douchebaggery than I would have thought possible. He's still a dick. Always and forever.

Hey becks, why don't you canucks fuck off and mind your own business.

;-)

From a country with a hybrid private/public healthcare model (Australia), I find the whole "fear of government takeover" pretty ludicrous.

Basically it works like this:
-If I want the doctor I want, when I want it, I have private health coverage, which I have the luxury of affording
-Otherwise I can get the doctor I need, not straight away but definitely in time to treat what ails me. The government picks up part of the bill, I pay the balance

The system works, it costs roughly half per capita what the US spends on health care and I always know that no matter what else happens to me in life, I won't die of preventable diseases, lose body parts that could be saved or run myself into the ground before I see anyone. Beyond political kvetching about waiting lists, healthcare a non-issue.

The US people are being severely shortchanged by a combination of lobbying, corruption and weak-assed politicking. Neither side of the aisle seems genuinely committed to getting you there.

One last thing. To all the people who believe health care reform is being rammed down the throats of the American people and it's "the party not the people" making decisions: listen up and I'll make this simple. Obama's election platform was headlined by health care reform, including some version of universal access. He was elected by a meaningful majority. Several states that were formerly red (N. Carolina, Indiana, Ohio, etc.) went blue and voted for him (which implies voting for his platform). Ergo, the majority of the country voted in favour of health care reform.
You didn't vote for Obama or his platform? Okay, so you lost this time. Deal with it. I didn't vote for Bush or his illegal war in Iraq and my taxes had to pay for it anyway.

Amen, PaddyDog and branded.

Ok, first of all, katy don't call someone who disagrees with you a moron. You're likely to loose a lot of credibility for your argument.

Paddy Dog, branded and MM, bull and shit. From day one that Bush got elected, people were whining and bitching and moaning. And that's our right! We have freedom of speech! If I wanna bitch about how the GOP praised a president who increased the way our federal government Big Brothered us into oblivion, I can. If I wanna bitch about how I think it's hypocritical that Obama has actually changed his policies on health care reform from what his platform was, then by golly I will.

The very notion that I have to shut up because my vote got shat on is so fucking unbelievable it's pathetic.

I don't have to deal with this so-called "shit taco," kids, but if it's the pill I have to swallow in the end, you'd better believe I'll be bitching and moaning through every bite.

And about the higher rate of infant deaths, this statistic is actually skewed. In America, children even showing a glimpse at potential life are considered "live at birth," whereas in other countries, if the child is premature and is not automatically breathing at birth, it's considered a still birth. Please read this article before you start throwing around the infant death rate statistic, PLEASE! http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/060924/2healy.htm

Also, my big problem with the health care reform? How much money it's going to cost to do it _now._ We're elbow deep in debt as it is, we need to start cutting costs and paying off debts and while that is occurring, spend time to find the most cost effective way to create a reform.

I'm not dumb, I know our government runs everything. But I also know that it can screw up a lot of things. And what works for some does not work for all. France has a _great_ "socialist" government and they're health care is extremely efficient, but will their plan work for us just as well? Maybe not.

But then again I'm frugal with my money and can't fathom putting myself continually into debt for a "grand" investment. If I want to invest, I need to be disciplined enough before hand to prepare for the investment.

Not that my differing opinion matters here any way.

RE Kayanne
"Also, my big problem with the health care reform? How much money it's going to cost to do it _now._ We're elbow deep in debt as it is, we need to start cutting costs and paying off debts and while that is occurring, spend time to find the most cost effective way to create a reform."

There is no "cost-effective" to this. From everything I've read, regardless of the health care system we have (unless we choose "no health care system at all"), it will cost a massive amount of money. There will be few if any cost savings possible. No matter what we do. Our population is aging. We spend a tremendous amount of money to treat aging people. The cost of health care isn't going to go down, it's gonna go up. Whether we "reform" it now or not at all, the cost will go up.

RE "France has a _great_ socialist government and they're health care is extremely efficient, but will their plan work for us just as well? Maybe not. But then again I'm frugal with my money and can't fathom putting myself continually into debt for a grand investment."

As noted before, we have a "socialist" government too. The parts of our government that are growing the fastest (and are not discretionary expenses, ie, costs that can be cut dramatically) are "socialist" - Social Security, the medical programs. These are already about 40% of our government spending. Like it or not, you're already in debt. We all are. Obama didn't cause that, and he's not gonna change it, either. These are programs that a majority of Americans support and they're not going away.

