[Winstonm]

Quote

Yes, Obama needs to do a better job of cutting through the *****. He clearly underestimated the amount of ***** that right-wing hacks would throw

I believe we ALL underestimate how much the FCM (Fawning Corporate Media) has changed over time into nothing more than a propaganda machine.

[RichMor]

Winstonm, on Aug 20 2009, 10:58 AM, said:

Quote

Yes, Obama needs to do a better job of cutting through the *****. He clearly underestimated the amount of ***** that right-wing hacks would throw

I believe we ALL underestimate how much the FCM (Fawning Corporate Media) has changed over time into nothing more than a propaganda machine.

Winston,

I fear that you have fallen in to the trap again. It's the curse of your rationality to see motive and reason where there is only general dumbness and laziness.

It's not a 'machine', just a pack of blow-dried barking dogs.

RichM

[Winstonm]

RichMor, on Aug 20 2009, 12:13 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Aug 20 2009, 10:58 AM, said:

Quote

Yes, Obama needs to do a better job of cutting through the *****. He clearly underestimated the amount of ***** that right-wing hacks would throw

I believe we ALL underestimate how much the FCM (Fawning Corporate Media) has changed over time into nothing more than a propaganda machine.

Winston,

I fear that you have fallen in to the trap again. It's the curse of your rationality to see motive and reason where there is only general dumbness and laziness.

It's not a 'machine', just a pack of blow-dried barking dogs.

RichM

You are right, Rich.

It is their laziness to simply be stenographers and their stupidity in not challenging what is stated that allows the FCM to be manipulated into what is nothing more than a propaganda outlet.

[PassedOut]

Winstonm, on Aug 20 2009, 02:30 PM, said:

You are right, Rich.

It is their laziness to simply be stenographers and their stupidity in not challenging what is stated that allows the FCM to be manipulated into what is nothing more than a propaganda outlet.

But we consumers enable this by choosing "news" outlets that spew foolishness. Note the popularity of the Fox network.

It seems that all of this reflects the on-going "dumbing down" of the US, not just the reporters and news readers.

On the other hand, thoughtful people will draw the appropriate conclusion from the fact that healthcare opponents attack with phony arguments: they'd attack with substantive arguments if they could.

[Winstonm]

PassedOut, on Aug 20 2009, 02:46 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Aug 20 2009, 02:30 PM, said:

You are right, Rich.

It is their laziness to simply be stenographers and their stupidity in not challenging what is stated that allows the FCM to be manipulated into what is nothing more than a propaganda outlet.

But we consumers enable this by choosing "news" outlets that spew foolishness. Note the popularity of the Fox network.

It seems that all of this reflects the on-going "dumbing down" of the US, not just the reporters and news readers.

On the other hand, thoughtful people will draw the appropriate conclusion from the fact that healthcare opponents attack with phony arguments: they'd attack with substantive arguments if they could.

Those are good points. Me, I think it is simply another sign of the ending of empire. We are simply reliving Rome and its decline.

Our Nero built his new coliseum in Dallas - when the games begin in a few more weeks the only health the average American will care about is that of Tom Brady's knee, and with that distraction firmly in place we will get a watered down, wasteful health care reform bill that is exactly what the owners of the status quo of health care want it to be anyway.

Neither party can afford to alienate the power brokers - does anyone seriously believe that the Democrats would risk losing all the donations from the pharmaceutical companies and health insurance companies in order to do what was best for the country or their fellow man?

We are corrupted - hopelessly so.

[RichMor]

PassedOut, on Aug 20 2009, 02:46 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Aug 20 2009, 02:30 PM, said:

You are right, Rich.

It is their laziness to simply be stenographers and their stupidity in not challenging what is stated that allows the FCM to be manipulated into what is nothing more than a propaganda outlet.

But we consumers enable this by choosing "news" outlets that spew foolishness. Note the popularity of the Fox network.

It seems that all of this reflects the on-going "dumbing down" of the US, not just the reporters and news readers.

On the other hand, thoughtful people will draw the appropriate conclusion from the fact that healthcare opponents attack with phony arguments: they'd attack with substantive arguments if they could.

Yup, dead on.

What seems to be happening these days is:
1. Talking head on cable news (or AM radio) senses need for attention. Maybe its ratings are down.
2. The head makes some outrageous claim or uses some incendiary language.
3. Other pack members start barking, running in circles, peeing on themselves.
4. Mainstream media reports on this 'controversy'.
5. The head is invited to appear on weekend 'serious' talk shows.
6. Senators see talk show, repeat whatever head said.
7. Other 'serious' media repeats what the Senator said the head said.

After a few days the story gets cold and the cycle resumes at step 1.

