View Full Version : Homeland Security monitoring journalists
It seems that the Department of Homeland Security is now monitoring, and collecting information on, journalists, reporters or anyone who may use “traditional and/or social media in real time to keep their audience situationally aware and informed.”
http://rt.com/usa/news/homeland-security-journalists-monitoring-321/
I think I need to change my username.
NYPD pulls the plug on OWS Global Revolution TV
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9pmyGlKoD4&feature=share
On Tuesday, NYPD arrested six individuals who ran OWS' Globalrevolution.tv. According to law enforcement, the place where the individuals inhabited was "imminently perilous to life" and was a threat to the inhabitant's health. Some say health concerns aren't the real issues and claim NYPD tactics are changing and they are now targeting individuals.
The weird thing about it is apparently they are not the only people living in the building but they were the only ones pulled out.
Why do you hate America, Alan?
"It was curious to think that the sky was the same for everybody, in Eurasia or Eastasia as well as here. And the people under the sky were also very much the same—everywhere, all over the world, hundreds or thousands of millions of people just like this, people ignorant of one another's existence, held apart by walls of hatred and lies, and yet almost exactly the same—people who had never learned to think but were storing up in their hearts and bellies and muscles the power that would one day overturn the world."
An intelligence organization that reads newspapers and blogs? Shocking!
"Even the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages was tolerant by modern standards. Part of the reason for this was that in the past no government had the power to keep its citizens under constant surveillance. The invention of print, however, made it easier to manipulate public opinion, and the film and the radio carried the process further. With the development of television, and the technical advance which made it possible to receive and transmit simultaneously on the same instrument, private life came to an end." Simple evolution.
ApatheticNoMore
1-11-12, 12:54pm
They are also spying on massive amounts of emails and phone calls. A government that reads our personal commuciation without a warrent? I think there is an ammendment to the U.S. consitution that violates something about "searches and seizures" I think. Shocking!
Why do you hate America, Alan?
Hate is a strong word and, in my case, doesn't apply to my country, but rather to the totalitarian and fascist segments of our government which are increasing in power daily.
"Whether he went on with the diary, or whether he did not go on with it, made no difference. The Thought Police would get him just the same. He had committed— would still have committed, even if he had never set pen to paper— the essential crime that contained all others in itself. Thoughtcrime, they called it. Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever. You might dodge successfully for a while, even for years, but sooner or later they were bound to get you."
ApatheticNoMore
1-11-12, 2:14pm
Hate is a strong word and, in my case, doesn't apply to my country, but rather to the totalitarian and fascist segments of our government which are increasing in power daily.
+1
(I'm careful with my words here. Say I'm describing U.S. military action, I'm tempted to use the word "we", but really "we", "we" all are commiting drone bombings or something? So then I am tempted to use the word "the U.S. government" but really, some clerk in the social security administration is doing drone bombings? So then I settle on "the U.S. military" and even that is broad, but figure I have significantly narrowed)
To make it easier, now they're proposing we all get a personal internet ID, http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-01-11/tech/30001472_1_national-id-card-big-government-smart-card.
If we keep this up at least we can be sure the folks at Homeland Security will have read Orwell.
Now that I think about it, who came up with the name "Homeland Security" anyway? It has a very 1930's, German-esque ring to it.
If we keep this up at least we can be sure the folks at Homeland Security will have read Orwell.
I just went to my profile page and saw that my visitor count was 1984. It seemed appropriate to provide a quote somewhere. :0!
To make it easier, now they're proposing we all get a personal internet ID, http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-01-11/tech/30001472_1_national-id-card-big-government-smart-card.
Did you guys all just move to China? Sounds eerily like what we deal with here...
lhamo
ApatheticNoMore
1-11-12, 5:47pm
Did you guys all just move to China? Sounds eerily like what we deal with here...
Perhaps that is the model we are following. But China has it's problems especially with pollution and so on.
But even here how easy is the environment really going to be to protect in a police state? The U.S. is still nominally democratic so that's a step up but ....
The good world even Obama apologists want, um, I HOPE I AM WRONG, but I think it's not going to be very easy to achieve in a police state. If everyone in the U.S. grasped all the implications I see they would not just fear (and I get where the fear is coming from - are we all going to be commiting thoughtcrimes now?) but also grieve over what has happened to their country.
The U.S. is still nominally democratic so that's a step up but ....
That's part of the problem, we're not supposed to be nominally, or by any other measure, democratic. We're supposed to be a constitutional republic, a nation of laws which are constrained by the limited powers granted by the constitution.
Many people, including our President, have expressed the view that the constitution is an out-dated document and not relevant in this day and age. Those people are the problem!
Indeed Alan.
And now for our Orwell-of-the-day:
Meaningless words. In certain kinds of writing, particularly in art criticism and literary criticism, it is normal to come across long passages which are almost completely lacking in meaning. Words like romantic, plastic, values, human, dead, sentimental, natural, vitality, as used in art criticism, are strictly meaningless, in the sense that they not only do not point to any discoverable object, but are hardly ever expected to do so by the reader. When one critic writes, "The outstanding feature of Mr. X's work is its living quality," while another writes, "The immediately striking thing about Mr. X's work is its peculiar deadness," the reader accepts this as a simple difference opinion. If words like black and white were involved, instead of the jargon words dead and living, he would see at once that language was being used in an improper way. Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable." The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements like Marshal Pétain was a true patriot, The Soviet press is the freest in the world, The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution, are almost always made with intent to deceive. Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality ...
George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," 1946
That's part of the problem, we're not supposed to be nominally, or by any other measure, democratic. We're supposed to be a constitutional republic, a nation of laws which are constrained by the limited powers granted by the constitution.
Many people, including our President, have expressed the view that the constitution is an out-dated document and not relevant in this day and age. Those people are the problem!
I seriously doubt that our President, who is in fact a constitutional scholar, thinks out constitution is irrelevant. The only ones irrelevant are those who insist on adhering strictly to a 200+ year old document in everything. In case no one noticed, this isn't 1776, as it turns out, and the constitution must evolve as society has evolved. That doesn't make it irrelevant, it just makes it more relevant.
Many people, including our President, have expressed the view that the constitution is an out-dated document and not relevant in this day and age. Those people are the problem!
It's my understanding that Jefferson himself thought that the Constitution should be re-written or reviewed every 20 years or so, "wary of the power of the dead over the living." Several notable politicians and scholars since have expressed some desire to re-write the document or do major overhaul.
Unfortunately in this day and age, I'm not sure that any of our politicians have the integrity for the task.
I seriously doubt that our President, who is in fact a constitutional scholar, thinks out constitution is irrelevant. The only ones irrelevant are those who insist on adhering strictly to a 200+ year old document in everything. In case no one noticed, this isn't 1776, as it turns out, and the constitution must evolve as society has evolved. That doesn't make it irrelevant, it just makes it more relevant.
I rest my case. Thanks!
On second thought, I can see that you may have the wrong impression of our constitution. It wasn't designed to give us rights, as you might believe, but rather to limit the specific authority of the state, forbid its agents from violating basic rights, and divide the government into distinct branches that would check and balance one another, preventing any single branch from amassing too much power and abusing its authority.
Typically, statists have found it to be confining, which is all the more reason to leave it alone.
ApatheticNoMore
1-12-12, 2:02am
I seriously doubt that our President, who is in fact a constitutional scholar, thinks out constitution is irrelevant.
