Althouse: "[I]is striking to come back — from the world of controlled media and not-always-accurate 'official truth' in China..."

August 10, 2009

"[I]is striking to come back — from the world of controlled media and not-always-accurate 'official truth' in China..."

"... and see the world's most mature democracy, informed by the world's dominant media system, at a time of perceived economic crisis and under brand new political leadership, getting tied up by manufactured misinformation. No matter what party you belong to, you can't think this is a sign of health for the Republic."

With a chilling reference to state-controlled media in China, James Fallows bemoans free speech.

237 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 237 of 237

garage mahal said...: Just once cite Hoosier. Your blabbing this constantly. But it always seems your side hasn't read it based on the horseshit arguments being offered. Or they can't read at all, which seems equally possible.; 8/10/09, 12:39 PM
Fr Martin Fox said...: Synova:

I understand about the swastika sign.

I used to work in politics, and whenever there was any kind of demonstration, someone always seemed to show up, with a hand-lettered sign, using a swastika--or SS lettering--in such as way as you describe: their thought being to emphasize what they were against, which was anything smacking of fascism, or in the case of pro-life demonstrators, anything smacking of killing people. It was never someone who thought, gee, I love the swastika, and I'm sure everyone else will too.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. Any competent organizer knows that such symbols are too radioactive; it simply didn't matter what point the person was making. If I were organizing a demonstration outside the Hitler restaurant (not kidding--in India, I believe, some dope thought that was a good idea), I still wouldn't do a swastika with the red-circle symbol. Too radioactive. (And Pelosi's use of it makes my point.) Whatever way it took, I'd get that sign out of the earnest person's hands and get it out of sight.

I worked on the right side, but I'm pretty sure the same thing happens on the left.

My point was, such a thing shows me that it's not all "astroturf."; 8/10/09, 12:39 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Fine garage, here's your cite.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51610

I'm sure you'll say that Conyers really didn't say that of course.; 8/10/09, 12:42 PM
Daryl said...: It's "chilling" to Mr. Fallows that when Americans look at a "public option" that Obama wants "competing" with private insurance, and when they hear Barack Obama say that he wants single-payer but we'll have to get there slowly, that Americans think we're heading towards government health care.

It's "chilling" to Mr. Fallows that government-run health care, to most Americans, means rationing, cost overruns, and other nasty side effects.

He's so smart that he knows none of this is true. (snicker.) And he's going to get up and say that we're not just mistaken, but we're misinformed to the point of ignorance, and that stupidity like ours risks totalitarianism (because it threatens our freedom of speech).

He wants to shut us up in order to save free speech, and puts in a good word for the ChiCom system.

Liberal Democrats hate Republicans more than they hate fascists--but we already knew that.; 8/10/09, 12:49 PM
Synova said...: Fallows is quoting someone else... Pearlstein?

"-- whether we can trust ourselves to embrace the big, important changes that require everyone to give up something in order to make everyone better off. Republican leaders are eager to see us fail that test."

I know several people quoted this. It illustrates very well something I've had discussions about elsewhere lately and I wanted to mention it.

On the surface of it it has that socialist vibe. Redistribution. Some people don't think that's so bad. And really, I suppose, it might not be except for the other part... "require everyone."

Not, ask or persuade or take up an offering, but require everyone.

People who are concerned about government coercion and loss of (even more) liberty, including those who show up at town halls with anti-fascism signs are not responding to something that isn't very real.

On some level the need to coerce cooperation is recognized... by Pearlstein, by Fallow,.. it's recognized at some level and accepted. And that means a loss of liberty. It means getting everyone on the same page and working for the same goal because the whole business really will not work unless everyone is required.

And everyone will NOT be willing for no reason more complicated than that we are humans with diverse opinions and understandings.

Require everyone.

That *is* fascism.; 8/10/09, 12:51 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Require everyone.

That *is* fascism.

Now that we have an administration that is asking its supporters to send them emails informing them of dissenting opinions on Obamacare I'd say we're better than halfway there.; 8/10/09, 1:00 PM
Synova said...: "My point was, such a thing shows me that it's not all "astroturf.""

