LGP Political Discussion Thread

[Geezer]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/ ... index.html

If this is all true, then where is the outrage? Where are NYT Bestsellers? The Pulitzer winners? Why aren't these practices being extended into homeowners and auto insurance?

I don't doubt at all corporations would try to maximize profits, but if they are actively engaging in this type of behavior day in and day out then there would be an enourmous backlash and I'd be part of it. Truth is I, like most americans (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06 ... -coverage/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) am happy with my health insurance.

Perhaps the top doctor of the Canadian Medical Association got those talking points:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadi ... Gu_Z3KXoQw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They are, every corporation does it and politicians use it all the time. This isn't a grand conspiracy it's just how P.R. works, it manipulates public opinion. Do you know who Edward Bernays is? He is the father of P.R.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I posted this in another thread

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.

Did this come from that movie The Puppetmasters or something along those lines?

[doublem]

No, it came from one of the most influential Americans of the 20th century, ranked by Life magazine. He wrote this in his book Propaganda in 1928.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_%28book%29" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

His techniques are still used today. This is the man that while working for the American Tobacco Company-he persuaded women's rights marchers in New York City to hold up Lucky Strike cigarettes as symbolic "Torches of Freedom

[bh]

So are they wrong becasue they don't have the absolute belief that markets will maximize freedom?

This is the question that needs answered. There should be no belief. There is a reality and it operates outside belief. If they are wrong, it is because reality does not mirror their belief. Some ways are better than others and the point of debate is to share our collective knowledge and try and find the better ways to go about solving these types of problems. There are a lot of good arguments of both sides doublem, and if there was overwhelming evidence that one particular way was better than another, this debate would not have gone 28+ pages. I tend to feel that a free markey solution would be the way to go, but like most things in life, there is no 100% certainty.

There are a list of thoughts in this thread that almost all here actually agree on:
1) Everyone in this thread realizes that the system has major problems and could be much better.
2) Most here are against this particular bill because they do not think it will address the actual problems and is basically a hand out to the insurance industry.
3) Everybody wants to help their fellow human beings but have widely differing views on how to go about that.

Other than that there are a lot of good points on both sides as to what *should* be done.

[shafnutz05]

This article that came out Sunday really highlights one of the huge problems burdening the healthcare industry (especially in the South/Southwest). Now believe me...I am not going to watch a Hispanic-looking man stumble into an ER with a gunshot wound and ask him for his papers. But there has GOT to be a limit. Hospitals all across the area within a few hundred miles of the Mexican border are being bogged down with illegal immigrants coming in for free treatment. Again, I am not a coldhearted guy, but come on....why are we not focusing on taking care of AMERICAN CITIZENS first when we can barely afford to do that?

I would also like to see just one U.S. President stand up to the Mexican government and demand that a) they start policing their own border, and b) they start providing healthcare for their own citizens. Obviously this will never happen; both parties have become too obsessed with "winning the Hispanic vote" to ever dare stand up to Calderon.

Americans, by their nature, are a kind, giving, and generous population. But there is only so much they will take. While I am on that soapbox, a quick side note...everyone's probably heard that the concept of amnesty for the 15 million illegal aliens that are in this country is being floated around again. Is there anyone here that doesn't believe it is merely an attempt to add 15 million Democratic voters to the voting rolls? I'll be interested to hear what everyone has to say.

But back to my original point...I am not saying a hospital shouldn't provide emergency treatment if someone walks in off the street and they can't verify their identity. But for an illegal alien to be coming in two times a week for dialysis when our own fellow citizens can't get that same treatment? Disgusting...

http://www.lvrj.com/news/53343302.html

[shafnutz05]

And I got started so quickly I forgot to say good morning to everyone...keep the AC flowing today!!

[shafnutz05]

And now evidently, Obama has succeeded in pi*sing off the entire U.S. Postal Service. The link is dead, so here's the quote. For all that we heard back around the new year about how Obama had the smartest Cabinet and inner circle in American history, I have never seen so much stumbling and bumbling around by an administration. I fully acknowledge the Bush White House's errors, and this administration is making them look like a smooth, well-oiled machine. Thought it was funny that Obama's Cabinet secretaries were saying that a public option wasn't vital to a healthcare bill this weekend, then he came out Monday and said it was. If they want to have any hope of getting their ambitious agenda passed, they better start singing from the same hymnal

The National Association of Postal Supervisors has fired back at President Barack Obama for dragging the U.S. Postal Service further into the health care debate. In an Aug. 14 letter, NAPS President Ted Keating accused Obama of using the Postal Service as a “scapegoat” and unfairly painting it as “an example of inefficiency” during a health care town hall meeting last week. Obama told a crowd in Portsmouth, N.H., Aug. 11 that private health care insurance providers should be able to compete with a government-run public option because “UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. … It’s the Post Office that’s always having problems.”

[bh]

For all that we heard back around the new year about how Obama had the smartest Cabinet and inner circle in American history, I have never seen so much stumbling and bumbling around by an administration. I fully acknowledge the Bush White House's errors, and this administration is making them look like a smooth, well-oiled machine.