FWIW, I'm not a giant fan of the federal govt. I think they fuck a lot of things up. Either by design or incompetence. But I'm not incredibly impressed by the private sector's competence, either.

katy I never called anyone a traitor! It's freedom of speech, it's a beautiful thing. I'm sorry that you others may have berated you for no reason, but maybe not pass on the negativity? Yea. Never mind, do what you want. Scream bitch and moan at me and call me a moron. You're an anonymous person on the internet, feel free to try and belittle me.

As noted before, we have a "socialist" government too.

Duh.

I admitted as much! Sheesh, give me some credit. And I know it's not Obama's fault and I never said it was. But just because it's not his fault doesn't mean he and the entire Congress should address it. Or not and spend more money, whatever. It's not like I'd have a vested interest as a tax payer in the government expendatures that aren't exactly budget friendly.

Any who!

As for the argument that the private sector isn't that great, it's really debatable. Neither the public sector or the private sector is designed to be altruistic, but we'd like them to be. The great the about the private side is that there is way less red tape and, more often than not, sometimes the rich folks decide to get into publicly beneficial "pissing contests" of sorts, like the X Prize, where a bunch of rich people set a goal and the first one to reach it gets bragging rights. Sure, there's a "foundation," but it's really about ego.

Nothing we let govern us will ever be perfect (the senate, corporations, our own wallets, etc.), it's our job as citizens to make shit work well.

And you're the one, Kayanne who so quickly took to the moron label. I was speaking in general terms. Keep digging.

Oh katy, you're gonna keep being bitter. And that's ok.

And dammit branded I will die on this cross that I sort of mostly have a partial interest in!

God, I was trying to stay out of this one ...

OK, there's two problems with this bit:

To all the people who believe health care reform is being rammed down the throats of the American people and it's "the party not the people" making decisions: ... Obama's election platform was headlined by health care reform, including some version of universal access. He was elected by a meaningful majority. ... Ergo, the majority of the country voted in favour of health care reform.

Nope. True that by several measures the majority of the country voted for a particular candidate for president this time around. Yet the inference is incorrect:

- It does not therefore follow that the majority of the country also voted for health care reform.
- It does not follow that the majority of the country also voted for this particular health care reform.

Put in terms of political process, electing a president is neither a referendum on any or all of his/her avowed policy goals, nor a mandate to do absolutely anything in aid of those goals.

Doesn't stop every single damm one of them from thinking that way, though. And you'd think this administration would have taken a lesson from the last one that tried to do some universal health-care thing. The mandate is neither "implement your wildest fever-dreams" nor "go off and in obscurity design what you think best" but rather "make it somewhat better."

I think I'd also claim that Obama's platform was headlined by "I'm not George W. Bush" (Which did net him a Nobel Peace Prize, putting him in the company of Henry Kissinger and Yasser Arafat), but what headlined what is subjective. Errors of inference are mischaracterization of the presidency are not.

Okay, so you lost this time. Deal with it. I didn't vote for Bush or his illegal war in Iraq and my taxes had to pay for it anyway.

This is exactly the problem. We, in fact don't operate (or aren't supposed to operate) in an infinitely empowered direct democracy, or in the occasional selection of an all-powerful king. inaugurations are not anointments. We'd be much better served to act that way, and to insist that the folks we elect, even - nay especially - the ones we agree with act that way.

As for the shenanigans under the prior administration ...

- Invading a country (or two - Save money, buy in bulk!) for the purpose of destroying their government is ... um ... what's the word for that ... er ... um ... a war. Right - a war.

We have a way to go to war in this country - the President asks the congress for a declaration of war. Haven't done that for over 60 years at this point. We should.

And there's a simple remedy when the administration invades off without that - the opposition simply denies all supplementary funding requests for an undeclared war. You want to really turn the screws on that one, draft a declaration of war & send it to the President asking that it be requested.

Same thing when the congress doesn't get behind a war that needs doing. "OK, guys, this one's on you."

Either way, you publish a copy in the NY Times when you do so. Title it: "Let's Get Serious and Do This (This is too important not to.)"

We ought to do exactly that with the "War On Terror", and "War On Drugs", too. (And BTW, wouldn't really good drugs, valium or something better, be a solution in the "War On Terror?" All we gotta do is give up the one and we can easily solve the other.)

In the words of Jon Stewart, "That's not tyranny. That's democracy. See now, you're in the minority. It's supposed to taste like a shit taco."

