A blog dedicated to the rational discussion of politics and current events.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
The Exotic Art of RNC Poll Dancing
"What caricature is in painting, burlesque is in writing; and in the same manner the comic writer and painter correlate to each other; as in the former, the painter seems to have the advantage, so it is in the latter infinitely on the side of the writer. For the monstrous is much easier to paint than describe, and the ridiculous to describe than paint. "
- Henry Fielding
Satire is the right hand of burlesque.
- Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
( Burlesque is)The keenest of political weapons.
- William Cullen Bryant
Strippers gyrate on brass poles to exploit lust for money.
The RNC position on the Steele Poll is just as provocative (some would say dirty), equally unsubtle, except it exploits fear for money, instead of sex. So many of their targeted audience seems to reward attempts to frighten them by turning over their hard earned cash, that it suggests they must enjoy it, seeking out being told scary, albeit improbable stories.
Not as good perhaps as Stephen King stories or Hitchcock movies, but spinning off as many sequels as the multi-part Halloween saga, or the endless Nightmare on Elm Street series. Bloody slasher horror fiction has finally come to the sphere of contemporary Republican fundraising. Or you could read the questions as comedy, like the vaudeville question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?", or maybe the old "Who's on first?" routines.
One such story was the mass mailing sent out recently that asked the following 'in artfully worded' questions.
Wouldn't you think that when someone expends the time, energy and $$$ to send out a mass mailing, they would take a little more time, expend a little more energy to word the poll 'artfully' before they spend the money to make all those copies of it? Wouldn't you expect a little more care before they have them placed in envelopes that are then addressed - presumably with some further effort to guarantee they reach the 'right' people (in every sense of the word) - and pay for the postage?
You would think Michael Steele, if he is any good at his job as the chair of the RNC, would read what it is he signs, and read what he has mailed along with the letters carrying his signature. Of course he does that. As chair of the RNC, he does his job. He words darn hard to make sure the RNC is 'artful' in its fundraising; not honest, not factual, but artful. He is a master of the art of fear.
Here are the questions which were declared 'in artfully worded' by the RNC; declared in artfully worded ONLY AFTER they received attention by at least one of them going to an in artfully selected recipient.
Decide for yourself how artful or in artful they are:
1. Do you believe the state of America's health care is in crisis? YES NO UNDECIDED (12 word question, 3 word choice answer)
2. What is your biggest concern regarding health care in America as it is today?
COST QUALITY AVAILABILITY OTHER __________ (14 word question, 4 word choice answer)
3. Does it concern you that the liberal media has gone to unprecedented levels to only give Obama's views on health care and no one else's?
YES NO UNDECIDED (25 word question, 3 word choice answer)
4. It has been suggested the government could use voter registration to determine a person's political affiliation, prompting fears that GOP voters might be discriminated against for medical treatment in a Democrat-imposed health care rationing system. Does this possibility concern you?
YES NO UNDECIDED (41 word question, 3 word choice answer)
5. Do you believe it is justified to ration health care regardless of whether an individual has contributed to the cost of treatment?
YES NO UNDECIDED (22 word question, 3 word choice answer)
6. Do you believe that your health care decisions should be made by you and your doctor, and not government bureaucrats in Washington D. C.?
YES NO UNDECIDED (23 word question, 3 word choice answer)
7. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has that the Democrats' plan could cost upward of $1.6 trillion dollars. Do you believe that America can afford this added debt when the deficit has already reached record levels?
YES NO UNDECIDED (36 word question, 3 word choice answer)
8. If you have private health insurance, please rate your level of satisfaction with your coverage:
EXCELLENT GOOD SATISFACTORY UNSATISFACTORY N/A (15 word question, 5 word choice answer)
9. Rationing of health care in countries with socialized medicine has led to patients dying because they were forced to wait too long to receive treatment. Are you concerned that this would be inevitable in the U.S. under the Democrats' plan?
YES NO UNDECIDED (41 word question, 3 word choice answer)
10. Do you approve of the Republican plan to give small businesses tax breaks to cover the cost of their employees' health care insurance?
YES NO UNDECIDED (23 word question, 3 word choice answer)
11. Over 120 million Americans currently receive health care insurance through their employment. Should this private sector health coverage be preserved in any health care reform plan?
YES NO UNDECIDED (26 word question, 3 word choice answer)
12. Does it concern you that Democrats will try to ram health care legislation through Congress before the August recess to limit the public's opportunity to evaluate it?
YES NO UNDECIDED (27 word question, 3 word choice answer)
13. Do you believe it is right for the government to use age and life expectancy as criteria for determining access to health care?
