PDA

View Full Version : So, no rationing of Health Care, huh?


Bryan Blaire
07-08-2010, 05:57 PM
Back when the debates were raging about the health care legislation, it was brought up that certain members of a certain party were trying to get rationing of health care on the agenda, etc. People following that party fought long and hard against this idea, saying that that's not what the party wants, blah blah blah.

So tell me, if that's the case, why in the world did the President, who may not be the head of the party true, that came from that party who fought so hard for the health care legislation just appoint someone with "rationing of health care" as one of his stated philosophies (per the national NBC news) as the man in charge of Medicare/Medicaid - something that has been held up by this same party as a working governmentally run health care system that some would like to see everyone go to?

Seems like "rationing of health care" MAY actually be on the agenda...

Zaela Sedai
07-08-2010, 06:59 PM
Can we just NOT talk about HCR.... I'm about to jump out my office window...if it opened....

JSUCamel
07-08-2010, 07:10 PM
Seems like "rationing of health care" MAY actually be on the agenda...

Wanna provide links, or you wanna just make unsupported statements?

Sinistrum
07-08-2010, 07:43 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100707/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_health_care_appointment

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/07/AR2010070702713.html

Pure news angle on it.

http://blogs.forbes.com/docket/2010/07/08/obamas-new-medicare-head-seems-to-be-a-fan-of-health-care-rationing/

Pretty good analysis on it.

JSUCamel
07-08-2010, 07:55 PM
Took me awhile, but I rounded up some links to articles about the topic:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/07/obama-to-use-recess-appointment-for-new-medicare-medicaid-chief/?fbid=zbxjrDiIpOm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38117251/ns/health

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/06/president-medicare-medicaid-post-senate-approval/

Next time, when you read news and want to bitch about it, link to it. Otherwise, it makes you sound like a nutjob who's repeating something his neighbor said, and hearsay doesn't count for much.

I'm going to conduct further research before responding.

Kimon
07-08-2010, 09:17 PM
It's just posturing by the Republicans that led to the recess appointment. They clearly intended to use his confirmation process as a vehicle for demagoguery.

Here's the link to the New York Times article on it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/health/policy/07recess.html?_r=1&ref=health

Mort
07-08-2010, 09:36 PM
It's funny all the articles go ahead and refers to health care rationing without explaining what it entails exactly.

The health care system is already rationed. A completely unrationed health care system would be health care where you couldn't get turned down the health care you need for any reason whatsoever, except putting unnecessary risks to yourself. Health care would basically be free, no questions asked. Insurance companies are rationing health care all the time.

So what's the deal with opponents claiming fear of putting health care rationing into a system that already uses it?

I'm no expert on England's health care system, but I can't say I've heard anyone being wrongfully treated because of health care rationing the way they say it goes on in England either. They seem to even like their health care system :eek: :)

There is a wiki article on Health Care Rationing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_rationing) that explains the issue pretty well I think.

Edit: About why Obama would go ahead doing what he did. In the wiki article, it says that health care rationing is always gonna be there, but how it's being done must be better kept. Different kinds of rationing going on that for instance makes people unable to get the health care they need, either from not being able to pay the high premiums, or from matters like "pre-existing medical conditions". All which are a basis for the health care reform.

It doesn't really say what kind of rationing this elected guy has in mind though. A core issue seems to be "we're paying more than anyone else for health care but we are getting less than everyone else, something is wrong". I don't think Obama, who want to see the kind of rationing with pre-existing med conditions etc, would elect anyone who would oppose his way of seeing things. And even if this guy did, Obama wouldn't allow him to just start making stuff up for himself. The guy would have to follow what plan there is, naturally.

Sinistrum
07-08-2010, 09:56 PM
So what's the deal with opponents claiming fear of putting health care rationing into a system that already uses it?

The big deal is that if you don't like the way your current insurance company is rationing your care, you can tell them to go fuck themselves, stop paying your premium, and go find someone else you do like. I dare anyone one of the government run proponents to tell the government run health care system to go fuck itself and stop paying your "premiums" if you don't like something they do. I will take particular glee at you getting hoisted by your own petard when the FBI raids your house on the IRS's behalf and a federal prosecutor tries you for tax evasion.

Bryan Blaire
07-09-2010, 05:55 AM
Next time, when you read news and want to bitch about it, link to it. Otherwise, it makes you sound like a nutjob who's repeating something his neighbor said, and hearsay doesn't count for much.

LOL

Did I not say per the national NBC evening news? Yes, watching the national NBC evening news now makes someone a nutjob, as the national NBC evening news is so biased against the President...

And I'm sure that I'm the ONLY person that saw the 5 minute or so news report, so I must be crazy for watching the national news!

Mort et al., I'm not necessarily saying that the rationing ISN'T already going on, or even arguing against it. My point is that one of the biggest fights during the reform was one side yelling "But you are going to be rationing health care on a national level by bureaucrats!" and those pushing for it were yelling "No we aren't!" Many of their supporters were also yelling "It won't ration health care!" It's more about being honest with the nation. I know I'd personally rather both sides were honest about what they want, maybe we could actually get things done, as opposed to even more fighting now that it was done improperly, possibly with the hope that people wouldn't pick up on the fact that this guy's agenda seems to include "rationing health care"...

Davian93
07-09-2010, 07:17 AM
The big deal is that if you don't like the way your current insurance company is rationing your care, you can tell them to go fuck themselves, stop paying your premium, and go find someone else you do like. I dare anyone one of the government run proponents to tell the government run health care system to go fuck itself and stop paying your "premiums" if you don't like something they do. I will take particular glee at you getting hoisted by your own petard when the FBI raids your house on the IRS's behalf and a federal prosecutor tries you for tax evasion.