He just votes that way.
What just went on (and has been a long time building - this country really needs to repudiate the whole direction it has taken since W if there is to be any hope) violates not just the oh so super special U.S. constitution but would actually violate the constitution of many other countries (all that were originally British and many others). For instance the provisions in the NDAA not only clearly violate the U.S. constitution (5th amendment due process and 6th amendment trial by jury), but also violate the Canadian constitution.
http://www.zeropaid.com/bbs/threads/63583-Why-the-NDAA-Would-Be-Unconstitutional-In-Canada
Now that may be kinda irrelevant if you're not Canadian, but it is interesting to note. These protections date back further than the Constitution (to the Magna Carta at least) and are way more widely adopted than by just the U.S..
Our Constitution does contain provisions for modifying it to meet changing needs. They've been used many times. Go ahead and use the specified procedure, don't just hang your hat on the "it's a 200 year old document" business....
It's pretty darned simple.
Now that may be kinda irrelevant if you're not Canadian, but it is interesting to note. These protections date back further than the Constitution (to the Magna Carta at least) and are way more widely adopted than by just the U.S..
They date back to some Roman law even. I minored in classics....
On second thought, I can see that you may have the wrong impression of our constitution. It wasn't designed to give us rights, as you might believe, but rather to limit the specific authority of the state, forbid its agents from violating basic rights, and divide the government into distinct branches that would check and balance one another, preventing any single branch from amassing too much power and abusing its authority.
It's an interesting, if frustrating, debate. I don't know how many times I've been in a discussion about basic human rights and how they are conveyed in society only to realize the person I'm talking to seems to believe there would be no rights without a government to bestow them. Unfortunately pointing that out usually ends the civil discourse.
It's an interesting, if frustrating, debate. I don't know how many times I've been in a discussion about basic human rights and how they are conveyed in society only to realize the person I'm talking to seems to believe there would be no rights without a government to bestow them. Unfortunately pointing that out usually ends the civil discourse.
It is an old argument. >8)
We don't necessarily need the government to grant us rights, but we do need them to protect our rights. My neighbor is a big, strong, young man. Without my government to protect my rights with laws and the court (police, etc..) he could just come over and take what I have. Or the store down the way could deny service to black people, or women, or blacks and women couldn't vote. Without that protection there are no rights except what I can get through power or money. Therefore, in a way, the government does grant us our rights.
Saying we are all born equal with equal rights granted to us by virtue of our birth is a little arrogant when you see the starving African squatting by the side of the road with his only possession a tin cup, and that's empty. Those who insist we are born with equal rights have the luxury of safety, food, shelter, and political freedom from which to make that statement.
Yes, this nation has changed from it's beginning, and we have carried the constitution and bill of rights along with us, as rightfully we should. It's only been in the fairly recent times that some want to go back to the very beginning and strictly adhere to what these old dead white men envisioned for a world where buggy whips were still an important industry.
Of course when you question them they say oh of course we'll keep equality for blacks and keep the vote for women and keep this and that...but no more! Which is kind of silly. Oh except of course for adding constitutional discrimination against gays cause, of course, THAT'S important enough to change the constitution.:(
Ron Paul is one who envisions such a world. Personally I think he is a bit of a nutter, but I can see how young people are drawn to his message, considering how EVERY 20-something believes he will be wildly successful and wealthy when he reaches retirement, in perfect health of course!
But, here's the thing. There is not one example, in this whole world, of such a society, successful, modern, happy, and productive as he proposes. Not one. If he could produce one, a good example, I'll look seriously at it. But a rich society without social safety nets, regulations, and privatized everything would be more like 1 half of one percent shark and 99.9% hapless bait-fish. :0!
Well, it is an old argument, but still an interesting one.
It is an old argument. >8) We don't necessarily need the government to grant us rights, but we do need them to protect our rights.
What sometimes makes it tricky seems to start with the very definition of "rights". There are human rights, or natural rights in some philosophical circles, that don't depend on the laws of any land. In fact, according to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights those inalienable rights (rings a bell, huh?) should serve to guide the laws of society that go on to bestow legal rights to the citizens of a society. The premise is that the human rights apply to all people regardless of who they are governed by. The legal rights are specific to a society and don't necessarily cross over political borders.
There are some rules that stand alone that no decent person would argue against. "No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms." That's Article 4 of the UN Declaration. The moral compass of everyone I know points the same direction on that one and several like it.
There are legal rights that are bestowed in documents like the Magna Carta, the US Bill of Rights, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, etc. Those are usually in the form of laws written to direct and protect the people in a particular society. Legal rights can be granted by the government, but they can also be taken away.
Then there are those things that seem to fall into a huge gray area. What is a right and what is a privilege granted simply by admission to a society? What do you have the right to expect from your fellow citizens? It's easy to say that you should expect that your neighbor won't rob you and that you will be given legal means to correct the situation if he does. But let's say you're flat broke and a tornado hits your house; should the government make carpenters fix it for you even if you can't pay for their service? Everyone wants their house to be repaired as needed, but do you actually have a right to have it repaired at someone else's expense? What about the rights of the carpenter to choose how much he charges, how he spends his time and who he works for? Doesn't he have the right to be compensated for his labor? Who's rights trump who's? Is it reasonable to think a government should be involved to force someone to make the repairs for you? Do we really want a government that would do that? Where would it end? Just food for thought.
There are human rights, or natural rights in some philosophical circles, that don't depend on the laws of any land.
I think in an abstract pure state of nature, we have no rights. Consider a solitary man washed ashore an uninhabited tropical island. Does he have a right to free speech? Well, what does that even mean in that context? Who would stop him from shouting to the winds? Does he have a right to food, shelter, and education? Again, what does that mean? To whom does he appeal in order to get his food to survive, his shelter to protect him from exposure, and his education on how to survive? There is nothing listening to his please but the wind, and it doesn't care.
Now, in a real state of nature, man is a social creature, and will not live in isolation successfully for any length of time.
So consider the case of two men washed ashore that island. Does either man have the right to free speech, or does the strongest man get to determine the conversation allowed? Why? The answer to this doesn't depend on "natural rights", it depends on the morals of the participants, and ultimately, force. Does one man get to assert his claim to a right to food and shelter, and force the other man to provide it for him? Why or why not?
Expand it to three men, and assume they decide to vote on all issues. Do two voices get to prevail against the third fellow? Democracy is good, right? So when two of the men decide that all citizens of their new island society have the right to a "fair share" of all the fruit gathered on the island, and the third guy, who does 90% of the fruit-gathering while the other two paint cave art all day, objects to the arrangement, is that OK?
To me, there's an essential moral difference between rights which are expressed as freedoms from interference in your activities, and rights that are "rights to have XXX", where "XXX" is a service or good that must be provided at the cost of somebody else's labor, extracted against their will by force.
So I think before you get into rights, you have to have a discussion about morals.
I base my morals on some pretty simple propositions: it is "wrong" to initiate the use of force against another, except in self-defense, and that you should include all affected interests when calculating the rightness of an action, and weigh those interests equally. Singer's "Practical Ethics" is an interesting treatment of this way of thought.
What sometimes makes it tricky seems to start with the very definition of "rights". There are human rights, or natural rights in some philosophical circles, that don't depend on the laws of any land. In fact, according to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights those inalienable rights (rings a bell, huh?) should serve to guide the laws of society that go on to bestow legal rights to the citizens of a society. The premise is that the human rights apply to all people regardless of who they are governed by. The legal rights are specific to a society and don't necessarily cross over political borders.