I know. I was just being pedantic.

Trying to portray the Tea Party movement as astroturf does violence to the English language. Frankly, I doubt that ANY of it is astroturf.

The claims are made without any evidence that I've seen. How hard could it be to follow the money trail? It's not hard to find out how much MoveOn (for example) is raising to pay to hire counter-protesters nor is it hard to identify calls from the leadership of labor unions to show up and shut up Tea Partiers and others.

Astroturf has to mean more than a locally organized e-mail list and twitter account.; 8/10/09, 1:01 PM
Balfegor said...: garage, the morons claiming they haven't read the fucking bill are from your favorite party.

Shocked to see no examples.

Conyers. I think there are others, although most of them are a lot less upfront about it.; 8/10/09, 1:02 PM
Fr Martin Fox said...: "Astroturf" = what bad people do.
"Community organizing" = what good people do.; 8/10/09, 1:04 PM
BJM said...: Uh-oh, ObamaCare is losing Kaus.; 8/10/09, 1:04 PM
garage mahal said...: Conyers is an idiot for saying what he said, no doubt.; 8/10/09, 1:05 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: Conyers is an idiot for saying what he said, no doubt.

Well no shit Sherlock. Kinda makes the point you claim I was blabbing about.; 8/10/09, 1:07 PM
Big Mike said...: @garage, just when I was starting to think I liked you. Dang!

Here's the problem I have, garage. Nearly the only factual material I have concerning the healthcare bill is coming from the conservative side. What do I get from the other side? Well, "Jack" threw out an egregious ad hominem attack on the Professor. "Peter S" does the same, at greater length. And all garage can say is "you are stupid."

But that's pretty much the same thing that Fallows is doing, isn't it? He makes ad hominem attacks on Betsy McCaughey. There is a pointer to Steve Pearlstein, but all Pearlstein can do is keep repeating the following pattern: opponents of healthcare reform say X, but X is bullsh*t. Pearlstein is as devoid of facts as Fallows, yet Fallows was calling for a facts-based discussion. Where are the facts?

The version of the bill that seems most likely to pass is HR 3200. You can read it here. The section that has people most concerned is number 1233. The leftist commentators are correct in saying that there is nothing in there called a "death panel" (there wouldn't be, would there now?) but there is a call-out for a panel that "is guided by a coalition of stakeholders includes representatives from emergency medical services, emergency department physicians or nurses, state long-term care association, state medical association, state surveyors, agency responsible for senior services, state department of health, state hospital association, home health association, state bar association, and state hospice association" with the goal of establishing a "program for orders for life sustaining treatment for a States described in this clause is a program that ... (III) provides training for health care professionals across the continuum of care about the goals and use of orders for life sustaining treatment".

So far, so good, but now take a closer look at the wording of this section, because the point as I read it is that the "continuum of care ... for life sustaining treatment" seems to include orders for life termination. Someone else may read it otherwise, but Section 5(B) spells out a number of conditions under which life-susteaining treatment will be ended.

Further chilling, to my reading, is the section on "Quality Reporting Initiative," which doesn't explicitly call for quotas on end-of-life care, but certainly establishes the framework for quotas. As I've said elsewhere, Affirmative Action wasn't supposed to create quotas, but for a long time it did. And Title IX wasn't supposed to mandate quotas, but in practice it certainly has.

I'm not a doctor, I'm not a lawyer, I'm just an ordinary run-of-the-mill mathematician. So I am well-trained in logic, and what I read logically frightens me more than a bit.; 8/10/09, 1:13 PM
Balfegor said...: Uh-oh, ObamaCare is losing Kaus.

Kaus has been against the approach used to sell the health care bill from the very start -- he didn't like the emphasis on cost-cutting (even if that's what ends up happening), because that's exactly what makes people think the government is going to use its various councils and advisory committees and whatnot to ration health care. The bill's advocates chose to take that tack, recognising -- correctly, I think -- that they were extremely vulnerable on the cost issue, after the stimulus bill and the huge deficits we're running this year. Kaus clearly doesn't think the trade-off was worth it.