Being in the majority means you get to set the agenda. So, post the last election cycle the Republicans totally deserved to get smacked up side the head for whining about not driving the agenda. Asserting that there are yet limits on what the administration, or even the congress and the administration can to is a different story.

A large part of the structure of the US Federal government is designed to prevent the majority from running roughshod over minorities. 50% plus 1 vote isn't license to do anything you want. Why, I suspect both Following Godtopus and Panda Love would be banned on those terms today, literally. Do you really want our freedom to celebrate our patron cephelopod, or engage in our second-favorite (after drinking) passtime (or maybe tied for second with snarking) left to the whim of a badly-phrased poll on Rotten Tomatoes? Let's not forget that country once actually banned drinking via a freaking constitutional amendment.

The problem is, that while it's very annoying to have limitations on what I can do, when I'm in charge, or you know right thinking people who agree with me in every particular are, there's a real problem when someone less enlightened is in charge.

How's this - I'm perfectly OK with a president being elected to unlimited power, as long as that president is me (Or better, agrees with me in every particular. Who needs all those state dinners?)

Eep, that's the usual go to point for people claiming there isn't a problem, as the article Kayanne linked did.

Interesting set of numbers in that article. The numbers the author quoted don't match what I've seen on neonatal deaths, but more closely resemble deaths before age 1 (as per the CIA's numbers on this, which she ought to have access to as former NIH head). Odd.

Also, the death rate among black urban poor mothers and children or rural white poor mothers and children is [i]way[/i] higher than it is among mixed race couples in the suburbs, which somewhat diffuses the "it's like great danes sleeping with shih tzus!" argument. (insert the sound of my head hitting the desk here) If you break the U.S. up, the rich part looks almost as good as Finland. But the poor part looks really, really bad.

Also, while we demonstrably over-intervene in the delivery room (odd that she had no insight on that), that's not the biggest part of the problem. The problem is awful natal and prenatal care, lack of access for poor people across the board, and lack of financial support for mothers (and parents in general). That's why over-educated suburban parents don't lose kids but rural and urban people do.

In the interest of full disclosure, as a research scientist, I have trouble accepting at face value the arguments of the woman hand-picked to gut federal funding for several branches of research. That woman sets my teeth on edge.

Why do people in this country trust greedy corporations who have time and again shown their contempt for us, over their own elected government?!?
---
So we should trust greedy politicians who have time and again shown their contempt for us?

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/tribpm/s_665080.html

And this is just Pennsylvania. And this is just the ones who got caught.

'Are you aware that your audience consists mainly of stoned slackers' - as much as I loathe O'Reilly, he's probably got a point there. When we watch The Daily Show (although when we prefer that special brand of absurdism - we check out the O'Reilly Show) we're typically slacking, stoned and rooting for Obama. Then again, we are Dutch, the worlds most notorious bums and frequent subjects of O'Reilly's wrath.

Eep, I'm not sure I follow that logic. There is no referendum on corporations. We have almost no control at all. Established corporations are so diffuse and moneyed that consumers don't often have meaningful choices if we want to punish them by product avoidance. Plus, marketing is a stronger force than evidence. Even among solid, evidence-based thinkers in research, we can prove that flashy powerpoint presentations supplying the same data as a straight talk are considered more informative and more likely to be correct.

As such, corporations have very little trouble convincing the public of anything they want by throwing enough advertising dollars at it.

Hence my fear at the recent Supreme Court decision.

Politicians do the same thing, but typically have less money and more media exposure. And we have a straight up and down vote every few years on them. Still, they rely heavily on the fact that the vast majority of us aren't actually paying attention.

Corporate money also has a huge effect on political decisions. For example, Disney and copyright law.

Lobbying power is never tied to the present, always the past. Companies get rich on early innovation, get fat and lazy, and then use all that money in Washington to stifle competitors. The most recent sad example is Microsoft. They were on top of the world for a couple decades, but now Google is eating their lunch. So Microsoft took their big, fat bag of money to Capitol Hill and are running around throwing it at godawful causes that will slow down technical innovation while giving money free reign to re-make the system. Like giving ISPs a free pass to selectively throttle the internet.

You think a site like this is going to make it onto a protected list with any ISPs?

This ain't Europe where every shithole town has 10 different ISPs competing with each other so the public has a say. Governments there treated it like a piece of public infrastructure rather than a private investment, so the lines are better and faster than ours and various companies have rights to administer use and there is natural competition.