There are some rules that stand alone that no decent person would argue against. "No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms." That's Article 4 of the UN Declaration. The moral compass of everyone I know points the same direction on that one and several like it.
There are legal rights that are bestowed in documents like the Magna Carta, the US Bill of Rights, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, etc. Those are usually in the form of laws written to direct and protect the people in a particular society. Legal rights can be granted by the government, but they can also be taken away.
Then there are those things that seem to fall into a huge gray area. What is a right and what is a privilege granted simply by admission to a society? What do you have the right to expect from your fellow citizens? It's easy to say that you should expect that your neighbor won't rob you and that you will be given legal means to correct the situation if he does. But let's say you're flat broke and a tornado hits your house; should the government make carpenters fix it for you even if you can't pay for their service? Everyone wants their house to be repaired as needed, but do you actually have a right to have it repaired at someone else's expense? What about the rights of the carpenter to choose how much he charges, how he spends his time and who he works for? Doesn't he have the right to be compensated for his labor? Who's rights trump who's? Is it reasonable to think a government should be involved to force someone to make the repairs for you? Do we really want a government that would do that? Where would it end? Just food for thought.
This is kind of a straw man gregg. Your example is trying to paint some evil slippery slope we are on, but we're not. Kind of like those who want to pass legislation to ban sharia law, when no one is trying to pass sharia law. It's a false distraction. If you have a real example of this forced labor for a lazy few path you think we're taking, then give it. Give a real example, cause it's hard to discuss hypothetical when it's not a real world example. Are you trying to equate food stamps, for instance, with forcing a carpenter to rebuild my house for free? Are you comparing basic health care to forced labor/slavery?
Sure, no decent person believes in slavery, yet, in some countries slavery is commonplace. Where are those people's inherent rights? Again, this is a philosophical idea that doesn't really have application in the real world.
To me, there's an essential moral difference between rights which are expressed as freedoms from interference in your activities, and rights that are "rights to have XXX", where "XXX" is a service or good that must be provided at the cost of somebody else's labor, extracted against their will by force.
At least as far as the current debate in this country that's really what it boils down to, isn't it? Well said. We should be able to agree that coercion is always wrong.
This is kind of a straw man gregg. Your example is trying to paint some evil slippery slope we are on, but we're not. Kind of like those who want to pass legislation to ban sharia law, when no one is trying to pass sharia law. It's a false distraction. If you have a real example of this forced labor for a lazy few path you think we're taking, then give it. Give a real example, cause it's hard to discuss hypothetical when it's not a real world example.
I disagree about the strawman peggy because I think there are some very real examples available. Hypothetical examples just tend to cause less of a ruckus, but what the heck, lets get all the way pregnant. Healthcare. If I am critically injured in a car wreck and have no money and no insurance and no other way to pay back the costs to patch me up do I have a right to expect that someone will take care of me anyway? What if I slip into a diabetic coma and my diabetes stems from my 12 Big Mac per day habit? What if I'm 97 years old and my organs are failing simply because they're worn out? What if I'm a HIV positive junkie dying because my heroin was cut with rat poison? I say no, I do not. The slope may not be slippery just yet, but there are lots of cactus on it.
Healthcare providers work hard, study long and take significant financial risks to be in the position to provide care. They have every right to expect compensation when they provide their service. Just like a carpenter or a teacher or a pilot. The fact that the service healthcare workers provide could save your life still doesn't give anyone a right to take that service through any type of coercion, government sponsored or otherwise.
That is ALWAYS the point where folks on the left start kicking up dust, but its only 1/2 the story. To say that we shouldn't expect anyone to provide their service to anyone at any time even for free if that person can't pay DOES NOT MEAN that it shouldn't be provided. Ours is a wealthy, compassionate and humane society. In the example above I should receive care because we are the kind of people that WANT to provide it. I know of no mainstream conservative voices saying anything different because there aren't any. The disconnect comes when we can't agree on the best way to pay the providers for services rendered to citizens who can't afford to pay so someone gets riled up and determines that the service HAS to be provided, even for free, or else the providers risk their livelihood or even jail time. That is coercion it is immoral and it is wrong. It places the full burden of responsibility on exactly the wrong people.
ApatheticNoMore
1-13-12, 8:48am
I'm quite prepared to defend civil liberties on pragmatic, historical and humanist grounds. And hey on pragmatic grounds natural rights theory actually worked pretty well historically :).
And hey where the U.S. is heading, historically um this does not not end well. Putting the government entirely above the law, this does noto tend to end well. Is the human race capable of learning? That is a rhetorical question, but is the human race capable of learning in some broad sense, beyond just technically and scientifically, and seeing hey some patterns of behavior and social organization don't lead anywhere but horrors. Throwing civil liberties out the window, especially things as basic as we are talking about, yea that ends nowhere good.
But you want to argue slippery slopes and whether the flapping of a butterfly wing in China affects a hurricane in Florida. I say in reality the U.S. has already slid ALL THE WAY down the slippery slop but hey you can start waiting for people to be imprisoned in mass without trials. The U.S. is already fascist. But people will say well fascism was technically an early 20th century movement, relying on populism, and mysticism and so on. And right they are. But it is a darn good, if way overused, term to describe the full blown police state on the march, which actually is what we have here.
I wake up and I don't recognize the country in which I find myself. It's all our own darn fault for not having stopped this earlier, it is my fault too, for not having done enough. I live with that troubled conscience for sure, that it has gotten to this point. Should have stopped it with the Patriot act at least, for sure. Should have marched in the streets when pictures of torture came out (I merely got depressed). Should have done more. But is the human race capable of learning? Is it capable of stopping authoritarianism on the march? Does anyone ever see it until it is too late? Is the American culture one of deep denial on many levels? I don't know. Heck seems many people don't even see it now when it seems only too clear!!
I totally see the argument in the other thread for denying the beast money NOW (really like yesterday, the beast that is the U.S. government is out of control). But of course I get lost in the whirlwind of my own life. I spend lots of money improving my job skills because I'm still in some sense fighting the last battle and recovering from my own personal unemployment, even though far bigger things are at stake (and hey it only took me two months since I started job searching to find a job, so I was tramatized beyond what was reasonable there frankly). If I had my way I'd be perfectly fine paying for social security if I could just defund the wars, and homeland security and etc. (ie I wish I lived in another country!!!!! I'll take social democracy and raise you one habeus corpus) but ... the U.S. is so far progressed toward fascism that .... this particular government, how do we even reform it? And so Amnesty and Human Rights Watch and on and on go crazy. But hey we here in the U.S. think things are just wonderful, don't we?
At least as far as the current debate in this country that's really what it boils down to, isn't it? Well said. We should be able to agree that coercion is always wrong.
I disagree about the strawman peggy because I think there are some very real examples available. Hypothetical examples just tend to cause less of a ruckus, but what the heck, lets get all the way pregnant. Healthcare. If I am critically injured in a car wreck and have no money and no insurance and no other way to pay back the costs to patch me up do I have a right to expect that someone will take care of me anyway? What if I slip into a diabetic coma and my diabetes stems from my 12 Big Mac per day habit? What if I'm 97 years old and my organs are failing simply because they're worn out? What if I'm a HIV positive junkie dying because my heroin was cut with rat poison? I say no, I do not. The slope may not be slippery just yet, but there are lots of cactus on it.