YES NO UNDECIDED (23 word question, 3 word choice answer)
All of which is followed by paragraph after paragraph, page after page, soliciting money IMMEDIATELY following a good 'booga booga BOO!' scare effort. That is artful, carefully organized, appealing to emotion, building steadily to a deliberate big climax, the big finale.
Buried near the end was the denouement, a single two sentence paragraph requesting completion and mailing of the Steele poll. That doesn't suggest the poll answers are very important to anyone. It suggests that the only poll result the RNC is interested in is in the form of cash, check, money order, or credit card. You can count on it; count it word by word, paragraph by paragraph, page by page.
This was very carefully crafted poll, where each question was deliberately worded for effect of creating fear for the purpose of raising money, at the expense of fact. The order of the questions were as calculated as any ecdysiast's gyrations to get money out of the readers pockets and tucked into Michael Steele's G(OP) strings. For the RNC to claim this was accidental, that it was 'in artfully worded', is as reasonable as equating bump-and-grind with ballet.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
KR wrote:
ReplyDelete"*fade to scene, Dog Gone trembling in FEAR*"
ROFL, KR, let me assure you that if you think I tremble in fear easily? Well, it makes an interesting image, but not so much a reality. I not really the terrified 'damsel in distress' type. I can't take credit for it as a point of character; I think everyone feels fear about some things, just different things. In my case, I tend to be very unemotional, and become very logical. The emotions don't affect me until everything is over. That's not bravery, it's just a personality quirk.
Fear about this poll? Nah, I don't tend to be as gullible as the RNC believes the people to be who received it.
Incredibly stupid ideas like the government is going to look at your political affiliation and then decide what health care you get do not frighten me because I don't believe that any more than I believe in Santa Claus. It made me laugh, which was why I wrote a humorous article.
I wish I had mastered how to embed a wav file to go with it; my turn KR to play a little music for you, only fitting since I so enjoy your musical selections.
Cue that classic, if not very class-y instrumental, "the stripper", LOL. Enjoy!
Well, DG, I am reminded of a Democrat (Presidential candidate and DNC Chair) that said some people have suggested or entertained the "theory" that Bush was "tipped off" by the Saudis but let 9/11 happen anyway.
ReplyDeleteSo lets throw out any questions that start with "It has been suggested...".
So now what is so scary about the rest of the questions?
BTW, I guess I shouldn't have said you were in FEAR from those questions, that would be like telling you what you believe *wink*, but I will ask you to please further inform us on what the RNC thinks and believes.
*heh heh heh*
*fade to DG's jedi mind powers activating*
BTW, Dog Gone, I did enjoy the humor in the fact that it was the RNC Poll(danc)ing for MONEY. Yep, plain and simple, for MONEY.
ReplyDeleteKR, I have problems with the substance of the question itself, or significant problems with some elements of the wording for: 3., 5., 6.,9., 12., and 13.
ReplyDeleteI have no problems with a political party polling for money. I have serious problems when they use fear tactics and lies.
And KR, I ABSOLUTELY, emphatically agree with you that those who suggested that Bush was either 'in on' or had more substantive information about 9/11 before it happened were wrong, bad, etc.
I do think he had some info, but not as specific as has been claimed by conspiracy theorists.
I've never seen any credible evidence that the Bush administration had information about the 9-11 attacks sufficient that they could have prevented them. While I am a very vocal critic of the Bush administration on a range of issues, I think those who believe that the Bush administration somehow allowed those attacks to occur are quite frankly, nuts.
ReplyDeleteThe questions are disturbing in that many of them are quite plainly distorting the truth. I also don't believe for a minute that the questions were "in-artfully worded". The authors of the poll knew exactly what they were doing, and those questions were done with specific intent to arouse fear and take advantage of people's ignorance.
I have no idea what the mailing or emailing list was for this poll. It would be interesting to see a representative sample of the recipients, to do some demographics and analyze education level, sophistication with the issues, etc. My guess, however, is that this "poll" was not sent to well educated, well informed persons, but carefully calculated to be sent to people who could be persuaded to donate money to help defeat what is probably in their best interests, if they only knew enough to find out.
*fade to scene, Dog Gone trembling in FEAR*
ReplyDeleteInteresting day; I left reading this on the computer after looking out the window where to my surprise there were a couple of sheriff's vehicles, a local police car, and a lot of men with drawn guns.
I had the alpha bitch and the two 'enforcemer' bitches in the house; the male dogs were out patrolling the perimeter of the fence.
There was a break in in progress a couple of houses down, and the local gendarmerie were out in force tracking the single individual across the adjoining countryside, including tracking with a very nice looking K-9 dog. (I'm guessing one of the very expensive Malinois, a european import, Dutch-bred my best guess.) I gave them access to check the outbuildings; they apparently were not too concerned after meeting the pack that anyone had gained entry to the house. The police seem to find the pattern of the dogs 'alerting', sounding off, to be a useful assistance to their efforts to monitor a large area, some of it rather rugged.