Here, private industry has to put lines in, just like the old phone companies, and we therefore have monopolies.... just like the old phone companies. It's like we learned nothing at all from that anti-trust fiasco. Most markets here have one ISP. Maybe two if you're lucky. That shit legislation goes through and you'll be stuck with whatever version of the internet your ISP is happy to give you, and sites that don't make the short list are going to slow to a crawl. And you won't have an option to switch unless you're in a lucky market.

That'll be fun, when Pajiba pages take 5 minutes to load, and you can only stream video from sites willing to pay your ISP. This is the "Internet Freedom Act" in action. Whee. A triumph of packaging over substance, funded by major corporations who have an interest in controlling the flow of information, put into play by politicians with greased palms who don't actually understand how the system works and don't really care, and supported by a public who sees the word "Freedom" on the bill and assume it must be a good thing without actually reading it....

Yeah, corporations aren't the only fucked up part of the equation. The public can be pretty stupid and unwilling to exercise what power we have. Not against the government, which is easy, and certainly not against corporations, which is hard as hell once they're established.

Again, I point to Disney. Mickey is legally in the public domain now.... but to use him you still have to be able to afford the lawyers to defend you from the frivolous law suit that Disney automatically brings when that happens.

That shit ought to be illegal. Public domain means public domain.

Bierce, I need to get to work, but I'll have a response later if I can still find this thread.

My other thought on the whole health care debate is I honestly don't think it got railroaded by the GOP. As much as people want to blame republicans most of the people I've talked to who fall in my category of "indepedant" are not so much for or against the health care plan as completetly fucking confused by it. Honestly, I've tried watching several news conferences, town hall debates, every major new organization, and I have no idea what they are proposing. I know the government wants to "stick it" to insurance who are bad bad bad. What else? How? If anyone has a governement website that they know explains it all and could post I'd be very much appreciative.

My one other thought is people should stop throwing the word communism around so easily. I lived in a communist country (it sucked stop wearing your stupid hammer and sickle shirts) but Obama is not a communist. However, I know the reason some people who have lived in communist countries are weary of this whole governement run healthcare image because most of us fear governements way more than we fear corporations. Overall I just want Obama and the democrats to offer up a clear plan and tell me exactly what that plan is.

Zombie Scientist, about the infant mortality rate statistic. I know about the devastating statistic that there is a discrepancy birthrates based on income. But I hate when people throw around the infant mortality rate with out prefacing all of the information. It skews people's perception of the statistic, which is an unfair way to argue the point. Yes, there are issues in neonatal care in our country, as there is in many countries, but to not preface that statistic creates incorrect assumptions about what's going on around the world. It's a statistic that needs a little more information then just saying, "We have the highest rate of infant mortality of any developed country." I understand your point, it's just a slightly... uneven thing to say. I say uneven, because I'm not sure what other word makes sense there.

In regards to your totally valid disgust for the way internet freedom is being forced into a strangle hold... I find it interesting that in your defense of how corrupt and untrustworthy corporations are you use legislation to support your claim. Yea, it's not dandy that there are corporations that are trying to buy off politicians, but who the hell are these politicians taking the money?

It's not like these big companies are going into Congress and dropping a bill on the desk and saying, "Pass this now or we blow up everything." They're going to politicians and saying really pretty words like, "Reelection" and "campaign funding." And the politicians swallow it up and take everything they're offered.

Obviously, the corporations aren't saints here, but they're just doing business. The politicians? They're supposed to be doing a public service. But they look at they're congress seat as a money making opportunity and act as if they're serving the public's interest.

If the politicians would stop taking the underhanded deals and start listening to their constituents, the big business companies would have to take their money elsewhere- like investing it in better business practices.

It's like if someone were to try and bribe an officer. Yea it's illegal to bribe a cop, but it's even worse for a cop to take the bribe.

PaddyDog, I know people who specifically voted for Obama because they thought he was going to war in Iraq and/or because they thought he was the least like Bush. It'd be nice to believe that people research the candidates issues and platforms and where the candidate's true passion is, but that's just wishful thinking. Plenty of people I know couldn't have cared less about health care when he was campaigning- they did really seem to care about how well he made a speech, though, and that they'd finally have a president that didn't look like an idiot.

Trust me, I really, really, really, reeeeeeeeeally wish that the majority of people took a more well-rounded approach to their politicians, but I've been proven time and time again that, that is most certainly not the case.