Healthcare providers work hard, study long and take significant financial risks to be in the position to provide care. They have every right to expect compensation when they provide their service. Just like a carpenter or a teacher or a pilot. The fact that the service healthcare workers provide could save your life still doesn't give anyone a right to take that service through any type of coercion, government sponsored or otherwise.
That is ALWAYS the point where folks on the left start kicking up dust, but its only 1/2 the story. To say that we shouldn't expect anyone to provide their service to anyone at any time even for free if that person can't pay DOES NOT MEAN that it shouldn't be provided. Ours is a wealthy, compassionate and humane society. In the example above I should receive care because we are the kind of people that WANT to provide it. I know of no mainstream conservative voices saying anything different because there aren't any. The disconnect comes when we can't agree on the best way to pay the providers for services rendered to citizens who can't afford to pay so someone gets riled up and determines that the service HAS to be provided, even for free, or else the providers risk their livelihood or even jail time. That is coercion it is immoral and it is wrong. It places the full burden of responsibility on exactly the wrong people.
Ah, but gregg, Obama and the democrats DID have a solution to this moral problem! Universal health care. Yes, we are a compassionate nation and yes you shouldn't die in the street just because you are poor or I disapprove of your life style. This is a part of being a mature nation. Do we wave our fists and damn the poor/wretched while they die in some back alley, or do we accept the fact that they will always be with us and we need to take care of them because they, for whatever reason, can not or will not take care of themselves.
No one...absolutely NO ONE is trying to make doctors and nurses work for free. No one! That is the straw man part. These professionals are not being forced to labor for free. They are getting paid, they are. And it's usually the government who is paying them, but in a very inefficient, back door kind of way. Because we can't bring ourselves to provide health care when they first get sick, we wait until they are very sick, or near death, then spend way more money trying to fix in the emergency room what probably could have been taken care of earlier and cheaper.
Maybe you see the need to take care of these people but did you watch the republican debate where Ron Paul said the poor slob in the coma should basically die because he didn't have the forethought to buy insurance. The audience cheered. They did. Universal health care is a solution to the problem, and one that has shown to work the world over. No need to re-invent the wheel. We have the model already. But I have listened to the republicans long enough to know they don't want a solution that involves them. Their solution is get sick and die, or take care of yourself, or Evey man for himself. So saying 'republicans' want everyone to have basic health care is just not true. And a major telling of that is the sadly comical way in which Mitt Romney is trying desperately to distance himself from his own health care program THAT WORKS! It works, and the people of Mass like it, and would not give it up if given the choice.
If republicans were truly wringing their hands over this moral problem of how to take care of these poor wretched people, don't you think they would be looking to, and indeed thrilled with their front runner candidate who just happens to have put such a SUCCESSFUL program in place? Sorry, but this 'concern' for WE THE PEOPLE just doesn't pass the smell test. (you know of course gregg I'm not talking about you. Or most republicans on this board, but I don't think this board is a true representation of average citizens)
Ah, but gregg, Obama and the democrats DID have a solution to this moral problem! Universal health care.
How is that moral?
I would say that we each have a moral responsibility to our families, friends and neighbors, but what is moral about the government forcing that responsibility onto us? And, if the government can force us to purchase an insurance product, what keeps them from forcing us to purchase an electric car or energy credits or whatever else some preferred portion of the population is selling?
Do you really believe the government should be in the business of morality?
How is that moral?
I would say that we each have a moral responsibility to our families, friends and neighbors, but what is moral about the government forcing that responsibility onto us? And, if the government can force us to purchase an insurance product, what keeps them from forcing us to purchase an electric car or energy credits or whatever else some preferred portion of the population is selling?
Do you really believe the government should be in the business of morality?
No one is going to be forced to buy insurance, although there will be tax implications if you don't. On the other hand I was forced to contribute to a $4 trillion dollar exercise in what eventually boiled down to "morality" in the Middle East.
No one is going to be forced to buy insurance, although there will be tax implications if you don't. On the other hand I was forced to contribute to a $4 trillion dollar exercise in what eventually boiled down to "morality" in the Middle East.
I would question the concept of morality playing a part in our Middle East adventures, but if it was, is that justification to continue being forced in other areas?
And is that justification to continue being forced in other areas?
Which area? No one is going to be forced to buy insurance. If I don't contribute to my 401k, the government is going to take part of it taxes - it doesn't mean they are forcing me to contribute to my 401k.
Government is awful at marketing - if they had framed it as a tax credit for having insurance instead of a penalty for not having it, it would be viewed very differently.
Which area? No one is going to be forced to buy insurance. If I don't contribute to my 401k, the government is going to take part of it taxes - it doesn't mean they are forcing me to contribute to my 401k.
Bad example, the government doesn't force you to pay a penalty for not contributing to your 401k.
Government is awful at marketing - if they had framed it as a tax credit for having insurance instead of a penalty for not having it, it would be viewed very differently.
I must say, I've seen convoluted reasoning before, and the government is really good at, but I had no idea it worked on so many people.>8)
Bad example, the government doesn't force you to pay a penalty for not contributing to your 401k.
They could have done a better job - if the penalty had been directed to go back to hospitals to cover uninsured ER costs, it would have closed the loop.
No one...absolutely NO ONE is trying to make doctors and nurses work for free. No one! That is the straw man part. These professionals are not being forced to labor for free. They are getting paid, they are.
I know that's not the desired outcome, but its not a strawman either. Individuals are usually getting a pay check, but their employers aren't. There isn't much sympathy for big healthcare on these boards, but no one can argue that those companies take significant financial risks to provide their service. Everything connected with healthcare is expensive so if you want top level care you should expect to pay top dollar for it. Problem comes when there are so many people using that system with no means to pay for it. The burden to treat those people does not fall on the government, it falls on the companies that provide the service. They can either spread the cost across their paying customers or they can go out of business, but the government has already removed the option where they can cut their expenses.
Yes, we should be able to take care of everyone in our society. But like Alan, I really do worry about the government being able to require citizens to purchase a product. That truly is a slippery slope. The end result of caring for our citizens does not justify any means of getting there. Besides, if the goal is universal health CARE why do we need universal health INSURANCE? It's just one more unnecessary layer of government...
Yes, we should be able to take care of everyone in our society. But like Alan, I really do worry about the government being able to require citizens to purchase a product. That truly is a slippery slope. The end result of caring for our citizens does not justify any means of getting there. Besides, if the goal is universal health CARE why do we need universal health INSURANCE? It's just one more unnecessary layer of government...
That was because the single payer option was thrown out.
No one is going to be forced to buy insurance.
To be totally fair that is correct, at least so far. Still, it seems like a very small step to go from penalizing those who opt out to simply removing that option in a legal sense. The only resulting difference is that the penalty would likely be more severe in the latter case.
It is pure sophistry to pretend that "penalizing those who opt out" is not a use of force.
If I opt out, and refuse to pay the penalty, eventually if I refuse long enough, men with guns will show up to kill me for resisting. That's raw naked force, dressed up nicely as "a penalty"...
When is it acceptable to use force against another?
To be totally fair that is correct, at least so far. Still, it seems like a very small step to go from penalizing those who opt out to simply removing that option in a legal sense. The only resulting difference is that the penalty would likely be more severe in the latter case.
So far it's worked ok in MA. From a personal perspective, the only difference to me (I receive health insurance through my employer) is I have to file a 1099-HC with my state taxes.