I think this all true by am not Sure. I read the sports, the comics and the bridge column. I watch Moyers on Friday and Comedy Central the rest of the time.

RichM

[Al_U_Card]

Lets not forget "sleight of hand" and other diversionary tactics.

What has health care bumped off the public page? BANK BAILOUTS.

Bush-Obama sold your future down the river and right into the vaults of the financiers. How badly were they off, teetering on the brink, so to speak? Most of the bailoutees seem to be reporting huge profits. Its just off the front page while some people scream about death panels for gramma, you forget about death panels for your 401k.

[kenberg]

I suppose that I agree that the extreme right is nuttier than the extreme left. To the best of my knowledge, no left wing nut insisted on his right to bear arms when Bush was speaking. (Btw, I see that Squeaky Fromme is now out of prison, but she was an all purpose nut.) Still...

I see a broad problem of paralysis here. In 2005, fresh from his "landslide", Mr. Bush announced he would be addressing the problem of Social Security. OK, his ideas were perhaps not so great. But the fact is that nothing at all was done. And nothing will be done. Now we have healthcare reform. There are some nuts on the right of course, but there are some principled skeptics also. The nuts don't have the numbers to block it. But unless some leadership materializes to deal with serious concerns, this initiative will be will be taking a seat along with Social Security reform, energy initiatives, tort reform, etc etc etc.

Maybe it was always this way. In the 1950s we had Joe McCarthy, HUAC, the John Birch Society, and so on. Still, it seems that at least some Dems were capable of working with at least some Reps to get something worthwhile done. No longer the case, I guess.

My view is this: Costs are growing, the number of uninsured is growing, whether we are Republican or Democrat I think we might want to let our elected representatives know that we expect them to do something more constructive than call each other names.

[Al_U_Card]

May have to change the designation from:

Baby Boomers to Baby Busters...

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on Aug 20 2009, 03:48 PM, said:

Now we have healthcare reform. There are some nuts on the right of course, but there are some principled skeptics also. The nuts don't have the numbers to block it. But unless some leadership materializes to deal with serious concerns, this initiative will be will be taking a seat along with Social Security reform, energy initiatives, tort reform, etc etc etc.

I'm aware of principled skeptics who believe that the government should stay out of healthcare (as well as many other things, such as social security). And I know many folks skeptical of the ability of the federal government to accomplish the serious healthcare reform the US really needs.

But I don't know of any principled skeptic who believes that the current system is better than the reforms Obama wants. And all of the serious concerns I'm aware of reflect the worry that the congress will bend under pressure and not implement all of Obama's reforms -- particularly the efficiencies that will stop pumping easy money to campaign contributors.

It certainly is important for everyone to pressure our representatives to get this done. I talked directly with one of mine yesterday.

[Winstonm]

Al_U_Card, on Aug 20 2009, 03:33 PM, said:

Lets not forget "sleight of hand" and other diversionary tactics.

What has health care bumped off the public page? BANK BAILOUTS.

Bush-Obama sold your future down the river and right into the vaults of the financiers. How badly were they off, teetering on the brink, so to speak? Most of the bailoutees seem to be reporting huge profits. Its just off the front page while some people scream about death panels for gramma, you forget about death panels for your 401k.

Quote

Yet another poll, this time from the Washington Post and ABC News, shows that Americans are increasingly soured on the war in Afghanistan, with 51 percent saying the war is “not worth fighting” and only 24 percent supporting the Obama Administration’s escalation of the war.

Obviously the problem is that the 51% who say the war is "not worth fighting" simply do not own nearly enough Boeing and Lockheed stock so as to take advantage of the Bush capital gains tax cuts.

I could drone on and on about this, but the drones are busy wiping another Pakistan wedding party from the pages of time....

[Al_U_Card]

Lets see.....bring all the soldiers back and retrain them as hospital staff.....still there to fight "terrorism" and the money goes to the health system...win-win!

The defense industry can mass produce MRIs etc so no jobs lost there.


The fed won't make any debt service interest but the national debt will go down so the interest payment money can be used to top us Social Security!

Blackwater can provide "security" services to the "new" Afghani government.

Halliburton can rebuild Iraq for oil which will be traded back to the US to become cheap gas.

The future could be so bright, we'll all need shades.

[Winstonm]

Once again The Onion.com has nailed it: http://www.theonion.com/content/news/congr...e=most_pop_dugg

Quote

WASHINGTON—After months of committee meetings and hundreds of hours of heated debate, the United States Congress remained deadlocked this week over the best possible way to deny Americans health care.

"Both parties understand that the current system is broken," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters Monday. "But what we can't seem to agree upon is how to best keep it broken, while still ensuring that no elected official takes any political risk whatsoever. It’s a very complicated issue."