I might - might - with the right safeguards (TBD) be willing to use regulation to require a standard medical record format. I'd much rather understand what perverse incentive makes expensive record-keeping make sense, and fix that. There's probably other bad consequences of that screwed-up incentive.

Posted by: BierceAmbrose at February 5, 2010 8:57 AM

There are plenty. Incentives across the board are working against the public good. Remember, capitalist systems follow money. Money for insurance companies is currently hooked to not providing care. Doctors, on the other hand, have their money hooked to providing extraneous care.

That's a recipe for disaster right there... Oh, and look, one showed up.

The only long term positive in the current health care bills under discussion is that everyone will be insured one way or another. This should force insurance companies to care about your health. Right now, the best move for them is to avoid taking on people who might be costly. If they are forced to take on those people, they will have a financial interest in making everyone live healthier lives so there are simply fewer costly people.

As I said, incentives for doctors are also borked to hell and back. They get paid per procedure, not by whether or not you get healthy. There's data showing that more procedures tends to correlate with worse outcomes (i.e. dying earlier, lower quality of life, etc).

More health care is demonstrably not better health care. We have good comparative data on that. But we Americans apply the same thinking to our health that we apply to horsepower in our cars or inches in our TV screens. And you can't talk about this crap to the public. You try and their eyes glaze over. Human beings on the whole have a huge tendency to over-simplify. But at least other countries trust their over-trained experts. Here we ignore them or actively marginalize them.

The data is pretty conclusive on this. Even ignoring the financial component, just talking about outcomes, we need less medical intervention and drugs, more lifestyle change, and we need to manage the care we do provide in a smarter way. Long term, that will profit everyone except the insurance companies. Short term, it's bad for everyone. We'll take a financial hit for a couple years.

SO FUCKING WHAT? We're talking about spending a few billion now to save trillions over the next 20 years.

The insurance companies would have you believe that would be disastrous. The shareholders won't stand for it. etc etc. We're so married to the quarterly balance sheet that we've lost the ability to plan for the future. If the shareholders desert en masse that can only be good for us. The government will have no choice but to move in and take over.

On that note... sorry, Eep, but I can't accept your premise. My dollar is almost worthless as a percentage of total dollars. And the data shows time and time again that causes don't move dollars. Something like 91% of consumer decisions are driven exclusively by total cost. And the bulk of the rest are decided by access, not causes. My vote, on the other hand, means something.

Also, I distrust our current model of government only slightly less than I distrust corporations, but that doesn't mean legislation itself is bad. The people writing the legislation can rarely be trusted, but the concept of good legislation is something I believe in and would like to see applied somewhat more often.

Some have said that a Republican is someone who trusts corporations more than government and a Democrat is someone who trusts government more than corporations.

Well, I think both of those entities are made up of people. And I've studied people long enough to know that people are selfish assholes.

As such, I trust neither and watch both carefully. Would that more people would do the same. We might vote more cats into office who are interested in restricting the rampant assholery instead of reveling in it.

On that note, Kayanne said:
Obviously, the corporations aren't saints here, but they're just doing business. The politicians? They're supposed to be doing a public service. But they look at they're congress seat as a money making opportunity and act as if they're serving the public's interest.

If the politicians would stop taking the underhanded deals and start listening to their constituents, the big business companies would have to take their money elsewhere- like investing it in better business practices.

That would be great. But you're giving corporations a free pass for some serious funny business.

Besides, they're too busy investing their money in "fiscal innovations" to invest it in something that would actually grow wealth, like more jobs or employee wages.

Also, on the infant mortality issue... I know all the background. For me, a large chunk of the last decade has been spent studying development of infants. That is why I know I'm on good footing to disregard that background.

Dr. Healy is obscuring the issue. Yes, we report stillborn children differently... and that accounts for very little of the difference. Yes, most of the infants who die in the first 24-48 hours are untreatable at that time, but most of them were treatable when they were still in the womb.

She has no right to minimize those issues. They aren't important in her income bracket, but they sure as shit should be important to her professional ethics.

This is the problem with our political system:

Politicans are NOT voted in to provide money for their state/district/city. That is NOT their duty. They are not elected to start finding ways to make money for their city (via gov't bills, lobbist or under table agreements).

Their job is to represent the ppl who elected them. Going back to our founding fathers...elected officals are in place to assist their citizens in having the ability to make their own living -- NOT provide a living for their citizens.

Who knows what happens next... All I know is:
to give you a you smile :) Advice is free: The right answer will cost plenty.