I don't like the image of me trembling in fear. It is disturbing.
And one of the nice sheriffs just stopped by to let us know the fugitive had just been apprehended - and to get in one last 'pet', LOL.
BTW DG - William Cullen Bryant is an ancestor.
ReplyDeleteI can prove intent without a need to read minds. The wording of the questions speaks to it quite clearly. Many of those questions are at best misleading and some are out-right lies about the health care proposals currently before congress.
ReplyDeleteI stated I don't know what the mailing list was, but given that the "poll" was from the Republican National Committee, and was clearly a fund-raising device, I somehow doubt it was sent to a list of registered democrats.
I do know that there are a lot of people out there who have been quite "freaked-out" by a number of outright lies that have been perpetuated by various Republicans. It is these people, who don't in many cases bother or have the capacity to figure out the truth, that I suspect this mailing targeted. Perhaps DG or Penigma has more information on the targeted audience.
KR,
ReplyDeleteEverything you've said about there being a double-standard, would apply to you (in my opinion).
You demand answers to questions, but fail to provide any, if we assume a reasonable conclusion, you claim it wasn't your intent (a claim I believe, but still) you appear to be incensed or offended.
ToE is attempting to get you to substantiate your claims, however tangentially you have worded them, he is attempting to get you to speak plainly and provide evidence. It's not unreasonable, and it IS what has been done, time and again - by ToE - answering pointilitically your allegations. He is entitle to ask, given his past conduct providing you answers, in my opinion, and if you desire to be taken seriously, I think it is appropriate for you to answer the questions in detail. The reason for this is, like NCLB or McCain-Feingold, there are always examples which prove the rule -- but the vast preponderance of evidence still falls in another direction.
K-Rod,
ReplyDeleteDespite your statement, I am not engaging in argumentum ad hominem. I have not stated that because you argue a point that an argument is false. What I have stated is that without some justification for your argument, or without some logic behind it, the argument fails. My personal feelings for you have no part of the argument.
I haven't done any scientific polling, but I can tell you that I come in contact with a lot of people on a daily basis, and they aren't the same people every day. My office has a daily new case load of 30 to 40 new clients. Many of them are very scared by what they have heard from the republicans, needlessly so in my opinion, because we have seen prominent Republicans utter lie after lie about the health care reform bill. Many of my clients do not have the educational training to figure out what is a lie and what isn't, and so they are ignorant and scared.
As for the interrogatories I propounded to you, I did that on a separate thread, and I would appreciate it if you would answer the interrogatory on that thread instead of this.
Several of the RNC "poll" questions are mis-characterizations and/or outright falsehoods of the democratic health care reform initiative. Specifically, questions 4,6,9, 11 and 13. The remaining questions, while not providing false or misleading information, are all phrased in such a way to suggest the answer. This is known as a leading question. Good polling technique in a social sciences (or any other polling situation) tries to avoid such questions.
K-Rod said...
ReplyDelete"How is that cowardly, exactly?"
Namecalling behind someone's back. If you are going to call a member of the MOB birthers I would hope you would do it to their face and have something to back it up.
The contributors on the Anti-Stib have shown you no reason to namecall them birthers. By your measure the Penigma blog is comprised of a bunch of birthers.
KR, I have no reason to believe that the anti-strib is in any way shape or form interested in hearing from me. I read the information at the link you posted, but my focus was on what you wrote here, and so I limited myself to addressing your comments about the anti-strib here.
Asserting that Obama has a half-sister who has a forged birth certificate from Hawaii, asserting that Obama has spent a million dollars in hiding his real documents, and heading the article itself with the now widely discredited fake Obama birth certificate that purported to be from Kenya -- without any disclaimer or identification of what it was -- IS I believe a fair basis for asserting the information at the link you provided to be 'birther'.
And btw - for someone who keeps asking for answers to your questions -- WHERE ARE THE ANSWERS TO MY QUESTIONS ABOUT 'WHAT ONE MILLION DOLLARS TO HIDE REAL DOCUMENTS? SHOW PROOF.' AND 'WHAT BIRTH CERTIFICATE FOR OBAMA'S HALF SISTER? - SHOW THE CERTIFICATE, SHOW THE VALIDATING PROOF.'
I will make you a deal KR. You get me the answers, INCLUDING VERIFIABLE DOCUMENTATION to those questions, and I will go back over to the anti-strib and make a comment, as detailed a comment as you like. I will even give you personally the credit for calling them to my attention...by your nom de plume / nom de querre of K-Rod, or just your initials, whichever you prefer.
If you opt NOT to follow through with that information, I will presume you are apologizing for calling me a coward.