They could go the other way and remove the mandate for hospitals to provide ER regardless of the ability of a person to pay, which would greatly reduce medical spending in this country - but would be much more severe.
It is pure sophistry to pretend that "penalizing those who opt out" is not a use of force.
If I opt out, and refuse to pay the penalty, eventually if I refuse long enough, men with guns will show up to kill me for resisting. That's raw naked force, dressed up nicely as "a penalty"...
When is it acceptable to use force against another?
The same applies to taxes in general.
It is pure sophistry to pretend that "penalizing those who opt out" is not a use of force.
If I opt out, and refuse to pay the penalty, eventually if I refuse long enough, men with guns will show up to kill me for resisting. That's raw naked force, dressed up nicely as "a penalty"...
When is it acceptable to use force against another?
Enquiring minds want to know! :laff::laff::laff:
How is that moral?
I would say that we each have a moral responsibility to our families, friends and neighbors, but what is moral about the government forcing that responsibility onto us? And, if the government can force us to purchase an insurance product, what keeps them from forcing us to purchase an electric car or energy credits or whatever else some preferred portion of the population is selling?
Do you really believe the government should be in the business of morality?
Well, Alan, if you had read Greggs post that I was answering, you would have seen that he tried to say the republicans really really did want to fulfill this moral obligation to help their fellow man, and I just provided the answer to that moral dilemma. Of course, if you don't consider it a moral obligation of a progressive, rich, modern nation to take care of their own, then you wouldn't understand that.
And if it isn't the responsibility of our government to look after the interest of WE THE PEOPLE, then what is the point?
I know that's not the desired outcome, but its not a strawman either. Individuals are usually getting a pay check, but their employers aren't. There isn't much sympathy for big healthcare on these boards, but no one can argue that those companies take significant financial risks to provide their service. Everything connected with healthcare is expensive so if you want top level care you should expect to pay top dollar for it. Problem comes when there are so many people using that system with no means to pay for it. The burden to treat those people does not fall on the government, it falls on the companies that provide the service. They can either spread the cost across their paying customers or they can go out of business, but the government has already removed the option where they can cut their expenses.
Yes, we should be able to take care of everyone in our society. But like Alan, I really do worry about the government being able to require citizens to purchase a product. That truly is a slippery slope. The end result of caring for our citizens does not justify any means of getting there. Besides, if the goal is universal health CARE why do we need universal health INSURANCE? It's just one more unnecessary layer of government...
By cutting expenses, do you mean letting folks die at the ER door? Is that the cutting expenses you are talking about?:(
We need insurance because those caring republicans put up such a fuss (and Obama didn't fight for it) they tossed out single payer plan. Why is it so hard to understand, everyone pays according to their ability and every one gets covered? This ain't rocket surgery!
Now, about the government requiring everyone to purchase a product, well, that argument doesn't really hold up under scrutiny. You must purchase auto insurance to drive, you must purchase a child car seat for kids under a certain age/weight. (Although I don't think they will SHOOT you for not buying a car seat like they will SHOOT you for not paying your taxes, you will get fined quite a bit) The government requires a whole raft of things, some cost and some don't (some they will shoot you over, others they won't) so this argument doesn't really hold water.
And now, apparently the government is going to require you to purchase an ID in some states, to pursue your constitutionally protected right to vote! Why aren't you screaming about that! Where's the outrage for that! You want to talk about something that's an outrage! Demanding people buy a product for a problem that does not exist, in order to exercise their constitutional right is an outrage! At least everyone...EVERYONE would benefit from health care.
Well, Alan, if you had read Greggs post that I was answering, you would have seen that he tried to say the republicans really really did want to fulfill this moral obligation to help their fellow man, and I just provided the answer to that moral dilemma.
I believe that all citizens would like to fulfill a "moral obligation to help their fellow man", the question is, what gives the government the authority to require it under penalty of law? I believe the government is our servant, not our master.
Of course, if you don't consider it a moral obligation of a progressive, rich, modern nation to take care of their own, then you wouldn't understand that.
Our nation is not a proper surrogate for our individual obligations.
And if it isn't the responsibility of our government to look after the interest of WE THE PEOPLE, then what is the point?
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Gee, it would seem the FOUNDING FATHERS didn't have a problem with requiring the citizens to purchase a product!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.
An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.
I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.
I believe that all citizens would like to fulfill a "moral obligation to help their fellow man", the question is, what gives the government the authority to require it under penalty of law? I believe the government is our servant, not our master.
Our nation is not a proper surrogate for our individual obligations.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
so, you don't think we should have SS, medicare, medicaid, regulations concerning clean water, safe food, clean air, good interstate system, regulations on the airline industry, etc...
So you'll agree that every citizen has not only the right, but the obligation to bear arms? :laff:
So you'll agree that every citizen has not only the right, but the obligation to bear arms? :laff:
Under the 2nd Militia act of 1792, not only obligated, but required by government to go out and acquire them (personal mandate?)
"That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes."
Added: Peggy, somehow I missed your post on this :-O
By cutting expenses, do you mean letting folks die at the ER door? Is that the cutting expenses you are talking about?:(
Yes. I've already said as clearly as I know how that I don't think we, as a society, should let that happen so I'll move past the moralizing. The problem comes in how we address responsibility. The government has, using nothing short of coercion, forced health care providers to take any and every patient that comes to them regardless of the impact on that provider. The government is treating the corporate entities that provide healthcare as if they were individuals and forcing them to adopt a moral code or suffer the consequences. 1) They are not individuals, a corporation is simply a construct, and 2) the government is not qualified to define morality, and 3) the government has no business doing so even if it were qualified. Its the wrong approach to get to the right goal. The end may be similar, but the means really do matter.
If you want the truth I'm not completely opposed to a single payer system and think we should explore ways to make it feasible. Continuing to borrow to fund it is not feasible, that's my objection to Mr. Obama's version. If that part can be worked out in a sane manner its worth talking about.
You must purchase auto insurance to drive, you must purchase a child car seat for kids under a certain age/weight.
Dangerously close to a strawman there peggy. ;) Owning a car and driving are optional activities. So is hauling your kids in the car with you. It might not be convenient, but you still have the choice to opt out at any time. You aren't required to have auto insurance if you elect to not have a car. I suppose you could argue that we all have a choice to stop breathing, but that does seem to take the whole notion a bit too far, don't ya think?
Dangerously close to a strawman there peggy. ;) Owning a car and driving are optional activities. So is hauling your kids in the car with you. It might not be convenient, but you still have the choice to opt out at any time. You aren't required to have auto insurance if you elect to not have a car. I suppose you could argue that we all have a choice to stop breathing, but that does seem to take the whole notion a bit too far, don't ya think?
The breathing thing does go a bit too far - but no is required to earn the level of income that would require one to buy health insurance or face penalties under Obamacare, either.
I believe that all citizens would like to fulfill a "moral obligation to help their fellow man", the question is, what gives the government the authority to require it under penalty of law? I believe the government is our servant, not our master.
I personally believe we each individually have a moral obligation to render aid to others, unless in doing so we sacrifice something of greater moral significance.
I also believe we do not have any moral standing to force any other individual to step up and render aid against their will.
Consider: If my neighbor's home is burning, I will go over and with all my skill and experience, help him as best I can, within the bounds of safety. I will work with my neighbors voluntarily before any fire to provide for clearing of brush and road building and fire breaks for safety, organize a fire company, purchase it equipment and training, and so on.