"Ultimately, though, it's our responsibility as lawmakers to put these differences aside and focus on refusing Americans the health care they deserve," Pelosi added.

[kenberg]

I am not entirely joking when I say that the Onion story should be required reading for everyone in the House and the Senate. Whatever the intent, the results of the current approach may well be exactly as described.

[Al_U_Card]

The only question remaining is contextual. Sarcasm? Hyperbole? Deadpan?

[RichMor]

This is an excerpt from a PBS Bill Moyers page:
Moyers link

Quote

Looking back over his long career, Potter sees an industry corrupted by Wall Street expectations and greed. According to Potter, insurers have every incentive to deny coverage — every dollar they don't pay out to a claim is a dollar they can add to their profits, and Wall Street investors demand they pay out less every year. Under these conditions, Potter says, "You don't think about individual people. You think about the numbers, and whether or not you're going to meet Wall Street's expectations."

The Moyers broadcast got a lot of response and PBS replayed it a few weeks later.

I think the qoute presents a powerful case for a 'public option' health insurance plan. Even if the leadership of private for-profit insurance plans are willing to reduce premiums and increase coverage, investor demands for ever increasing profits will drive the 'good Samaritans' out business.

RichM

[Winstonm]

Quote

"You don't think about individual people. You think about the numbers, and whether or not you're going to meet Wall Street's expectations."

This is the point I believe was missed by Adam Smith's concept of the "invisible hand" as well as by the simple-minded faith in selfishness promoted by Ayn Rand: greed obscures reason just as power corrupts.

In the health care debate, we are at a national crossroads: will we allow the status quo of rule by power brokers to continue or will we cast off the shackles of greed with a demand for a public option?

My bet is the ones who have the gold will once again make the rules - and Wall Street will be appeased.

[RichMor]

Winstonm, on Aug 21 2009, 11:25 AM, said:

In the health care debate, we are at a national crossroads: will we allow the status quo of rule by power brokers to continue or will we cast off the shackles of greed with a demand for a public option?

My bet is the ones who have the gold will once again make the rules - and Wall Street will be appeased.

Sorry I can't join you and Fidel and Che at the barricades

The sad truth is that the old Devil 'Wallstreet' will always be with us. All the widows and orphans, school teachers and firefighters, moms and pops, who have their retirement savings invested in the stock market want to get their money back with interest.

So the invisible hand will always be squeezing some company in its tender parts.

IMO a public health plan, insurance or direct care, will happen. The latest attempt might not get it done but I think the general mood of the public worries Big Insurance and Big Pharma enough to get them on board.

Let's just give Harry and Louise a little more time.

RichM

[Winstonm]

Quote

Sorry I can't join you and Fidel and Che at the barricades

Yes, but they had better health care plans.

The crux of the matter is who do we want to turn down our request for life-saving treatments - the powerful, self-serving insurance companies or the powerful, self-serving government politicians?

[RichMor]

Winstonm, on Aug 21 2009, 12:43 PM, said:

The crux of the matter is who do we want to turn down our request for life-saving treatments - the powerful, self-serving insurance companies or the powerful, self-serving government politicians?

Can't disagree with that.

Let me try and post something constructive and useful instead of the usual snarky drivel.

I have worked for a few insurance companies (as a software developer) over many years (I'm old). I don't have any direct experience with policy but I do know a bit about low-level operations and corporate culture.

Insurance, as an industry, was reliable and dull for many years. Money comes in as premiums and goes out as claims paid. As long as claims paid were not greater than premiums collected, an insurance company could survive and thrive. The profits came from interest earned on the money between the time the premiums came and the time the claims were paid.

Successful insurance companies emphasized efficient internal operations, sound underwriting, and prudent investment of funds held. And it's a volume business. If an insurance company earns a small yearly profit for each policy holder but has millions of policy holders, that's good.

The corporate culture I rememeber was honest, thirifty, and careful (and deadly dull). The company didn't have to screw policy holders in order to make a profit.

But times change. The classic insurance companies I worked for aren't around any more. The new breed of mega health companies(I work for one now) are out there competeing for investor money along with Starbucks, Sears, and Wal Mart.

So if you want to refer to 'the powerful self-serving insurance companies', that's OK with me. But realize that the Mother Teresa Health Companies will probably be taken over by Snidely Whiplash Associates - a subsidiary of Martha Stewart International.

A taxpayer funded public insurance plan won't be as motivated to achieve efficiency as an investor funded plan. But since a public plan won't have to show growing profits or die by the roadside, the public plan won't need to be 'self serving'.

RichM