August 20, 2009 2:22 PM
K-Rod said...
"KR, I have no reason to believe that the anti-strib is in any way shape or form interested in hearing from me."
Before of after you accused them of being "birthers"?
DG, it's not nice to lump Mitch in with the 'birthers', shame on you.
__________________
Now, here is the essential parts of the posted comments.
I said and continue to point out the birther statements. I did not identify any individual as a birther - I neither know nor particularly care who is responsible for the anti-strib content or comments.
I write this NOT as a statement of disrespect or antagonism, just that it is a site where I read one article, on one occasion, I read none of the comments, and then only the article because KR, you linked it.
I did not on any occasion call any specific person a birther, or any group of people affiliated with this site a birther either. I certainly did not name my friend Mitch ANYWHERE as a birther, as KR you alleged.
KR, if you want the strib to be taken seriously, as a link, then address the content of the article you provided. Explain, validate for me the bogus birth certificate pictured. Validate the statement that Obama has spent $1 million to hide his records. Show me the validation for the Hawaiian birth certificate in the name of his Kenya born half-sister.
Do that, and I will post a comment in response on the anti-strib site. Otherwise, I think the site makes the point for me --- people who are stupid enough to believe the fake Barak Obama birth certificate from Kenya, the $1 mil to hide recoreds, the Hawaiian birth certificate for the half-sister in Kenya, aren't going to be persuaded by any birth certificate Obama has or would produce, long form, short form, it wouldn't matter.
"I can prove intent without a need to read minds."
ReplyDeleteSimply saying you can is much much different than actually doing it. I am reminded of a saying: Those who can..."
Actually, KR, - he is making, I suspect, a legal point. Intent is proved in murder - you INTEND to kill someone. They don't have to read minds to do so.
Such proof/proving is done by presenting evidence and allowing the reasonable mind to decide if intent exits.
There is no need to reply to the balance of your comment as it operates on the premise that ToE has to read minds to prove intent - he doesn't - that claim is false as are the balance of the points.
One more thing, I want you to cease carving out comments out of context, you cause to be said things which are therefore misinterpreted or misunderstood (or both) when not presented in correct context. It is the argumentation tactic of someone who does not desire to engage in honest representation of others (or so it seems).
KR, as I shared with you privately I'm unusually tired, so anywhere I have written strib, please understand I meant to write anti-strib.
ReplyDeleteAs to birther, let me clarify yet again, although some of this is redundant. I wrote the ARTICLE that you linked that appeared on the anti-strib site (got it right that time) made birther statements. I identified those statements. I requested you provide proof of those 'birther' statements if you expected the statement requesting Obama produce his birth certificate be given credence; in other words either all of them, or none of them, should count.
While I am an imperfect human being, I do try not to name call, but instead to label specific facts, such as specific sentences or paragraphs instead. I do not know the blog owner, the author (if different than the blog owner) and I did not even read the comments on the site much less identify anyone who made them. So your claims and accusations that I am name calling or cowardly make no sense to me.
However, as you have posted the link, please do provide more detail about the items I mentioned.
K-Rod said: "Such proof/proving is done by..."
ReplyDeleteAnd, once again, we are waiting to see such proof.
Thank you, Penigma, for making my point. 8-)
K-Rod, the proof was presented by Dog Gone when she listed the questions.
Penigma was correct. I am trained to present arguments and to present proof when necessary. To prove intent, the proponent need not read anyone's mind. In this case, the evidence is clear in the verbage of the questions. A reasonable person can see the intent to cause fear in the reader. (Its success or failure is a different question altogether. With me, it produced laughter)
KR wrote:K-Rod said...
ReplyDeleteWhen is Obama planning his speech to the children of America in which his speech will be "deliberately worded for effect of creating fear for the purpose" of socializing health care via the ObamaNationCare bill?"
ROFL!
I understand that our president is making two speeches in the near future. ONE to children about the importance of studying, getting good grades, and being involved with their own education (as contrasted with being passive).
The SECOND oration is to a joint session of Congress about health care. Or are you calling the entire legislative branch children as well? Because, there are days when that fits better than it should as a description. I may have to give you a round of applause for that one KR, even if unintentional. Is that tune "Hail to the Chief" I hear playing in the background?
I understand Fox News is encouraging people keep their children home from school that day, in order to prevent them from being exposed to the evil words of our president.
Yeah, like keeping them home from school is going to advance their education....two words, dumb down.
KR wrote:"K-Rod said...
ReplyDelete"Yeah, like keeping them home from school is going to advance their education...."
Nice slam on homeschoolers, DG!!! Way to go!"