I will not however storm into another neighbor's house and point a gun at him, and demand he turn out of bed to come help put out a fire. Nor will I demand that he show up at our volunteer fire department planning meetings, or take money from his pockets against his will to fund our efforts.
Nor should you be required, under penalty of law, to expose yourself to situations that will cause certain harm to aid a neighbor. If you make the conscious choice to do so that is another matter entirely.
I personally believe we each individually have a moral obligation to render aid to others, unless in doing so we sacrifice something of greater moral significance.
I also believe we do not have any moral standing to force any other individual to step up and render aid against their will.
Consider: If my neighbor's home is burning, I will go over and with all my skill and experience, help him as best I can, within the bounds of safety. I will work with my neighbors voluntarily before any fire to provide for clearing of brush and road building and fire breaks for safety, organize a fire company, purchase it equipment and training, and so on.
I will not however storm into another neighbor's house and point a gun at him, and demand he turn out of bed to come help put out a fire. Nor will I demand that he show up at our volunteer fire department planning meetings, or take money from his pockets against his will to fund our efforts.
Agreed!!
Yes. I've already said as clearly as I know how that I don't think we, as a society, should let that happen so I'll move past the moralizing. The problem comes in how we address responsibility. The government has, using nothing short of coercion, forced health care providers to take any and every patient that comes to them regardless of the impact on that provider. The government is treating the corporate entities that provide healthcare as if they were individuals and forcing them to adopt a moral code or suffer the consequences. 1) They are not individuals, a corporation is simply a construct, and 2) the government is not qualified to define morality, and 3) the government has no business doing so even if it were qualified. Its the wrong approach to get to the right goal. The end may be similar, but the means really do matter.
If you want the truth I'm not completely opposed to a single payer system and think we should explore ways to make it feasible. Continuing to borrow to fund it is not feasible, that's my objection to Mr. Obama's version. If that part can be worked out in a sane manner its worth talking about.
Dangerously close to a strawman there peggy. ;) Owning a car and driving are optional activities. So is hauling your kids in the car with you. It might not be convenient, but you still have the choice to opt out at any time. You aren't required to have auto insurance if you elect to not have a car. I suppose you could argue that we all have a choice to stop breathing, but that does seem to take the whole notion a bit too far, don't ya think?
You forget gregg, coporations ARE people. The supreams said so.
On the one hand you say we should take care of everyone, but then you say ER's should be able to turn anyone away because they can't pay. So, ethical obligations verses the bottom line. I guess money wins. Sad. You know the cure for that. Require that everyone who can, pay for insurance. But then you still have those unlucky slobs who still can't afford it. I guess we can let them die. Or maybe, just maybe, if everyone who can, carries coverage, then federal monies can be targeted to those who are truly in need. Of course, it would have been better if, say, there was a way to have everyone put into a big pot and whenever anyone needed care, the money would be there, cause not everyone would need care at the same time. Gee, think something like that could work? ;)
The government defines morality all the time! Don't murder. Remember? And Row V Wade? Seems there are plenty of folks who want the government to be the morals police in overturning that. And let's not forget the group who wants to make discrimination against gays constitutional cause it's against their morals. And prayer in school. How many want that little bit of moralizing shoved down our darlings throats. Oh I can come up with dozens of ways your party wants the moral authority to rewrite laws. Stem cell research! Here's something that would benefit us all, but is blocked because of the 'moral outrage' of those on the right. Kind of goes against that one duty on Alans list. The one about promoting science and knowledge.
Yes, you can opt out of driving, but you can't opt out of life, until you, well, opt OUT of life. And despite your unfair assessment of our medical personnel's motives in this country, I know they don't begrudge treating that accident victim because he can't pay. He isn't being forced to treat that patient. No one is forcing him to work at that hospital. He could go into private practice and refuse all the people he wants. Or not practice at all. Just like your car example, practicing medicine is an optional activity and his choice. He doesn't have to work as a doctor.
I do agree with you on single payer. It is the way to go, I've said all along. It's is the only fair, equitable, and yes moral way for a progressive, modern, compassionate nation to go. And it doesn't care if you are republican, democrat, birther, woodsman, whatever. We all breath, we all age, and we all will need medical care at some point in our lives. All of us. Every blessed one. See, how many other things in this life are so fair!:)
I personally believe we each individually have a moral obligation to render aid to others, unless in doing so we sacrifice something of greater moral significance.
I also believe we do not have any moral standing to force any other individual to step up and render aid against their will.
Consider: If my neighbor's home is burning, I will go over and with all my skill and experience, help him as best I can, within the bounds of safety. I will work with my neighbors voluntarily before any fire to provide for clearing of brush and road building and fire breaks for safety, organize a fire company, purchase it equipment and training, and so on.
I will not however storm into another neighbor's house and point a gun at him, and demand he turn out of bed to come help put out a fire. Nor will I demand that he show up at our volunteer fire department planning meetings, or take money from his pockets against his will to fund our efforts.
Yeess....I agree.
Except this doesn't really have anything to do with this discussion because no one is forcing anyone to render aid against their will.
Boy, you people sure have a low opinion of medical personnel in this country. You do know that ER work is an actual career path for doctors and nurses. They actually specialize in ER medicine. These folks are getting paid, and last i looked not one is chained to the gurney. And really, they don't use rusty needles on the indigent out of spite.
flowerseverywhere
1-14-12, 12:53am
Yeess....I agree.
Except this doesn't really have anything to do with this discussion because no one is forcing anyone to render aid against their will.
Boy, you people sure have a low opinion of medical personnel in this country. You do know that ER work is an actual career path for doctors and nurses. They actually specialize in ER medicine. These folks are getting paid, and last i looked not one is chained to the gurney. And really, they don't use rusty needles on the indigent out of spite.
You know this is a great post. I am a retired RN. 35 years in the business. I don't know anyone in the business who based their care decisions on ability to pay. Most really hate the "bean counters" aka government and insurance but really liked their jobs and their patients. Most physicians get out of medical school with really big big loans. And to work them off they often take extra shifts at the ER, work long hours on their feet doing tricky surgical procedures and on the side provide free care in clinics or to just released prisoners. If you are not in the biz you have no idea how many people daily work long hard hours and do everything they can to provide care. Add to that constant learning to keep up certifications and liscences as well as attorneys who will do anything to make a buck. Watch daytime TV recently? the amount of lawyer ads are astonishing. "ever take this medicine, ever have this procedure... if so call 1-800-screwyourmd and I'll make you rich.
But back to the original post. The thing I can't understand is how we can be perplexed that the government is tracking journalists. The American people stood by when Guantanamo prisoners were held without trial. There are detention centers where "illegals" are held without proper representation and they are pretty much hidden from view. As long as we stand by and let atrocities happen they will spread and happen to many more.
Boy, you people sure have a low opinion of medical personnel in this country.
Au contraire peggy. If you read closely you will see that exactly the opposite is true meaning that statement really is your proverbial strawman. There is no doubt in my mind that almost any medical professional would make the conscious choice to help anyone in need. But we are not talking about the moral obligation felt by individuals. We need to pay very close attention to those four little words, "make the conscious choice". What those good people would choose to do is a given. It is the fact that the government holds a gun to their head and tells them they WILL render aid or else (!) that is the problem. Again, the end result might be nearly the same, but the road leading there is quite different.