Yes, because my employer based options are Blue Cross and/or Blue Cross...or going without insurance and trying to pay the full cost out of pocket (something that would be impossible the way premiums keep rising).

JSUCamel
07-09-2010, 07:34 AM
LOL

Did I not say per the national NBC evening news? Yes, watching the national NBC evening news now makes someone a nutjob, as the national NBC evening news is so biased against the President...

And I'm sure that I'm the ONLY person that saw the 5 minute or so news report, so I must be crazy for watching the national news!

Sure, you said it, but a lot of people also say that Fox News said Obama isn't an American citizen. Doesn't make it true.

And considering that it took me a bit of digging through various news sites to even find a reference to the topic, it doesn't lend you much credence. It would have taken you 30 seconds to find a link and share it. One of the ideas behind Theoryland is sharing of information so that we can have a constructive discussion. It's like me saying "I read in the Wheel of Time series that Cadsuane thinks to herself that she'd love to kill Asmodean", and then not provide a reference to a chapter or scene. The series is big enough (and the phrase "NBC news" covers a lot of ground) that it's an effectively useless citation.

Basel Gill
07-09-2010, 08:16 AM
Sure, you said it, but a lot of people also say that Fox News said Obama isn't an American citizen. Doesn't make it true.

And considering that it took me a bit of digging through various news sites to even find a reference to the topic, it doesn't lend you much credence. It would have taken you 30 seconds to find a link and share it. One of the ideas behind Theoryland is sharing of information so that we can have a constructive discussion. It's like me saying "I read in the Wheel of Time series that Cadsuane thinks to herself that she'd love to kill Asmodean", and then not provide a reference to a chapter or scene. The series is big enough (and the phrase "NBC news" covers a lot of ground) that it's an effectively useless citation.

I'm not going to get into the specifics of this as it will just give me a blood pressure spike and another "pre-exisitng" condition to deal with :D, however, digging through various news sites these days isn't always a basis for the credibility of a story. One of the big debates between Fox and other news sites (NBC, CBS, ABC, etc.) is that the traditional big news networks do not cover certain stories because they make the current administration look bad and that the traditional networks are basically pro-Obama. Now whether you believe this or not, it does seem to have merit on some occasions going both ways. The major networks often do not cover stories that Fox does and conversely, Fox will often cover a story that really isn't a story in an attempt to further their opposition of the administration.

I guess my point is that the media itself isn't exactly a good source for information anymore, which is really sad. There is too much going on in the world to have firsthand knowledge of events and the media (on both wings) has lost its objectivity.

Davian93
07-09-2010, 09:03 AM
I'm not going to get into the specifics of this as it will just give me a blood pressure spike and another "pre-exisitng" condition to deal with :D, however, digging through various news sites these days isn't always a basis for the credibility of a story. One of the big debates between Fox and other news sites (NBC, CBS, ABC, etc.) is that the traditional big news networks do not cover certain stories because they make the current administration look bad and that the traditional networks are basically pro-Obama. Now whether you believe this or not, it does seem to have merit on some occasions going both ways. The major networks often do not cover stories that Fox does and conversely, Fox will often cover a story that really isn't a story in an attempt to further their opposition of the administration.

I guess my point is that the media itself isn't exactly a good source for information anymore, which is really sad. There is too much going on in the world to have firsthand knowledge of events and the media (on both wings) has lost its objectivity.


And most with any common sense realize that Foxnews isn't even a newsite and it never has been.

JSUCamel
07-09-2010, 09:10 AM
however, digging through various news sites these days isn't always a basis for the credibility of a story. One of the big debates between Fox and other news sites (NBC, CBS, ABC, etc.) is that the traditional big news networks do not cover certain stories because they make the current administration look bad and that the traditional networks are basically pro-Obama. Now whether you believe this or not, it does seem to have merit on some occasions going both ways. The major networks often do not cover stories that Fox does and conversely, Fox will often cover a story that really isn't a story in an attempt to further their opposition of the administration.

I'm going to disagree with this one. I can't think of very many (if any) independently verified stories that are covered by Fox and not by anyone else (or vice versa). In fact, I can't think of any at all. The recess appointment that Bryan mentioned has been reported on all major networks and all major news websites, and on each of the major news media websites, there are plenty of editorial writers, op/ed columns, consultants, and other people who write articles criticizing Obama. The difference between Fox News and CNN/MSNBC/whatever is that Fox News appears to specifically have an anti-Obama agenda. The overwhelming majority of politics-related news has an extremely conservative bent. I find the other news networks to be much more moderate -- you may find them to be too liberal, but again, I disagree.

There's a huge difference between writing "Obama fucked up" and "Obama made a controversial appointment." The latter is a fact, the former is opinion. Fox News tends to contain the former (in more polite terms) while the other networks, at least in my experience, tend to contain the latter.

In short, I disagree with you.

Basel Gill
07-09-2010, 09:19 AM
The slant I see on the major networks is not always blatant. Fox is blatantly partisan. The others seems to side with the current agenda by curbing criticsm and avoiding some facts.

I remember seeing numerous reports on Bush, for instance, where the major networks were quite scathing in their coverage. While they may be somewhat critical of Obama as well at times, I have yet to hear anything that would come close to the ridicule they dished out to Bush. Now, don't get me wrong, Bush kind of asked for it at times. He is incredibly easy to lampoon as he provides so much material just by speaking.

I will also admit that my news exposure is lopsided, but the times I do switch on to major networks, the criticsm of the current administration is weak at best.

Do I want to hear people beating up our President for fun? No. DO I want them to ask the hard questions, press them and demand an answer, yes.

GonzoTheGreat
07-09-2010, 09:35 AM
When was the last time that American media asked an American president hard questions?