Hardly KR. If you homeschool, you aren't keeping your kids away from school while they are at home; just the opposite. I happen to think that some home schooling exceeds that offered both publicly and privately. And some doesn't; some of it is just a way to avoid science and balanced history, replacing it with extremes of religion and politics.
But in any case, wherever a student is being educated, keeping them from that education to avoid a presidential speech on education is hardly appropriate, and not good parenting.
I used to watch current events and news programming often, with and without my parents present, when I was a kid. Our dinner table discussion included current events topics, and we were expected to be informed and participate; at the very least to know enough to ask intelligent questions.
You don't get that experience by avoiding presidential speeches.
K-Rod: So what?
ReplyDeleteThat particular statement shows the obvious bias of the "poll", but doesn't especially inspire fear. But, I think we agree that this poll wasn't anything but an attempt to raise money, although I suspect you do not agree that the means by which they are raising money is highly unethical in my opinion. Don't misunderstand me: I'm not saying that the RNC is in itself unethical. I'm saying that this particular money maker is unethical.
There are other statements which are clearly written to inspire fear in the audience, specifically #4,5,6,9,11 and 13. I believe that those questions, to the reasonable person, show an intent to raise fear, especially since the questions are at best, a misstatement of health care reform, and some of them are outright lies.
K-Rod said...
ReplyDelete"keeping them from that education"
What education are you refering to, DG?
What lessons will the kids be taught by President Obama? Isn't that against the law?"
Keeping children home from school deprives them of the classwork that day, KR, and I think you know that and are just yanking my chain here.
Why would a presidential speech be against the law? That's just silly. Truancy is against the law however.
I teach and have taught at the freshman college level. I have had students who have been home schooled. Some of them have been excellent students but unfortunately, many of them I have found their preparation to be dismally worse than the bad preparation already given in many public schools today. (I have never taught a science course, its always been political science or history).
ReplyDeleteSometimes they have warped views of history and government. Sometimes they have practically no exposure to either. In both cases it makes it much more difficult for them to succeed academically, because I don't give them any different treatment. I can't. I don't care what their religious views are, and I don't ask. But if they can't do the work demanded of my class, then they don't pass it.
I don't have a problem with home schooling when circumstances dictate, but overall, I think education is best when parents are involved, but are not the primary educators.
KR said, "If it is so darn "clearly written" is should be easy for you to explain and PROVE, TOE."
ReplyDeleteKR, again with the demands for proof. Please provide PROOF there aren't 45M plus people without health insurance (FOR WHATEVER REASON), please provide PROOF Obama is WILFULLY lying to the public (beyond fatuous claims that he is lying about the number of uninsured Americans).
You need to live the the standards you're demanding. ToE has time and time again provided you a great deal of proof on a myriad of subjects, but you have not normally reciprocated.
As relates to the President's speech, as if a President saying 'Stay in school, it's the one path you can be assured will reward you in the end.' is somehow controversial.. wow.. what a problem. There isn't a crisis you can't pass up I guess :). You see, those fingers are point all the time are pointing back, just as you accuse us/liberals of.
BTW, KR, under no circumstances is it against the law to watch the President give a speech, as far as I know of course (not being a lawyer), but as well, any teacher could have ANY expert come in and give a lesson - so your allegation is absurd obviously it's not illegal, but I think you were joking.
ReplyDeleteDG, do you have any proof that Faux News is organizing parents to keep their kids home from school?
ReplyDeleteAlso, you seem to be ducking the questions:
KR:
"To what education were you refering? What kids will be missing what classwork?
What lessons will the kids be taught by President Obama? Isn't that against the law?
September 8, 2009 12:18 PM"
Good questions - I will be answering them in greater detail in a future separate post, which is...something like the next or second to the next in line to the one I've just put up.
While you wait for that longer answer to your very excellent questions, consider that Obama has presented nothing to school kids that is markedly different from other presidents making similar, perfectly legal and legitimate and well received presentations.
As I posted over on SitD earlier, when praising Roosh's post, not only should kids watch or listen to the president, but further, for purposes of comparison and fair, objective evaluation, citizens (adult and children) would do well to familiarize themselves with the earlier presidential speeches to school kids.
A great source for that material is the presidential libraries; using them this way is an excellent educational exercise.
One of my earlier recollections of travelling with my parents was of visiting the Truman presidential library, down in ToE's neck of the woods (using the term very loosely, by which I mean it is closer to him than to me).
Thank you for your patience, KR and other readers.
K-Rod, I really don't think I should have to get to this level of analysis, but in the interest of cooperation, I will. However, I will then ask that you answer my interrogatories to you concerning your claim about President Obama and disinformation. I will be happy to send them to you again if you wish.