So, ethical obligations verses the bottom line.
The two are not in opposition the way some would like to believe. As a little tag onto flowerseverywhere's post, it is worth mentioning that much of the charitable work being doled out by medical staffs is being done in facilities they did not build, with equipment they did not pay for, aided by drugs they did not buy, etc. The labor is only one aspect of a "free" clinic or other charitable program. Like them or not, those profit driven, evil empires of the healthcare world make some pretty substantial resource donations in a lot of places. And they do it without anyone telling them they have to.
ApatheticNoMore
1-14-12, 12:18pm
But back to the original post. The thing I can't understand is how we can be perplexed that the government is tracking journalists. The American people stood by when Guantanamo prisoners were held without trial. There are detention centers where "illegals" are held without proper representation and they are pretty much hidden from view. As long as we stand by and let atrocities happen they will spread and happen to many more.
What did you do? Contacting congresspeople, letters to the editor, protesting, financially supporting organizations fighting for what you believe in (the ACLU etc.)? I only really did the latter for several organizations and only to a small degree, and I engaged in online political discussion, but you know that's mostly done for amusement (or really I do it partly to clarify my own thoughts) rather than changing minds really, since it seldom does.
My eye really hasn't been on the civil liberties ball since Bush really. If it was on any ball besides my own life it was just building community, non-capitalist, non-governmental (for the most part although local government could help) cooperative community, because hey the DC politicans weren't dealing with many fundemental issues (oil dependency and the economic decline resulting there from etc.), and so we had to take it into our own hands. And so yea I admit I awake in shock when I find fascists goosestepping down my street (that's metaphorical for now not literal yet :~)). If my eye had been on the civil liberties ball all throughout the Obama administration I might not. It is one thing when the politicans are refusing to REALLY deal with many fundamental issues (environmental issues, peak oil, debt, economic collapse) but when they impose fascism on us as well, oh good grief. I mean really the oblivious politicians make problem solving hard enough as is (don't see any small scale solutions to say global warming), but the fascism makes it near impossible on every level for everything (plus scares the @#$@ out of anyone who sees what is going on). I didn't expect that. And feel as guilty as most, for the state of the world.
You know this is a great post. I am a retired RN. 35 years in the business. I don't know anyone in the business who based their care decisions on ability to pay. Most really hate the "bean counters" aka government and insurance but really liked their jobs and their patients. Most physicians get out of medical school with really big big loans. And to work them off they often take extra shifts at the ER, work long hours on their feet doing tricky surgical procedures and on the side provide free care in clinics or to just released prisoners. If you are not in the biz you have no idea how many people daily work long hard hours and do everything they can to provide care. Add to that constant learning to keep up certifications and liscences as well as attorneys who will do anything to make a buck. Watch daytime TV recently? the amount of lawyer ads are astonishing. "ever take this medicine, ever have this procedure... if so call 1-800-screwyourmd and I'll make you rich.
But back to the original post. The thing I can't understand is how we can be perplexed that the government is tracking journalists. The American people stood by when Guantanamo prisoners were held without trial. There are detention centers where "illegals" are held without proper representation and they are pretty much hidden from view. As long as we stand by and let atrocities happen they will spread and happen to many more.
And thank you for your service! I do know lots of medical people, several in my family, and not one feels a gun to their head! They all work long hours and really do care for their patients. i know some people think doctors and nurses do it for the money, but I've been there when they lost a patient, even one that was expected to die. They may seem all business at work, but they are very much emotionally invested.
Au contraire peggy. If you read closely you will see that exactly the opposite is true meaning that statement really is your proverbial strawman. There is no doubt in my mind that almost any medical professional would make the conscious choice to help anyone in need. But we are not talking about the moral obligation felt by individuals. We need to pay very close attention to those four little words, "make the conscious choice". What those good people would choose to do is a given. It is the fact that the government holds a gun to their head and tells them they WILL render aid or else (!) that is the problem. Again, the end result might be nearly the same, but the road leading there is quite different.
The two are not in opposition the way some would like to believe. As a little tag onto flowerseverywhere's post, it is worth mentioning that much of the charitable work being doled out by medical staffs is being done in facilities they did not build, with equipment they did not pay for, aided by drugs they did not buy, etc. The labor is only one aspect of a "free" clinic or other charitable program. Like them or not, those profit driven, evil empires of the healthcare world make some pretty substantial resource donations in a lot of places. And they do it without anyone telling them they have to.
gregg, are you really saying ERs should be able to turn people away? Heart attack patients? Car accidents? Really? I find that pretty horrific. Where would they go? I mean really, where would they go?
If a man was beating and raping your daughter, and another man saw it and did nothing, is that ok? Even if he knows the rapist would then turn his violence on him? Would you say the second man had no obligation to render aid? Is this where we are setting the bar now?
#1, no ER nurse or doctor has a gun to their head to treat anyone cause this is what they do. They treat people and I'm pretty sure they would be highly offended by the suggestion that they are being forced to treat people.
#2, I don't ever want to hear about the 'values vote' again cause, if this is the party line, there are no values there. From cheering a man dying cause he didn't buy insurance to booing a gay soldier, that branding that was so carefully cultivated is totally out the window. And the moral majority are apparently the democrats/liberals.
Some things in life are simply not negotiable. I can't necessarily list them, but I sure know them when I see them. And thank goodness our government agrees.
So you'll agree that every citizen has not only the right, but the obligation to bear arms? :laff:
Well, according to this act all males should!:0! I do believe there have been some states who actually wanted to enforce this! But then, in my neck of the woods, I think most have guns already, so people here are well within the law! ;)
gregg, are you really saying ERs should be able to turn people away? Heart attack patients? Car accidents? Really? I find that pretty horrific. Where would they go? I mean really, where would they go?
Actually that was one of the primary reasons Reagan signed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act and put the mandate on hospitals to provide emergency treatment - patients who couldn't pay were pushed from one facility to another untreated until literally some of them died.
It's a very different world now - many of the county/charity type hospitals that took these people back then are gone.
Actually that was one of the primary reasons Reagan signed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act and put the mandate on hospitals to provide emergency treatment ...
Thank you creaker, that is exactly the type of legislation we are talking about.
If a man was beating and raping your daughter, and another man saw it and did nothing, is that ok? Even if he knows the rapist would then turn his violence on him? Would you say the second man had no obligation to render aid? Is this where we are setting the bar now?
Does the witness have a moral obligation, as a human being, to do something if he is able? Yes. Does he have the right to first consider his own safety, or that of his family, before deciding on a course of action? Yes. Does he have the right to not get involved if that is his choice? Yes. Should our government legislate morality by telling him he has to intervene? No. Heros are NOT created through legislation.
You need to step back from the sensationalist claims that would have us believe the uninsured would be dying in droves in hospital parking lots. Even if they would (they wouldn't) its not what this argument is about and it has NOTHING to do with what choice medical personnel would make on their own. There is a very unique difference between the government passing laws to dissuade people from doing harm (murder, rape, etc.) and passing laws telling them they have to do good.
They treat people and I'm pretty sure they would be highly offended by the suggestion that they are being forced to treat people.
Offended or not, they ARE being forced, or rather their employers are being forced, to treat people. See creaker's reference above. Why do you insist on making the front line medical folks, the doctors and nurses, into martyrs of some kind? Theirs is NOT an accidental profession. My family includes two doctors, three nurses, one about-to-be-doctor (resident) and two with medical administration positions so I get to hear quite a bit about such topics. They are, without fail, compassionate and caring people. They are not, and would never consider themselves to be, some kind of soldiers in a war for government induced morality.