Basel Gill
07-09-2010, 09:40 AM
It does seem like they grilled Clinton fairly hard over the sex scandals, even though those were the least important of the issues with him IMO.

Other than that, maybe Nixon?

GonzoTheGreat
07-09-2010, 10:02 AM
Both were Democrats, weren't they? At least, judged by the current political spectrum, Nixon seems like a flaming liberal.

Basel Gill
07-09-2010, 10:11 AM
Nixon was a Republican by whatever definition they used then.

GonzoTheGreat
07-09-2010, 10:34 AM
Nixon was a Republican by whatever definition they used then.I'm sure FOX News would be willing to hang a (D) on him. :p

JSUCamel
07-09-2010, 10:40 AM
I remember seeing numerous reports on Bush, for instance, where the major networks were quite scathing in their coverage. While they may be somewhat critical of Obama as well at times, I have yet to hear anything that would come close to the ridicule they dished out to Bush. Now, don't get me wrong, Bush kind of asked for it at times. He is incredibly easy to lampoon as he provides so much material just by speaking.

See, I get this response a lot. "Where were you when everyone was saying bad things about Bush?" Well, the fact is that I don't personally recall the media being any more scathing against Bush than they are against Obama. Then again, even if they were, I feel like Bush's mistakes were more obviously mistakes than Obama's have been, but that's just my opinion. I'm not in love with Obama or his policies, but I don't think he's fucking things up quite to the extent that Bush did (again, an opinion). So again, we'll have to disagree.

Do I want to hear people beating up our President for fun? No. DO I want them to ask the hard questions, press them and demand an answer, yes.

Absolutely. But pressing and demanding an answer is different than fueling an anti-President movement, which is what I feel Fox News is doing. It's one thing to report facts and provide op/ed columns, but it's quite another to slant something in such a way that it encourages and fuels a movement to block, impede and harass the President of the United States. We have a mechanism for getting rid of presidents who don't live up to their campaign promises and do their jobs -- it's called an election, and we have one every four years.

Basel Gill
07-09-2010, 10:57 AM
Sure. I mean I enjoy a dig on Obama myself because I don't like his policies, but that's me and I'm just a nobody. It is pretty unbecoming of a professional journalist to be blatantly partisan going left or right. It's hard to say that out loud, because to those who disagree with you, folks like Fox seem to be the counterbalance to what might be percieved as a radical agenda, or maybe not the agenda itself, but the means by which it is being accomplished would be more accurate. It plays right into people's natural tendency to pick sides and say "you suck" no "you suck worse" and I'm as succeptible as anyone.

How in the hell did EVERYTHING become so politicized?

GonzoTheGreat
07-09-2010, 11:06 AM
How in the hell did EVERYTHING become so politicized?Perhaps a result of mixing religion and politics. If the right hadn't decided to go the "Moral Majority" way, things might've turned out differently. Or maybe not; I frequently overestimate people's reasonableness.

Ivhon
07-09-2010, 11:28 AM
Sure. I mean I enjoy a dig on Obama myself because I don't like his policies, but that's me and I'm just a nobody. It is pretty unbecoming of a professional journalist to be blatantly partisan going left or right. It's hard to say that out loud, because to those who disagree with you, folks like Fox seem to be the counterbalance to what might be percieved as a radical agenda, or maybe not the agenda itself, but the means by which it is being accomplished would be more accurate. It plays right into people's natural tendency to pick sides and say "you suck" no "you suck worse" and I'm as succeptible as anyone.

How in the hell did EVERYTHING become so politicized?

Because we dichotomize and generalize absolutely everything. There is only black and white. Two sides who disagree cant both have good points. If Im right about one thing, that means you are wrong about one thing and therefore you are wrong about everything and hence I am right about everything. And since I am right about everything and you are wrong about everything I am good and you are evil and since I am good and you are evil God (or Science) is on my side's side and you should be destroyed.

There really isn't too much hyperbole in what I just said. It is a hallmark of our culture.

Ishara
07-09-2010, 11:56 AM
It's classic positional-based philosophies versus interest-based philosphies. There IS middle ground in most cases, but you can only get there by approaching things from an interest-based negotiation perspective. ~shrug~

JSUCamel
07-09-2010, 12:09 PM
Sure. I mean I enjoy a dig on Obama myself because I don't like his policies, but that's me and I'm just a nobody. It is pretty unbecoming of a professional journalist to be blatantly partisan going left or right. It's hard to say that out loud, because to those who disagree with you, folks like Fox seem to be the counterbalance to what might be percieved as a radical agenda, or maybe not the agenda itself, but the means by which it is being accomplished would be more accurate. It plays right into people's natural tendency to pick sides and say "you suck" no "you suck worse" and I'm as succeptible as anyone.

How in the hell did EVERYTHING become so politicized?

This is why I like you, despite your crazy tendency to be conservative ;)

I was just thinking earlier that I'm not really liberal. I'm actually rather conservative on a bunch of issues, and liberal on a few issues, but the vast majority of them I think the government should just butt out. Gay marriage, for instance. Someone remind me why the government is getting involved in this, again?

I was also thinking (long commutes do that to ya) about how politics isn't so much polarized as people are refusing to negotiate. There have always been Congressmen who refused to negotiate, and there have always been Congressmen who want to negotiate, and it just seems to me that the former is growing and the latter is shrinking, and we're at a point where enough Congressmen refuse to budge on their positions that nothing gets done. And both sides are guilty of this.

I consider myself a moderate, because by and large, I'm willing to compromise in order to get what I want. If you're concerned about privacy and freedom of choice, and I want better health care, I'm more than willing to meet in the middle.. but I suppose I'm more liberal in the fact that I think the status quo sucks and needs to change, and I'd rather have an imperfect change than stay in the status quo.