As I understand him, Kaus would prefer that Congressional Democrats have rammed through something getting full coverage, now. Once they got that in place, over the next few years, it would be politically impossible to cut back from full coverage. And after that . . . well, I don't think he's all that concerned about exploding costs, because it's natural for a rich society to pay more money for goods it values (i.e. health). That's more or less what's suggested by that one graph showing veterinary spending and health spending rising in tandem.; 8/10/09, 1:16 PM
BJM said...: Here's another link to the house bill in XLM linked in an article by Charles Lane in Saturday's WaPo. (loads quickly and has search); 8/10/09, 1:23 PM
Hoosier Daddy said...: I've said elsewhere, Affirmative Action wasn't supposed to create quotas, but for a long time it did. And Title IX wasn't supposed to mandate quotas, but in practice it certainly has

What was that adage about hell and good intentions? ;-)

I simply have little faith that the government can run a health care system with any degree of efficiency. And don't bring up the 'hugely popular' Medicare which is on track to becoming insolvent in 2018. I simply have no faith that the spending projections for this plan are even remotely accurate considering the vaunted cash for clunkers program was out of money in a week that was supposed to last until November. If I was in charge of forecasting at my company with that kind of performance I'd be joining the other millions who are out of work.; 8/10/09, 1:33 PM
garage mahal said...: Big Mike
I don't know what language in this bill that would be any different than any language from your current insurance provider. I guarantee your plan has "continuum of care ..or life sustaining treatment" as part of its package. Do you also find that "chilling"? Your plan already makes all kinds of life and death choices for you. My plan dictates how many syringes and test strips are allotted for my diabetic child, in a best case daily scenario, no corrections if her blood sugar is high or any need to test her blood sugar more than some insurance bureaucrat deems necessary.; 8/10/09, 1:35 PM
Scott M said...: @garage

That your daughter is a diabetic truly sucks and I can empathize (that would make me a SC candidate, no?). However, if what you say is true about your insurance's stipulations regarding syringes and test strips is true, you have really crappy coverage. My wife's employer offers what I would consider crappy coverage and even they offer better diabetic care.

This is yet another reason we opted for the HSA.; 8/10/09, 1:42 PM
garage mahal said...: Scott, thanks. Yes it does suck and my insurance sucks even more. And expensive as hell.; 8/10/09, 1:48 PM
Chennaul said...: Big Mike and BJM thanks for the links.; 8/10/09, 1:50 PM
BJM said...: I followed Mickey's link to: An Inconvenient Truth About The "Death Panel".

Jacobson makes an excellent point:

"To exclude the issue of allocating resources away from the elderly and infirm from the debate over "cost cutting," however, ignores the ethical elephant in the room. Let's have the debate, and understand specifically how resources would be reallocated, before any vote on a health care restructuring bill.

And before we create a commission to make such decisions for us, let's consider whether we should outsource these ethical issues or deal with them as part of the political process."

The likelihood of not reaching a consensus that is favorable to Pelosi-Care is exactly why we're not having a broad-based public commission and/or forum on health care reform.; 8/10/09, 1:58 PM
Roger J. said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8/10/09, 2:01 PM
Scott M said...: @garage

If it's expensive as hell and you want to agitate for a federal solution to the health care problem, why not simply start incrementally with removing all of the state roadblocks to national competition among the insurance companies?

This step alone would reduce costs and remove the unfunded mandates all of the states place in between the providers and the consumers. You shouldn't have to pay for a plan that includes coverage for end-of-life care if you're a 20-something with a young family, for instance, but that's essentially what some states require.

Do this first. Address tort reform and frivolous law suites second. If those two things don't move the cost of health care much, then go with your more draconian measures. In the mean time, let's try rational approaches already proven to work.; 8/10/09, 2:01 PM
BJM said...: Garage, we have a diabetic in our family as well. When our insurer refuses to refill scripts or supplies in advance (due to travel or extra testing), we pay out of pocket too. It's not fair, but as you well know, there is really no choice.