ReplyDeleteThe following questions I consider to be fear-mongering:
4) This question outright presents a falsehood and then ties it to alleged plans of rationing. There is no attribution to the falsehood, which indicates to me that its probably been dreamed up by a republican operative as a means of scaring people who haven't read the legislation and will believe that this preposterous idea could come to pass.
5) The health care plan does not call for rationing care, and there has been no indication whatsoever that it will, aside from the outright lies told about it by such people as Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh. I don't consider those credible sources, and I hope you do not either. However, I note, that rationing DOES go on in our current system. It goes on in the form of insurance companies, who very often, are the people who decide who gets what care, based on cost, not on medical needs.
6) Again, this question indicates that health care decisions are going to be made by a government official. This is a deliberate falsehood about the health care reform plan. The whole purpose behind the health care reform is to allow patients and their physicians to make decisions on their care, and to take those decisions out of the hands of insurance companies.
9) This statement is a deliberate attempt to somehow equate the US plan with other countries. Remember, patients have died in the US because insurance companies take weeks to make a decision on care, and people die in the US because insurance companies refuse to pay for treatments that aren't "approved". This question again tries to induce people to believe that the health care reform will lead to rationing of care, when in fact, we already have it under the current system.
12) This question is moot. The legislation was deliberately held back to allow more time for discussion, but its difficult to discuss things when Republicans have a one word answer: NO.
13) This question again presents a falsehood about the health care reform initiative. A person's age and general state of health is relevant in making medical decisions, but the question implies that the government will be determining who has access to health care. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I have shown you the questions that I feel are deliberately written to inspire fear, and I have explained why I have that opinion.
While I'm at it though, let's deal with that 47 million number.
ReplyDeleteYou then attempted to refute it as follows:
1) 1/4 aren't Americans: I say "So what?" I don't care if they are Martians. If they are in the US and they become ill, we have to care for them. While the health care bill will NOT provide for treatment for illegal aliens, (and immigration reform is a separate topic already discussed), if someone shows up at a hospital emergency room, a hospital doesn't check immigration status. They are treated. Hospital emergency rooms are awful places for primary care in the US because they are set up to deal with emergencies, not primary care.
2) 1/4 are temporarily between jobs: I say: As of June, 2009, 2.43 million people were unemployed (based on unemployment claims) There is no way to know how many were voluntarily unemployed, but at any rate, 2.43 million involuntarily unemployed doesn't equate to 1/4 of 47 million.
3) 1/4 chose not to have health insurance: I say: Well, have you looked into why they chose not to have health insurance? Let's imagine some answers: Younger people whose employers don't offer it, and who don't have the money to afford it. (and who pray that they don't get sick) People of whatever age who can't afford premiums. People with pre-existing conditions who can't get insurance, or if its available, its at exorbitantly high rates.
4) 1/4 could be covered under existing programs: I say: Then why aren't they? I'm curious as to what these programs are, and if these people are eligible for coverage, why don't they cover them?
KR said,
ReplyDelete""Please provide PROOF there aren't 45M plus..." Americans that can't get health insurance."
KR, you purposefully cut out my words- leaving out the fact that I DIDN'T say Americans, I said people. I said it because those OTHER people still cost money - so, no, you haven't provided that proof, and seriously, you need to stop snipping comments, you miss the point, and mis-state the issue.
I answered your question - you assume the President is teaching a 'lesson' plan - which is an absurd assertion. He isn't, he's giving a speech. As for lost time, lost work, I suppose as compared to what, learning that the Mayflower landed in 1620 and then being tested 45 times between 3rd and 12th grade on that fact because it's SOOOO damned important to learn facts but not how to solve problems (NCLB fails again) - and as compared to missing bible class or missing PE one day a year for an hour, yes, I guess we need to be highly exorcised about that, it's truly a crisis.
I answered your question, nothing was ducked, but you still have not answered mine, show me some proof 45M plus PEOPLE are uninsured. You have NOT done so, you've said there are reasons, but everyone already knew there were reasons, you said that some weren't citizens, but we all knew that too. So please, show me some proof.
"which is an absurd assertion"
ReplyDeleteReally? Because you said so? Ha ha ha ha ha
"you assume the President is teaching a 'lesson' plan"
White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said the changes to the language are intended to make the lesson plans clearer.
The Washington Times was first to report Thursday that the plan was being reconsidered.
Why did the White House change what was to be the focus and message and what was to be asked from the kids? Penigma, please try to keep up with the actions, goals, and intentions of the President.
The fact is that a lot of people started asking questions and pointing out the legality of the federal government handing down lessons to local schools.
Presidents have traditionally addressed classrooms on the first day of school, but the problem with the event was the accompanying materials from the Department of Education.
Former deputy assistant secretary for education said, "Federal statute denies any authority to the Department of Education to provide any kind of curriculum or anything that can be passed down to the state, and that's part of the statute forming the Department of Education."