GonzoTheGreat
07-09-2010, 12:14 PM
Gay marriage, for instance. Someone remind me why the government is getting involved in this, again?Because marriage, as far as the government is concerned, is a civil contract between two people impacting possibly (in the case of children resulting from the union) more. As such, it is quite logical that the government is involved in dealing with the legal aspects of standard marriage, as that is a far cheaper option than leaving it entirely to market forces. What is less obvious is why the government should let itself be bound by the religious considerations of assorted bigots in this. Or, alternatively, why the government isn't allowed to appoint priests and preachers, and prosecute those who evangelize without a license.

Sei'taer
07-09-2010, 12:20 PM
Perhaps a result of mixing religion and politics. If the right hadn't decided to go the "Moral Majority" way, things might've turned out differently. Or maybe not; I frequently overestimate people's reasonableness.

Probably correct. It was right about the time that this:

The Republican Party was first organized in 1854, growing out of a coalition of anti-slavery Whigs and Free Soil Democrats who mobilized in opposition to Stephen Douglas's January 1854 introduction of the Kansas-Nebraska Act into Congress, a bill which repealed the 1820 Missouri Compromise prohibition on slavery north of latitude 36° 30' in the old Louisiana purchase territories, and so was viewed as an aggressive expansionist pro-slavery maneuver by many. Besides opposition to slavery, the new party put forward a radical vision of modernizing the United States—emphasizing higher education, banking, railroads, industry and cities, while promising free homesteads to farmers. They vigorously argued that free-market labor was superior to slavery and the very foundation of civic virtue and true American values—this is the "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men" ideology.[1] The Republicans absorbed the previous traditions of its members, most of whom had been Whigs, such as Alvan E. Bovay and Horace Greeley; others had been Democrats or members of third parties (especially the Free Soil Party and the American Party or Know Nothings). Many Democrats who joined up were rewarded with governorships: (Nathaniel P. Banks of Massachusetts, Kinsley Bingham of Michigan, William H. Bissell of Illinois, Salmon P. Chase of Ohio, Hannibal Hamlin of Maine, Samuel J. Kirkwood of Iowa, Ralph Metcalf of New Hampshire, Lot Morrill of Maine, and Alexander Randall of Wisconsin) or seats in the U.S. Senate (Bingham and Hamlin, as well as James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin, John P. Hale of New Hampshire, Preston King of New York, Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, and David Wilmot of Pennsylvania.) or House of Representatives (William D. Kelley of Pennsylvania). Since its inception, its chief opposition has been the Democratic Party, but the amount of flow back and forth of prominent politicians between the two parties was quite high from 1854 to 1896.

The election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 ended the domination of the fragile coalition of pro-slavery southern Democrats and conciliatory northern Democrats which had existed since the days of Andrew Jackson. Instead, a new era of Republican dominance based in the industrial and agricultural north ensued. Republicans sometimes refer to their party as the "party of Lincoln" in honor of the first Republican President.




was going on that the right chose the "Moral Majority", as you say. I guess if things had gone the other way, we would be better off. Slaves for everyone! At least we wouldn't be bitching about the economy or the lack of jobs, or the need for healthcare reform. It's all in what persepctive you choose...I like mine better than yours because I think slavery was a travesty. Just so you know, this carried on to the point that Robert Byrd worked furiously to filibuster the 1964 equal rights amendment. (https://senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Civil_Rights_Filibuster_Ended.htm)



Im right...

I am right...

I am right...



Glad to have you back.

Sei'taer
07-09-2010, 12:24 PM
Because marriage, as far as the government is concerned, is a civil contract between two people impacting possibly (in the case of children resulting from the union) more. As such, it is quite logical that the government is involved in dealing with the legal aspects of standard marriage, as that is a far cheaper option than leaving it entirely to market forces. What is less obvious is why the government should let itself be bound by the religious considerations of assorted bigots in this. Or, alternatively, why the government isn't allowed to appoint priests and preachers, and prosecute those who evangelize without a license.


This has actually changed in the last couple of days and I think it's a big win for all the people who want or honestly don't give a shit if gays marry. (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6676CJ20100709?type=domesticNews&feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true)

Might be a harsh pill for some to swallow, but I think it's finally a move in the right direction.

Ivhon
07-09-2010, 12:33 PM
Im confuse, ST. What does the Republican party of the mid-19th century have to do with them jumping into bed with the religous right in the late 20th century as Gonzo was referring to? The Moral Majority was Reagan-era, not Lincoln.

Ivhon
07-09-2010, 12:35 PM
This has actually changed in the last couple of days and I think it's a big win for all the people who want or honestly don't give a shit if gays marry. (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6676CJ20100709?type=domesticNews&feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true)

Might be a harsh pill for some to swallow, but I think it's finally a move in the right direction.

Pointless. It will be overturned 5-4 by the most activist Supreme Court in living memory.

Crispin's Crispian
07-09-2010, 12:40 PM
This has actually changed in the last couple of days and I think it's a big win for all the people who want or honestly don't give a shit if gays marry. (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6676CJ20100709?type=domesticNews&feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true)

Might be a harsh pill for some to swallow, but I think it's finally a move in the right direction.

It hasn't actually changed, except that a judge says the Federal government can't get involved. In what you'd think would be a win for states'-rights conservatives, the judge ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act infringes on the states' rights to define marriage.

However, this also means that the government can't override any measures taken by the states that ban gay marriage. I'm not sure if it impacts future anti-discrimination rulings, as that has yet to be defined.