Gregg,
Do you think things like police, fire, national guard, etc. should be limited in scope to things like law enforcement, protecting property, preventing fires from spreading to other structures, etc. and not be expected to do things like provide assistance or save lives? How about the expected obligations placed upon positions like teachers? Or parents?
Creaker, I appreciate where you're heading, but need to answer in a few parts....
First: police officers, firemen, (public school) teachers, the National Guard, social workers, etc. are public servants. I have no problem with the idea that their expected conduct should be spelled out by the members of the society who pay them for their service. Since, in theory, all citizens pay into the pool that is used to supply the services it is logical and correct to take measures to insure those services are provided equally to anyone in need and at least up to the minimum standards deemed appropriate and/or necessary by the society.
Second: parents are COMPLETELY different than teachers. Parents are NOT public servants. If the society decides evolution is the correct approach toward teaching our kids and I decide I want to teach creationism to my kids would you have me locked up or would you concede that I have a right to teach my kids the way I see fit? The society has every right to decide what it wishes a publicly supported curriculum to teach, but I maintain it has no right to tell me, as a parent, what I can and can't teach my kids away from school.
Third: lab techs, hospital administrators, chiropractors, dental hygienists, neurosurgeons, ER nurses, hospital chaplains... none of those, outside of a few government institutions like the VA, are public servants. Just as important, if not even more so, most hospitals, private clinics, doctor's offices and almost all other healthcare facilities are NOT public facilities. They are private. Privately built and owned, privately funded, privately administered and operated. Just like the government has no business coming into my home and telling me what to teach my kids, it has no business coming into someone's office and telling them how to conduct their business. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not an emergency room staff is morally obligated treat someone who is hurt. No, the moral outrage SHOULD be directed at the interference by the government into private lives.
Maybe the primary issue then is that hospitals should be more along the lines of public institutions if the expectation is they will provide public services?
That certainly is one of the more lucid options on the table. There are, of course, reasonable arguments for and against. Being on the side of smaller government my own preference involves trying to find a solution through the markets. Starting from where we are right now it would be difficult to absorb the healthcare system into the government with anything short of a Hugo Chavez approach. Nothing is perfect, but I do think our healthcare system works pretty well. We just need to get more people participating in it.
That certainly is one of the more lucid options on the table. There are, of course, reasonable arguments for and against. Being on the side of smaller government my own preference involves trying to find a solution through the markets. Starting from where we are right now it would be difficult to absorb the healthcare system into the government with anything short of a Hugo Chavez approach. Nothing is perfect, but I do think our healthcare system works pretty well. We just need to get more people participating in it.
:help:
That certainly is one of the more lucid options on the table. There are, of course, reasonable arguments for and against. Being on the side of smaller government my own preference involves trying to find a solution through the markets. Starting from where we are right now it would be difficult to absorb the healthcare system into the government with anything short of a Hugo Chavez approach. Nothing is perfect, but I do think our healthcare system works pretty well. We just need to get more people participating in it.
Personally I would lean towards placing healthcare in the same category of critical public service that the gov't should provide, along with fire departments, police, etc. The thing in common is that they all deal with life and death issues. If one doesn't think that the government should be providing healthcare services, then it's easy to see how one would think that we should all be hiring private security forces and fire brigades. The only reason that no one (or very few people) think this, is because police and fire departments became public services a long time ago. If we had gone with a gov't single payer healthcare option back in the 40s or 50s, like most every other first world country, we would probably not think anything of it now, anymore then we do fire departments and police departments. We would just accept it as normal.
An argument could be made that healthcare workers require much more training/education etc, and that that is expensive and/or that because of that those people deserve to be paid well. I won't disagree. So if we have public healthcare then lets make sure they get paid appropriately for what they do.
An argument could be made that healthcare workers require much more training/education etc, and that that is expensive and/or that because of that those people deserve to be paid well. I won't disagree. So if we have public healthcare then lets make sure they get paid appropriately for what they do.
That is very true and certainly part of the equation. I have not seen any research along the lines of what it would cost or save if all medical school and training was subsidized by the tax payers. I'm guessing we can't afford to do it*, but that is only a guess. As long as nurses are coming out of school $30K in debt and doctors $150K+ (just to target the two most obvious of the hundreds of healthcare positions) I don't see any fair way to nationalize healthcare.
*Whether we can afford it or not is something that seems to get lost on alot of people who passionately argue in favor of initiating a full plan, right now. It really does matter.
If we had gone with a gov't single payer healthcare option back in the 40s or 50s, like most every other first world country, we would probably not think anything of it now, anymore then we do fire departments and police departments. We would just accept it as normal.
By that reasoning I suppose that if in 1787 the founders had simply submitted for ratification a constitution which clearly laid out their plan to allow the federal government to benevolently rule it's subjects, and had that constitution then received approval from the several states, we'd all be happier, healthier and wiser.
By that reasoning I suppose that if in 1787 the founders had simply submitted for ratification a constitution which clearly laid out their plan to allow the federal government to benevolently rule it's subjects, and had that constitution then received approval from the several states, we'd all be happier, healthier and wiser.
And by your reasoning the person who was behind on their fire department insurance should have to stand there and watch their house burn down unless their neighbors are generous enough to come running over with buckets and hoses.
And by your reasoning the person who was behind on their fire department insurance should have to stand there and watch their house burn down unless their neighbors are generous enough to come running over with buckets and hoses.
Not at all, fire departments are funded, or not, locally. Do you want the federal government to be in charge of all local governance/services as well?
And by your reasoning the person who was behind on their fire department insurance...
Would that be taxes?
Would that be taxes?
Actually around 1787 firefighting wasn't a public affair - it was the realm of private insurance companies.
Actually around 1787 firefighting wasn't a public affair - it was the realm of private insurance companies.
Interesting. I did not know that.
Actually around 1787 firefighting wasn't a public affair - it was the realm of private insurance companies.
That's not entirely accurate. Private fire brigades abounded, although it was sometimes a risky affair responding to a structure fire as only the first brigade on the scene was paid by insurance companies.
The first public fire department was founded in what is now New York in 1648.
That's not entirely accurate. Private fire brigades abounded, although it was sometimes a risky affair responding to a structure fire as only the first brigade on the scene was paid by insurance companies.
The first public fire department was founded in what is now New York in 1648.
From what I could I find that was the appointment of 4 fire wardens - the beginnings of government intrusion and regulation (they inspected chimneys and fined those not up to code :-)
ETA: it looks like the first volunteer fire department was formed in 1737 - firefighters had militia duty and some other thing waived by volunteering, they were fined if they did not show up to a fire.
http://books.google.com/books?id=ubGf6Z15CiIC&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=New+Amsterdam+fire+warden&source=bl&ots=Ji41cZ4Kvd&sig=bJlzL_LNi8cTLcNJWZB2gUVP3-Q&hl=en&sa=X&ei=V6MVT8OnAeux0QH8z9S8Aw&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=New%20Amsterdam%20fire%20warden&f=false
Interesting. I did not know that.
Also see:
"The Voluntary City: Choice, Community, and Civil Society", Beito, Gordon, Tabarrok
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51QndJKTkaL._SL500_AA300_.jpg
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.