Bush was never smooth and his administration was just as bad as this one, just a different type of bad.

[shafnutz05]

Bush was never smooth and his administration was just as bad as this one, just a different type of bad.

I know Bush wasn't smooth, believe me....just a point of comparison. It's just amazing that the Obama team ran such a ridiculously effective campaign, and have looked completely inept running the White House. The first thing that he might want to do is get rid of Gibbs...since he has already managed to alienate the entire White House press corps, including the members that are friendly towards Obama's policies.

[doublem]

So are they wrong becasue they don't have the absolute belief that markets will maximize freedom?

This is the question that needs answered. There should be no belief. There is a reality and it operates outside belief. If they are wrong, it is because reality does not mirror their belief. Some ways are better than others and the point of debate is to share our collective knowledge and try and find the better ways to go about solving these types of problems. There are a lot of good arguments of both sides doublem, and if there was overwhelming evidence that one particular way was better than another, this debate would not have gone 28+ pages. I tend to feel that a free markey solution would be the way to go, but like most things in life, there is no 100% certainty.

There are a list of thoughts in this thread that almost all here actually agree on:
1) Everyone in this thread realizes that the system has major problems and could be much better.
2) Most here are against this particular bill because they do not think it will address the actual problems and is basically a hand out to the insurance industry.
3) Everybody wants to help their fellow human beings but have widely differing views on how to go about that.

Other than that there are a lot of good points on both sides as to what *should* be done.

I completely agree in an objective reality, but the assumption that perfect liberty will result from unregulated markets or "free markets" has no evidence behind it, becasue a completely unregulated system has never been tried before. It just paints everything so black and white, markets are good and should be left alone and government is bad. Adam Smith wrote about it in Wealth of Nations, but I tend to disagree with that, what I really disagree is the Market Fundamentalist or neo liberalism aboard, of Friedmen, Hayek, Paul, etc, etc.

[Ron`]

The fact that the government option was abandoned makes me seriously believe that they never planned on having it in the first place.

The old false front, feint for the real deal .... Works every time when complete overwhelming power won't get it done... Ok so you'll settle for the khia then....

I have no idea why overwhelming power couldn't get it done.

The whitehouse controls every legislative process to push this through, yet they have to feint to get what they believe they can push through....

[Ron`]

We all have choices, to pay for coverage or reduce our coverage to those that are on life support.... To aspire too, and seek a job that provides better coverage.... I am completely lost on this whole choice issue. There are plenty of choices out there. The problem is reforming the actual system, not expanding the coverage to all without choice...

[HomerPenguin]

To aspire too, and seek a job that provides better coverage....

Aspiring and seeking aren't choosing. You can't simply "choose" to get a better-paying, higher-benefits job.

[Ron`]

Homer, nobody is going to just give you a job either... You have to beg, borrow and demonstrate a will to get there. Scratch and show people you are willing to work..

Giving people everything doesn't inspire anything. Providing carte blanche federal employee type benefits is a pipe dream... One that can only be financed by an increase in taxes. Enhancing basic health care under the existing system is not what we are talking about..... What we are discussing is opening the door to complete socialized medicine, financed via the tax base which is already declining under a complete service based economy.

This is a big business yes, and health care is actually the largest business next to the airlines in the country. One we can't export, though it draws imports in that people come here for treatments they can't recieve in their native nations....

[Shyster]

Aspiring and seeking aren't choosing. You can't simply "choose" to get a better-paying, higher-benefits job.

Yes, you can. We make those choices all the time, and especially when we're young. We choose whether or not to finish high school, whether or not to pursue advanced education or vocational training, whether or not to get married (or divorced), whether or not to have children out of wedlock (unless you were raped, yes, that's a choice), etc. All of those factors, among others, play into our careers and compensation. When one makes those choices, however, one has to live with them. People often don't want to recognize that being in a low-paying job is most often the expected result of their own past (usually bad) choices. Everything has a price. Take what you want, and pay for it.

[doublem]

Aspiring and seeking aren't choosing. You can't simply "choose" to get a better-paying, higher-benefits job.

Yes, you can. We make those choices all the time, and especially when we're young. We choose whether or not to finish high school, whether or not to pursue advanced education or vocational training, whether or not to get married (or divorced), whether or not to have children out of wedlock (unless you were raped, yes, that's a choice), etc. All of those factors, among others, play into our careers and compensation. When one makes those choices, however, one has to live with them. People often don't want to recognize that being in a low-paying job is most often the expected result of their own past (usually bad) choices. Everything has a price. Take what you want, and pay for it.

Don't you think this has more to do with problems in health care then high school drop outs? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/1 ... 59516.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; You do realize there are people that want to go to college and can't afford it, right? Which isn't there fault since 17-18 shouldn't be punished for the family they were raised in.

[DelPen]

People put themselves through college all the time. if someone wants to get a degree there's always a way to do it through hard work.