It's not really a win for either side, though I find it to be a good decision in its context. I suppose it is a win for gay couples in states that have legal gay marriage, as they can now enjoy the federal marriage benefits as well.

Sei'taer
07-09-2010, 01:19 PM
It hasn't actually changed, except that a judge says the Federal government can't get involved. In what you'd think would be a win for states'-rights conservatives, the judge ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act infringes on the states' rights to define marriage.

However, this also means that the government can't override any measures taken by the states that ban gay marriage. I'm not sure if it impacts future anti-discrimination rulings, as that has yet to be defined.

It's not really a win for either side, though I find it to be a good decision in its context. I suppose it is a win for gay couples in states that have legal gay marriage, as they can now enjoy the federal marriage benefits as well.


I think it's been a states rights issue all along. It definitely is a win for them. I doubt seriously that it gets overturned. This court, activist or not, seems to be ok with letting the states keep the rights they are given in the constitution.

Im confuse, ST. What does the Republican party of the mid-19th century have to do with them jumping into bed with the religous right in the late 20th century as Gonzo was referring to? The Moral Majority was Reagan-era, not Lincoln.


So they weren't in the moral majority because they didn't have that name thrown around yet? Now I'm confused.

GonzoTheGreat
07-09-2010, 03:26 PM
However, this also means that the government can't override any measures taken by the states that ban gay marriage.Well, there is the "full faith and credit" issue, too. A couple married in a state where gay marriage is legal would still be legally married if they moved to a state where it was illegal, whether they were of differing gender or the same. That would mean that people from the latter states could simply go to Vegas (or whatever town became the Gay Marriage Capital of the USA) for a quickie wedding, and then they too would be each other's spouses.

I think it's been a states rights issue all along. It definitely is a win for them. I doubt seriously that it gets overturned. This court, activist or not, seems to be ok with letting the states keep the rights they are given in the constitution.You're an optimist, aren't you?


So they weren't in the moral majority because they didn't have that name thrown around yet? Now I'm confused.Long ago, somewhere in the 1980s or 1990s (last century, anyways), a bunch of right wing activists hit upon the idea of styling themselves "the Moral Majority". This was very good marketing, it established them as on the side of morality (good) as opposed to that of immorality (liberals), and it made clear to anyone who was wavering on the issue that they were the majority, so people didn't have to feel ashamed to join in.

Maybe the term was used in the 19th century too, but if so, I'm not aware of that.

Crispin's Crispian
07-09-2010, 03:52 PM
Well, there is the "full faith and credit" issue, too. A couple married in a state where gay marriage is legal would still be legally married if they moved to a state where it was illegal, whether they were of differing gender or the same. That would mean that people from the latter states could simply go to Vegas (or whatever town became the Gay Marriage Capital of the USA) for a quickie wedding, and then they too would be each other's spouses.

I'm not sure you're correct about that. Or, at least, the states have the ability to change that aspect of the law if they want (and I believe some have after Massachhussettess did its thing).

GonzoTheGreat
07-09-2010, 04:15 PM
They tried that same stunt with the mixed race marriages too, and it didn't fly then. If the Supremes go along with them now, then suddenly an awful lot of marriages could turn out to be invalid, because in many (some, at least, which counts as 'many' for a case like this) states the laws were not taken off the books, even though they were shown to be unconstitutional. That would be a right interesting mess, wouldn't it?

Neilbert
07-10-2010, 10:43 AM
So tell me, if that's the case, why in the world did the President, who may not be the head of the party true, that came from that party who fought so hard for the health care legislation just appoint someone with "rationing of health care" as one of his stated philosophies (per the national NBC news) as the man in charge of Medicare/Medicaid - something that has been held up by this same party as a working governmentally run health care system that some would like to see everyone go to?

Seems like "rationing of health care" MAY actually be on the agenda...

"Rationing of health care" existed 10 years ago, and will exist in any non post-scarcity Star Trek style society and anyone who ever tells you differently is lying to you, and trying to manipulate your emotions to better serve their own ends.

OMG GOVERNMENT DEATH PANNELS is the biggest fucking red herring in the healthcare "debate".

Neilbert
07-10-2010, 10:47 AM
Yes, because my employer based options are Blue Cross and/or Blue Cross...or going without insurance and trying to pay the full cost out of pocket (something that would be impossible the way premiums keep rising).

Nevermind also that I could actually vote and be politically active and actually have some miniscule level of control over a government run system whereas I can just "vote with my wallet" (aka I'm fucked) with a private system.

Sure. I mean I enjoy a dig on Obama myself because I don't like his policies, but that's me and I'm just a nobody. It is pretty unbecoming of a professional journalist to be blatantly partisan going left or right. It's hard to say that out loud, because to those who disagree with you, folks like Fox seem to be the counterbalance to what might be percieved as a radical agenda, or maybe not the agenda itself, but the means by which it is being accomplished would be more accurate. It plays right into people's natural tendency to pick sides and say "you suck" no "you suck worse" and I'm as succeptible as anyone.

How in the hell did EVERYTHING become so politicized?

I think the real problem is that the main stream medis is a complete wasteland. Arguing about whether Fox is significantly worse is like arguing which turd smells the worst.

Fox isn't a counterbalance to anything though. People who watch fox tell me that CNN has a liberal bias. People like that don't know what the "left" is.

Both were Democrats, weren't they? At least, judged by the current political spectrum, Nixon seems like a flaming liberal.

Learning about Nixon is incredibly depressing to me because the inevitable conclusion is that he was a much more progressive president than Obama...

It's classic positional-based philosophies versus interest-based philosphies. There IS middle ground in most cases, but you can only get there by approaching things from an interest-based negotiation perspective. ~shrug~

And just what do you think are the interests of Fox News CNN NBC etc?