Don't get me wrong, I very much support the President in instiling a good strong work ethic. School is very important but not everyone should complete the same amount and your value is not based on how much school you have completed.
"(NCLB fails again)"
Thank Teddy. ;-)
1) I don't follow the "vast right-wing conspiracy", therefore, I don't know what some paranoid individual may have suggested. Either way, no one has made any credible suggestion, and until I saw that in the RNC "Poll", I had not heard anything of it.
ReplyDelete2) I did not say that. I don't think anyone can predict that there will be no rationing. However, the current bill does not authorize rationing of health care. There IS, however, already rationing of health care in the current system. Private insurance companies ration health care all the time, and its based on cost, just like the this question seems to imply that the government will do. So, I ask: what's the difference?
3) Its my understanding that the public option is a health care insurance policy with the cost of the policy underwritten by the US Government, and using the US Treasury as the capital against which claims are paid. Whether or not it will work as a traditional insurance policy (which do deny care all the time) or whether it will act more as a universal health care system, I don't know. If a public option can deny people care, (just like private insurance companies can and do all the time now), then its only difference will be cost. In that case, it will be a matter of one gets what one pays for. If people want better coverage, for instance, I don't see anything that would prohibit them from contracting for private insurance, Jas's claims notwithstanding.
4) You seem to have missed my comments on other posts where I mentioned that when comparing the US to other countries, its a bit like comparing apples to oranges. Yes, both are fruit, but they aren't the same kind of fruit. That's true in the US as well. In addition, let's remember a few things: We all hear horror stories about other countries health systems, (and our own as well). How often do we hear the good things? Seldom. My point was, trying to compare the proposed US system, (when still really isn't anyone who knows how the proposed system would actually work) is rather disingenuous.
5) President Obama wanted Congress to work fast on the issue. His stated purpose was that it was an important issue, and he knows that if Congress stalls forever, then its more likely than not that nothing will get done. If you have conclusive proof to a different motive, I'm willing to examine that proof.
6) I see no evidence in my reading of the bill that the health care reform under the public option (if there is even a public option) will use age and life expectancy to make health care decisions. I would oppose any such attempt, and there has been NO and I repeat NO credible argument presented here that leads me to believe that they will.
Let me take one of your comments out of order, K-Rod:
ReplyDeleteIn regard to age and life expectancy, the present system already uses age and life expectancy to determine treatments. Physicians use a person's age to determine which treatments may be appropriate, because certain treatments work better in people of different ages. Insurance companies use life expectancy all the time to determine a variety of things, including treatments. It sounds to me like you're describing the present system and then trying to use that fear to scare people about health care reform.
You were asking me to prove that a member of a "right wing conspiracy" (your words not mine) had NOT uttered the words about using a person's party affiliation to determine treatment. I have no idea what any "right wing conspiracy" may have said at some time. As I said before, if someone has, in their paranoia, to made such a suggestion, I haven't heard of it, and I haven't seen any credible evidence that anyone has.
In law, if an action by government is not specifically authorized by statute, the government may not undertake that action. Did you read what I said multiple times earlier? We already have rationing of health care. Its done by insurance companies based on cost, and insurance companies also use the age and life expectancy of the patient as a factor in determining what to pay for and what not. I am not spreading disinformation, and I would appreciate it if you do not accuse me of doing so.
One of my real gripes and problems with the health care reform is that it is massively short on details. You are correct, K-Rod, there are a LOT of unknowns that need to be answered.
I am personally glad that the health care reform did not pass before the august recess. I do agree with you that the matter needs to be considered carefully before it is signed into law.
K-Rod, you are the person who demanded that I provide you the questions which would instill fear. I gave you those questions. One of those questions was whether age and life expectancy would be used to determine treatment. I also told you the present bill doesn't call for that and I don't see any evidence in the bill to suggest that it will.
You clearly have a great deal of knowledge in the medical field. You therefore know, I would presume far better than I, that age is relevant in determining treatment options. Life expectancy is not, in my opinion, but insurance companies also use it as a calculation. There is NOTHING in the present bill which would allow decisions on treatment to be made solely on those criteria, and it is fear mongering to suggest otherwise.
The SCOTUS has yet to decide explicitly what the 2nd Amendment means. You're correct in that there are to schools of thought in that area: Some people believe that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to the states, only limits the federal government, and if then, only limits the federal government's right to regulate a state militia. Others read the 2nd amendment to mean that anyone can possess any firearm at any time, without restriction.