[Sarcastic]

Aspiring and seeking aren't choosing. You can't simply "choose" to get a better-paying, higher-benefits job.

Yes, you can. We make those choices all the time, and especially when we're young. We choose whether or not to finish high school, whether or not to pursue advanced education or vocational training, whether or not to get married (or divorced), whether or not to have children out of wedlock (unless you were raped, yes, that's a choice), etc. All of those factors, among others, play into our careers and compensation. When one makes those choices, however, one has to live with them. People often don't want to recognize that being in a low-paying job is most often the expected result of their own past (usually bad) choices. Everything has a price. Take what you want, and pay for it.

Of course you're right, but that's an opinion of someone who's older, more mature. Many kids don't think that way until they find themselves in a hole, often too difficult to get out of. Many kids also don't have the support and guiding necessary to make the right decisions. Or grow up in a bad environment where success isn't expected.

I used to think like a hardass when I was younger, but I think I'm mellowing out because the older I get the more I see that not everyone's life is purely their fault. Some people get opportunities since the day they are born. Some never do.

I think that parents and school counselors should be a lot more involved with kids when they're trying to find themselves and trying to understand just how this world works.

And I am talking here about the US/Western societies, because if you look at people of Africa, Asia, Middle East, and to some extent Eastern Europe (especially before the fall of Communism, but even now things are difficult), well, those people simply have no choice.

[Bob McKenzie]

Aspiring and seeking aren't choosing. You can't simply "choose" to get a better-paying, higher-benefits job.

[Ron`]

Back to something I said earlier, listen to your elders and make a informed choice on what you believe.... unless your elders are cooking crack or meth in the back room.... Then get the heck out of that situation....or just join in the fun and don't expect much long term...

[Shyster]

Don't you think this has more to do with problems in health care then high school drop outs?

Ah, a good question. Let me respond as a law school professor would: with a question. Are they part of the problem?

I've been reading this thread with much interest, and I wish I had more time to respond. If I may offer a direction for future discussion, it is this: what, exactly, is the problem with health care? The immediate answer of most would be "it's too expensive." That may be so (and I'm not agreeing that it is), but if that is the case, why? I see plenty of discussion from people representing all parts of the political spectrum on how exactly to "fix" health care. But I see no consensus on the nature of the "problem." How can we repair something when we can't agree on what is broken?

[doublem]

People put themselves through college all the time. if someone wants to get a degree there's always a way to do it through hard work.

Hard work doesn't always mean that you are going to get positive results.There is a better chance know then ever, that if you are born poor you are going to die poor. I know we like to embrace this rugged individualism in the U.S., pull yourself up by your boot straps , but the people that are doing that are finding it harder and harder.

[MWB]

unless your elders are cooking crack or meth in the back room.... Then get the heck out of that situation....or just join in the fun and don't expect much long term...

Easier said then done. If you grew up in that situation there it's not always going to be obvious what is a right situation and how you can get out of it. That's when there needs to be an outside source to try to offer some sort of guidance. Even then, hard to break the cycle.

[Ron`]

There have always been high school dropouts, problem is in the past they actually had a path to success. The limited job market out there has been cherry picking for years and now demanding higher education. A high school grad has to be in the right situation to suceed in this service orientated economy, as most employers toss any resumes that don't include a college degree aside upon reciept.

The market for good jobs has never been tighter. But you can't fix that through education alone, you have to promote industry. That is where this country has failed. They have destroyed and continue to destroy what little industrial base left via taxation and regulation...

[Ron`]

But hey, we can fix it all by providing bailouts and health care for everyone. How about we just look at the asinine rules we have already enacted that handicap us all against the world economy. The US is no longer in a position to save the world economically, ecologically or militarily.... That is the reality of today.... Maybe, just maybe along the way we can fix the excesses in health care too....

[doublem]

Don't you think this has more to do with problems in health care then high school drop outs?

Ah, a good question. Let me respond as a law school professor would: with a question. Are they part of the problem?

I've been reading this threat with much interest, and I wish I had more time to respond. If I may offer a direction for future discussion, it is this: what, exactly, is the problem with health care? The immediate answer of most would be "it's too expensive." That may be so (and I'm not agreeing that it is), but if that is the case, why? I see plenty of discussion from people representing all parts of the political spectrum on how exactly to "fix" health care. But I see no consensus on the nature of the "problem." How can we repair something when we can't agree on what is broken?

First, no one has been saying this but, maybe Americans need to reexamine there lifestyles, maybe we need to start addressing why our diet, and other health choices. Second, who doesn't think that it is broken, the numbers reflect that America spends more then any other country in the world, and the care is towards the bottom. Insurance has gone up 119% over the last decade, all other industrialized nations have some sort of universal coverage, that is either mixed public-private, public, or socialized. 20k Americans die a year becasue they can't get health care, 1 million go to bankruptcy. Isn't that a indication that there is something wrong? The insurance companies have enormous pull in D.C. they got 150 million deal from the White House, they are most likely going to kill the public option, don't you think that might be the problem?