Sei'taer
07-10-2010, 11:02 AM
And just what do you think are the interests of Fox News CNN NBC etc?


oo...oooo...oooo...I got this one!!


What is money, Alex.

Bryan Blaire
07-10-2010, 01:32 PM
"Rationing of health care" existed 10 years ago, and will exist in any non post-scarcity Star Trek style society and anyone who ever tells you differently is lying to you, and trying to manipulate your emotions to better serve their own ends.

OMG GOVERNMENT DEATH PANNELS is the biggest fucking red herring in the healthcare "debate".

Nah, you don't say? Really? OMG!? ~hands covering mouth~

Again, you missed the point. It was the crazed screams of the supporters yelling "It won't ration health care" that I think is funny, since it is in direct contrast to that.

Yes, rationing already existed before the "debate" started. It will exist afterward. It is the fact that rather than having a reasonable discussion and explanation to the American people about that fact, instead of playing into the hands of the fear-mongers by shouting "It won't ration!", that shows that the Democratic party is just as retarded as the Republican party and they aren't any more saintly or well intentioned either. To quote you, Neilbert, "anyone who ever tells you differently is lying to you, and trying to manipulate your emotions to better serve their own ends."

Tada!

Neilbert
07-10-2010, 05:06 PM
Again, you missed the point. It was the crazed screams of the supporters yelling "It won't ration health care" that I think is funny, since it is in direct contrast to that.

I don't actually recall a significant amount of that, but then again I don't hang out with people who think the Democratic party is significantly better than the Republican.

What I do recall is "death panels already exist, you idiot".

Maybe you shouldn't let Fox News tell you what leftists think?

that shows that the Democratic party is just as retarded as the Republican party and they aren't any more saintly or well intentioned either. To quote you, Neilbert, "anyone who ever tells you differently is lying to you, and trying to manipulate your emotions to better serve their own ends."

Uhhhhhh duh?
Playing gotcha games with health care rationing is about the stupidest way to possibly go about proving it though.

Bryan Blaire
07-11-2010, 12:17 AM
Sorry, Neilly, me pet, I don't know what channel FoxNews is on our cable and really don't care. However, it is interesting the assumptions you make... which does say something about you. LOL

Playing gotcha games with health care rationing is about the stupidest way to possibly go about proving it though.

Sadly, still true. Stupid, but true. ;) Being stupid won't change that fact for ya.

Terez
07-11-2010, 02:01 AM
No, Neil summed it up pretty well. A quick forum search revealed that past discussions on the issue have involved very little denial of rationing and a great deal more of what you see in this thread: the argument that rationing already exists, and that we would prefer that corporations out to make a profit be as little involved in it as possible. So, I'm not sure who you're trying to play gotcha with, but it's not us.

Davian93
07-11-2010, 06:00 PM
The slant I see on the major networks is not always blatant. Fox is blatantly partisan. The others seems to side with the current agenda by curbing criticsm and avoiding some facts.

I remember seeing numerous reports on Bush, for instance, where the major networks were quite scathing in their coverage. While they may be somewhat critical of Obama as well at times, I have yet to hear anything that would come close to the ridicule they dished out to Bush. Now, don't get me wrong, Bush kind of asked for it at times. He is incredibly easy to lampoon as he provides so much material just by speaking.

I will also admit that my news exposure is lopsided, but the times I do switch on to major networks, the criticsm of the current administration is weak at best.

Do I want to hear people beating up our President for fun? No. DO I want them to ask the hard questions, press them and demand an answer, yes.

One possibility: Bush was just a really bad president overall and his presidency really damaged our nation. He's got to be up there with Harding, Nixon and Grant for worst all time. He was the wrong man for the job at the worst possible time. If 9/11 didn't happen, he probably muddles through a single term and loses reeelection and most dont give him any more thought. He wasn't a good crisis president (not that the current guy is wowing anyone either).

Davian93
07-11-2010, 06:08 PM
ST, you're aware that the Republican party of the 1860s is essentially the current democratic party and vice versa, correct? They swapped places during the Civil Rights movement.

Even the late Sen. Byrd (A former Klansman and ardent supporter of segregation) radically swapped his views and became a strong supporter of Civil Rights...and he apologized for his previous views numerous times and made good on those apologies with his legislative record. There's a reason he was so respected by both sides as a great legislator...and why everything in WV is the "Robert Byrd Memorial..." Though the latter is a tribute to the amount of bacon he brought home for his constituents.

I think Strom Thurmond (a similar early record to Byrd) is an example of when you don't change and the trip the Republican party undertook during the 20th century.. Originally a Democrat, then a dixiecrat running for president on the segregation ticket, then an ardent and respected titan of the Republican party for decades.

nameless
07-11-2010, 08:10 PM
One possibility: Bush was just a really bad president overall and his presidency really damaged our nation. He's got to be up there with Harding, Nixon and Grant for worst all time. He was the wrong man for the job at the worst possible time. If 9/11 didn't happen, he probably muddles through a single term and loses reeelection and most dont give him any more thought. He wasn't a good crisis president (not that the current guy is wowing anyone either).

I'd take issue with the assertion that the non-Fox media keep quiet about Obama's gaffes in a way they didn't for Bush, too. Bush said some phenomenally retarded things that never to my knowledge got reported outside the internet, such as his habit of joking about how lucky he was that 9-11 happened or his asking the President of Brasil whether they had black people too. Most media outlets grant a certain license to the current President when it comes to potentially embarrassing stories. Even newspapers that opposed FDR refrained from printing pictures of him in his wheelchair, for example. Fox News is fairly unique in their willingness to disregard the dignity of the office entirely in favor of their partisan agenda. Much as I hate to say it, I think they're on to something. If every media outlet were as merciless in their scrutiny it could only serve to help keep stupidity and corruption out of government. The 4th Estate was never supposed to be friends with the executive branch in the first place.