Ironically, our insurer constantly nanny's us about managing diabetes and will pay for a $3000 educational course on lifestyle and diet, but not extra test strips.

There is no guarantee that you will not find the same issues with a govt regulated/provider system as I suspect refill guidelines will pretty much follow the private model to contain costs.; 8/10/09, 2:14 PM
Alex said...: The leftist meme is "all other civilized countries do single-payer", but they conveniently ignore the horror stories. Every day you hear a new one from the UK. All you have to do is read their newspapers.; 8/10/09, 2:16 PM
garage mahal said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8/10/09, 3:03 PM
garage mahal said...: I know right....unbelievable. Her A1C tests have all be real good, perhaps due to checking blood sugars and extra correction shots. Sounds like you're in a very similar situation as mine.; 8/10/09, 3:04 PM
BJM said...: Big Mike, did you notice who is not among the "stakeholders"?

We, the people. With government calling the shots who will advocate for us? The same representives who wrote this POS and want us to STFU?; 8/10/09, 3:08 PM
knox said...: We must demand day after day after day that Dems prove big govt is better than small govt.

Yes. And it's an uphill battle: we've reached a point where using the government to solve every "problem" is the default solution. We are even struggling with our republican representatives to stop gov't growth.

To quote DBQ... "We are so screwed."; 8/10/09, 3:20 PM
Scott M said...: @garage & BJM

Here's the one that really has me up in arms. My wife has had asthma since she was a teenager. It's fairly benign and doesn't really effect our lives, but that's now when she's 30. Could be vastly different later in life.

I read recently that our $5 inhalers are going to be going to increase to as much as $50 because one of the gases has been linked to global warming!

Apparently the same Martians ruining Mars with their SUVs (the bastards), are also asthmatics. I suppose that makes sense given the millibars, but what do I know (lol).; 8/10/09, 3:20 PM
knox said...: garage,

an HSA will definitely help.; 8/10/09, 3:23 PM
knox said...: .... money (that's never been taxed) set aside for extra expenses.

Our insurance is good, but has a high deductible. Our HSA covers any unexpected, high expense. It even came with a debit card, so is very easy to use.

Sorry about your daughter, I totally understand your anger and frustration.

If I thought people like you would be served by this plan I would not be against it. I honestly don't.; 8/10/09, 3:25 PM
BJM said...: Garage, same here, A1c below 6.0, glucose level in the zone, over all health excellent. Go figure.

However, I honestly don't believe adding the govt to the mix will improve our situation. I worry it will become more difficult for diabetics (Asthmatics/COPD patients are in a similar fix) as cost saving averages across the groups.; 8/10/09, 3:40 PM
garage mahal said...: Thanks Knox

BJM: 6.0 A1c is near perfect, can I ask how old your family member is? Mine is 7rs, and the best score we've had is 7.1. Which her doctor always says are good scores for a diabetic her age. Never heard a good explanation on the age factor. Anyways I hate this fucking disease white hot 24/7 burning passion.; 8/10/09, 4:13 PM
The Dude said...: I have to buy medicine that cost $240/week. Do I like spending my own money? Not so much. But I do it - because that's the kind of guy I am. There is no discount, I qualify for no programs, and given the choice between money and health, even a Jack Benny fan, such as myself, will part with the money and buy the medicine.

I really detest liberal whiners.; 8/10/09, 6:34 PM
Big Mike said...: @garage, I'm very sorry about your child. Juvenile diabetes is pretty nasty.

But, here's the problem I have with your support for HR 3200. You seem to be assuming that it would give you what your child needs, but what if it doesn't? Are you aware of any federal program that doesn't become bogged down in endless rules and minutia? Frankly my going in assumption is that under Obamacare you are more likely to find arbitrary rules that deny your child the test strips than under private insurance. And at least under the present situation there is hope that you can move to a better plan; when we've got single payer there will be no hope whatsoever.; 8/10/09, 7:26 PM
Ann Althouse said...: "Does Althouse .. and Meade get Rush on the radio up there in Colorado?"

I subscribe to the website and download the podcast here or elsewhere.; 8/10/09, 8:38 PM