ReplyDeleteAlthough its HORRIBLY off topic, I think the answer to the 2nd amendment question is in the middle: I think that the 2nd amendment only applies to the federal government. I see nothing to expand it into a regulation of states rights or state's privileges. However, as I read it, it does not simply regulate the militia. It means that Congress may not ban persons from owning firearms (of any kind, if you want to take it to the extreme). However, an individual state could do so unless their state constitution forbade otherwise. (some states do, some do not).
Interestingly enough, the view that says that it only applies to the federal government and only applies to the militia is a strict constructionist argument. The view that it applies to everyone, everwhere, it anethema to that, as it is an interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
K-Rod, I'm NOT making an anti-gun argument. I was stating that I think the 2nd amendment does not operate against any state or local regulation of firearms, only against a federal regulation of firearms. Many (if not most, I haven't actually checked) states have a version of the 2nd amendment in their constitution, so in many cases it could be moot. State Supreme Courts, not federal courts, interpret state constitutions.
ReplyDeleteThe only way that other amendments have been held to apply to state action is that the SCOTUS has held that the 14th Amendment's guarantee of due process and equal protection has incorporated those protections as fundamental rights. The SCOTUS has NOT said that about the 2nd amendment, and in US vs. Hiller, they specifically declined to do so, although Justice Scalia did say in dictum that if a case were properly before them, that they might do so. In the meantime, the 2nd amendment only applies to the federal government.
KR said,'you are incorrect Toe' -
ReplyDeletereally KR, how is he incorrect?
Scalia specifically said they weren't incorporating the 2nd in Heller - so outside of DC, where there is soveriegnty but federal law essentially reigns supreme, where exactly is the 2nd amendment incorporated?
Seriously, either you don't understand the concept of incorporation, or you haven't read Heller. ToE is entirely correct, and I'd urge you to consider your words a bit more carefully before lecturing the Constitutional Law professor and Lawyer, and, as I talked with ToE AT GREAT LENGTH after Heller and read about it with him at great length as well, I would suggest he is eminently qualified to advise you on the meaning of Heller and the dicta summary provided by Scalia. You are incorrect in your appraisal of ToE's opinion.
"If some people can read into the constitution that the 2nd Amendment is for the militia and NOT the people individually they will read into this law unforseen and possibly unimaginable ideas. Unfortunatly the unintended consequences usually create a larger problem that the problem they INTENDED to fix. I already posted the example of how SCHIP has, in some states, run astray from its original intent."
ReplyDeleteAnd they might read into it that little green men will run the country.. but that doesn't make such fear mongering and crisis invention appropriate.
As well, KR, actually, if you read the Federalist Papers and a host of other documents including decisions such as People v Presser, Kruikshanks, and Texas v. .. (mind blank bahh) 1898, both the founding fathers AND the courts repeatedly addressed the 2nd amendment's application to militia - NOT people, other than to say that the PEOPLE should be allowed to arm themselves in arms of the convention and type in common use of the day. In fact, in the Federalist papers, it is discussed requiring all able bodied men to own arms SPECIFICALLY to form militia. Further, in one of the late 1800's cases (Presser if I recall), the ruling SPECIFICALLY states that the states may do whatever they like so long as they don't prevent the formation of reserve armies such as may be required of the states.
Lastly, it is Scalia and his conservative peers who effectively invented 'the right to hunt' in Heller - it's not in the Constitution, and represents one of the most outrageous examples of 'activism' of the past 40 years. They effectively codified a right to hunt.. please tell me where that exists in the Constitution, by that, I mean the written words.
The first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States, now called the Bill of Rights, were added when various states were concerned that there was little to no protection against federal power in a number of areas. However, once these amendments were added, it was universally understood at the time, and further written into law in Barron vs. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243; 32 US 243(1833) that the Bill of Rights (in Barron it was the 5th Amendment's prohibition against taking without compensation) only applied to the federal government, and did not in any way restrict the states. Chief Justice John Marshall, writing for a unanimous court held "[t]hese [first ten] amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them." id at 250.
ReplyDeleteWhen the 14th Amendment was passed, over the years a series of cases began to hold that various of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights were so fundamental to liberty that to deny them is depriving a person of life, liberty of property without due process of law. As of this writing, most of the 1st, the 4th, the 5th Amendment (with the exception of the right to indictment), the 6th, and the 8th. The Supreme Court in District of Columbia vs. Heller did indicate, in dicta that it might very well rule that the 2nd amendment applies to the states if a case came before it, but until such a case comes before it, the current state of the law, as set forth in US vs. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875), Presser vs. Illinois 116 US 252 (1986) and Miller vs. Texas 153 US 535 (1894) indicate that the 2nd amendment has not been applied to the states.
I have heard many on the right complain about "activist judges" who invent rights not found in the Constitution. Please tell me where you can find a "right to hunt" in the Constitution of the US, K-Rod? I would be interested in seeing such a passage.