Davian93
07-12-2010, 06:49 AM
I'd take issue with the assertion that the non-Fox media keep quiet about Obama's gaffes in a way they didn't for Bush, too. Bush said some phenomenally retarded things that never to my knowledge got reported outside the internet, such as his habit of joking about how lucky he was that 9-11 happened or his asking the President of Brasil whether they had black people too. Most media outlets grant a certain license to the current President when it comes to potentially embarrassing stories. Even newspapers that opposed FDR refrained from printing pictures of him in his wheelchair, for example. Fox News is fairly unique in their willingness to disregard the dignity of the office entirely in favor of their partisan agenda. Much as I hate to say it, I think they're on to something. If every media outlet were as merciless in their scrutiny it could only serve to help keep stupidity and corruption out of government. The 4th Estate was never supposed to be friends with the executive branch in the first place.


So you think Foxnews limits stupidity?

Interesting.

nameless
07-12-2010, 02:01 PM
No, but I think that the media pulling their punches enables stupidity and right now the only networks that really take the gloves off are Fox and Comedy Central. The problem is that Fox only targets their political opponents and Comedy Central mostly just targets Fox, but if enough of the other networks followed suit we'd have sufficient coverage that every stupid thing any politician ever did would come to light.

Davian93
07-12-2010, 02:34 PM
No, but I think that the media pulling their punches enables stupidity and right now the only networks that really take the gloves off are Fox and Comedy Central. The problem is that Fox only targets their political opponents and Comedy Central mostly just targets Fox, but if enough of the other networks followed suit we'd have sufficient coverage that every stupid thing any politician ever did would come to light.

Fox doesn't take the gloves off...they outright lie and twist things to make their target look bad. They're not a legit news agency by any means. Comedy Central only targets them because they're such an easy target with their doubletalk.

Sei'taer
07-12-2010, 04:07 PM
Fox doesn't take the gloves off...they outright lie and twist things to make their target look bad. They're not a legit news agency by any means. Comedy Central only targets them because they're such an easy target with their doubletalk.

I dunno. I rarely watch any news, but I do a lot of online newsing. I see all sorts of things from this agency and that agency that pulls punches. Fox isn't necessarily the only one to do it. For instance, when I heard that Holder had dropped the black panther case I started looking and I found very few references to it on CNN and NBC and then a ton on Fox. Then you look at the oil spill and all the networks were tearing it up until recently and now they just sort of mention it here and there...and fox is included in this. I guess the story isn't profitable to any of them anymore so they are just letting it go and making a tiny effort to keep it up to date.

Anyway, I don't give a crap one way or the other. There is so much news online you can read the same story on 10 different sites and it mostly depends on where you go to look. I mostly only see stuff from the major networks when there are links to it in a story. The funniest I've found are links on Discoverynews for Fox and vice-versa. You'd think they'd be on opposite ends of the spectrum.

Ivhon
07-12-2010, 04:08 PM
That more and more newspapers are getting on board with

http://politifact.com/

makes me feel good (so long as both sides are scrutinized equally). That politicians and pundits on both sides are crying foul about Politifact makes me feel better.

Sei'taer
07-12-2010, 04:12 PM
That more and more newspapers are getting on board with

http://politifact.com/

makes me feel good (so long as both sides are scrutinized equally). That politicians and pundits on both sides are crying foul about Politifact makes me feel better.

I love politifact and I like realclearpolitics too. Those are number two and three on my daily read list...number one being yahoo news since it is the only homepage I'm allowed to have besides the City site.

JSUCamel
07-12-2010, 04:28 PM
There is so much news online you can read the same story on 10 different sites and it mostly depends on where you go to look.

This is true. In my experience, though, FOX tends to not make a distinction between op/ed and an article, while the other networks have major divisions between the two. On FOX, I'm just as likely to read an "article" that is someone's editorial opinion than I am to read an actual article, whereas on CNN if I click on the "Politics" tab, I see a section for "blogs", a section for "op/ed" and a section for "news", where "news" tends to be more factual reporting. On FOX News in the "Politics" section, there is no clear indication about which articles are op/ed and which are factual articles.

And it's even worse on TV, when 90% of FOX News is talk show pundits (O'Reilly, Beck, Huckabee, Hannity) who are sharing their personal opinions in the presence of consultants, with very little (if any) "But hey, that's just my [educated] opinion". On the other networks, from my perspective there are a lot more discussions among equals, where the host primarily asks questions of guest consultants (clearly opinion). Wolf Blitzer and Larry King come to mind as being more inquisitive and less soapboxing, while all I hear from Beck and O'Reilly is their opinion.

This makes it incredibly difficult for viewers/readers of FOX News to differentiate between fact and opinion, and it sort of explains why so many people have their facts wrong about certain things. That's not to say that FOX doesn't share the facts, but they don't make it easy for someone to differentiate between fact and opinion, which I feel is very important for a news agency to do.

So, I mean, I check all the major websites and quite a few minor ones on a regular basis, but by and large, I tend to treat Fox News with the most skepticism, not because I'm anti-conservative, but because based on my observations it's the least reliable and the most biased. That's not to say that the others aren't, but I'd trust CNN or MSNBC's report on a given political topic over Fox News.

Davian93
07-12-2010, 04:37 PM
Typical Fox "News" piece:

http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/u/u/2/beck-oligarhy-large.jpg

Sei'taer
07-12-2010, 04:39 PM
lol...I wonder what the "C" was supposed to be?


He might be right...if he could spell.

Davian93
07-12-2010, 04:39 PM
More solid reporting:

Linkhttp://media.photobucket.com/image/Foxnews%20collage/krispos42/Screen%2520captures/th_foxnews.jpg

Sei'taer
07-12-2010, 04:56 PM
I think Sydney sums it up nicely.

Five Politics Daily staffers -- Carl Cannon, Melinda Henneberger, Walter Shapiro, David Wood and James Grady -- are joining in an online discussion with Pulitzer Prize-winning former New York Times reporter Sydney Schanberg about politics and the press as seen through the prism of his new book, "Beyond the Killing Fields."

Here is Schanberg's response to David Wood, who lamented the shrinking of foreign news bureaus and asked Schanberg how the great tradition can be kept alive.


With life on our planet spinning faster and faster on the electronic wings of the digital revolution, I have no simple answers.
There is no way to turn back the clock. The world has embraced the new technology, and as I see it, the craft of credible, serious journalism is in a state of chaos.
Money is at the heart of the issue. Papers have lost much of their advertising to the Internet, which so far has produced sparse original reporting considering the volume of websites, choosing instead to cherry-pick from newspapers without compensating them.
Also, Internet sites have decided that their audiences want shorter, splashier articles, not lengthy, detailed ones that often force governments and corporations to correct errant ways of dealing with the public.
Papers are disappearing into bankruptcy on a regular basis. Those that remain are struggling to find a business model that can still support in-depth reporting. The best journalism costs serious money. I'm referring to investigative journalism, which is especially costly because it can take months for a team of reporters to bring forth a solid, major story. In the past, these came almost entirely from a small number of major newspapers and a few magazines.
As newspapers and their staffs have shrunk, so has that special product, which is crucial for any healthy democracy based on a well-informed public. Those still standing have created their own websites to seek new advertising revenue, but the money gap has not closed. And the decline of credible journalism continues.
Good journalism does not have to be printed on paper. But the Internet has also spawned an endless 24/7 trail of garbage, which I call bits-and-pieces journalism -- "borrowed" or "aggregated" material from other sources, especially original stories from newspapers. Internet companies say that the material they use is in the public domain and therefore free.
So what can we do to repair this mess? It isn't just a case of a profession in decline but a dumbing down of an entire nation -- one that has considerable effect on the rest of the world.
The public does not hold journalists in high esteem largely because news outlets, including newspapers, have chosen over time to increase fluff stories about gossip, celebrities, sex scandals, etc., and mix them with hard news.
We were dumbing down the coverage before the Internet reared its head. If we want to restore a higher grade of journalism, we professionals will have to address the public and convince them that without serious reporting, they will not have the means to make informed decisions.
In the past, we have never explained ourselves well to the public. We resent it when citizens raise questions about our stories. As a profession we have been soft and have not challenged our publishers when they sought more fluff. If we want to rehabilitate professional journalism, restore foreign bureaus, raise newsroom standards, then we're in a fight -- on the Internet and at newspapers.
We would have to stand up and speak out. But I don't know a silent, invisible way to get a task like this done.
Filed Under: Media, Culture
Tagged: Internet, journalism, killing fields, newspaper industry, newspapers, reporting, websites.


This is exactly what happens. I hate fluff. It pisses me off to hear a daily update about linday lohan...or over and over all day today about Mel Gibson, no matter what station I listen to. I want to know what happened in Uganda and piss on Mel and Lindsay.

Crispin's Crispian
07-12-2010, 05:41 PM
lol...I wonder what the "C" was supposed to be?


He might be right...if he could spell.

That's easy. Communist.

There's another one, but I'm not going there.

I'm curious why "Revolutionaries" is in purple.

Sei'taer
07-12-2010, 06:37 PM
I'm curious why "Revolutionaries" is in purple.


Silly rabbit...because it was photoshopped!

Davian93
07-13-2010, 07:33 AM
Silly rabbit...because it was photoshopped!

I can tell by the pixels...and from having seen a few shops in my day.

Sei'taer
07-13-2010, 08:30 AM
...and from having seen a few shops in my day.

Considering your love of shoes and all....

Basel Gill
07-13-2010, 08:40 AM
I think Sydney sums it up nicely.

Five Politics Daily staffers -- Carl Cannon, Melinda Henneberger, Walter Shapiro, David Wood and James Grady -- are joining in an online discussion with Pulitzer Prize-winning former New York Times reporter Sydney Schanberg about politics and the press as seen through the prism of his new book, "Beyond the Killing Fields."

Here is Schanberg's response to David Wood, who lamented the shrinking of foreign news bureaus and asked Schanberg how the great tradition can be kept alive.





This is exactly what happens. I hate fluff. It pisses me off to hear a daily update about linday lohan...or over and over all day today about Mel Gibson, no matter what station I listen to. I want to know what happened in Uganda and piss on Mel and Lindsay.

THIS. So much THIS. If I knew how to do that 'rep" thing, I would.

Crispin's Crispian
07-13-2010, 11:00 AM
Silly rabbit...because it was photoshopped!

I can tell by the pixels...and from having seen a few shops in my day.

Ugh...c'mon you guys. I wasn't actually curious about why it was in purple. That was supposed to be a queue for more jokes.

Maybe I need another vacation, because my timing must be way off.

Sei'taer
07-13-2010, 11:49 AM
Ugh...c'mon you guys. I wasn't actually curious about why it was in purple. That was supposed to be a queue for more jokes.

Maybe I need another vacation, because my timing must be way off.

Oh...sorry. Uh, he invited Prince in for the review and wrote that item in purple.

Barney happened by and whacked it with his tail.

Glen wiped a little eyeshadow off while he was sweating under the lights of the studio and the purple stuck to the chalk.

...Yeah, your timing is terrible lately.