Buzz Out Loud Lounge: flag@whitehouse.gov
This would have been a better plan...
by Slikkster - 8/23/09 10:20 AM In reply to: This group might be somewhat self-sorting by DangMIHad the White House simply setup a website countering their idea of the myths of the reforms, there would have been no brouhaha about it. In other words, had they handled it by saying "If you get an email from someone with misleading and untrue information about our proposed reforms, please respond to them and point them to the following website address: www.whitehouse.gov/myths", as an example.
Yup--that sounds much better.
by DangMI - 8/23/09 10:40 AM In reply to: This would have been a better plan... by SlikksterThis why they should ask us what to do--they could save a lot of heartache for themselves <g>
Tho, in all fairness, what you describe seems very close to language they have on the website. It says "Update", so I have no idea when it actually went up, but either way this kind of resource is closer to what I thought was going on, although I originally thought they were answering the individual initial email as well. (Not spamming everyone as someone else thought I was saying.) Probably that was naive of me--I have no idea the volume of mail they were getting--might have overloaded the intern(s) and then we'd hear about how they were pulling the plug on interns!
I doubt the intent was to contact these people directly
by minimalist - 8/23/09 10:21 AM In reply to: This group might be somewhat self-sorting by DangMIthrough email. Spam works because 1 out of 1000 people may buy something. Screw the rest of the people you irritate. They weren't your customers to begin with, right? But most people hate spam and the last thing a politician wants to do is **** off potential supporters. 1 out of 1000 id not the kind of success rate you want in politics.
But the fact remains that the political email underground is where the action is these days. Ignoring it can make or break a campaign. And no, all this info can't just be gleaned from blogs. Messages mutate and lies are built upon lies until the final message bears little resemblance to the original. Anybody who visits Snopes.com and sees who urban legends mutate will understand this basic fact. And guess what? That site would not be able to counter these lies unless people forwarded them the chain emails they received. I guess we just should assume Snopes is building an "enemies list" too?
And I don't believe there are only self-sorting and non-self sorting people in the world. There are many shades of gray. In fact I'd argue that most people fall into those shaded areas. its just that the extremes are the most vocal. The shades of gray are who you have to reach. Big deal if the hard left and hard right true believers see what they want to see. That's always been true but they are really the minority. The battle has always won in the middle.
Invalid comparison
by Slikkster - 8/23/09 3:36 PM In reply to: I doubt the intent was to contact these people directly by minimalistSure, Snopes does a great job of myth-busting the urban legend emails out there. But to the best of my knowledge, Snopes doesn't have an axe to grind in the public policy debate over health care. They are not the advocates of one side or the other. <b>That's what gives them credibility.</b>
The White House is certainly not the unbiased purveyor of information in this debate. I pointed out earlier via sound clips that the President has made --shall we say-- evolving comments about "single payer" health care. Now, we can all take away from those comments what we will, but the point is that the White House is not the place I want to go for all the "facts" about anything, any more than I want to get said facts from Sarah Palin or the RNC.
And as to the ongoing argument about the political email underground, I just don't buy that it IS underground whatsoever. The administration and the Democratic party apparatus is comprised of hundreds of thousands (if not more) of people. Are we to think that any number of these individuals aren't getting these emails as a matter of course? And the blog sites DO post these emails. Daily Kos members certainly do, and with regularity. Again, I'm just not buying that somehow the White House isn't very aware of what's out there. It just doesn't pass the reality test with me. There's no need for anyone to forward emails to them when their own people are <u>undoubtedly</u> recipients.
No I don't agree with that
by Nicholas Buenk - 8/23/09 10:39 AM In reply to: That's exactly the point... by SlikksterI think they are started in email, blogs, twitter and discussions online. That is the source, the mainstream then takes up what sticks
So yes it's very likely the talking points are actually coming from someones email and then they transitioning to the mainstream.
And it makes sense that the administration would want to look at the source or, at least get an idea of what talking points people are relaying to each other.
The simplest answer is usually the correct one IMO
by minimalist - 8/23/09 8:05 AM In reply to: This is an internet era by Nicholas BuenkThe more overwrought and conspiratorial the explanation gets the further away from reality it moves.
This is most likely just an attempt to keep on top of dirty, under-the-radar email chain main propaganda that wasn't very well thought through from a privacy standpoint.
Only a fool would not want to know what kind of lies are floating around out there that could hurt their ability to lead effectively. Just like companies avoid Twitter and other forms of social networking at their own peril, politicians ignore the power of viral chain mail and blog posts at their own peril.
They just need to find a better way to gather this information without what looks like a major privacy faux pas. No matter how ethical they try to be however, there will always be a contingency out there there who will twist the facts and scream bloody murder about it to create a furor. Usually they get paid to do so: http://www.newmajority.com/talk-radio-gets-angrier-as-its-revenues-drop
In Australia, my country
by Nicholas Buenk - 8/21/09 8:42 PM In reply to: Seriously? by SlikksterTake this as an example. There is a public and private option, 45% of Aussies have private insurance still. And the public option is basically Medicare for everyone, it's even called Medicare here. So how to the private insurances stay in business? First of all there is an extra tax to use Medicare if your income is above a certain level. Secondly government gives you a 30% rebate on private insurance. Thirdly Medicare has quite limited basic coverage, private insurance gives you better hospitals better doctors, plenty of people still are on it.
It does keep the insurers more honest, they know they have to now offer more services than Medicare does.
Sounds like a great system
by Slikkster - 8/22/09 6:14 AM In reply to: In Australia, my country by Nicholas BuenkNicholas,
The Australian system sounds like a very effective model, and it appears that it does accomplish the goal of keeping private insurance in line with other user options without totally driving them out of business. Unfortunately, that's not what's being proposed here.
I wish just once someone would ask the President the following question: "Mr. President, let's say we have a public option in place along side private insurance. You've said over and over that the public option will operate on a not-for-profit model, but would keep the private insurers in line by forcing them to lower their costs. Assuming both the public option and private insurance have wrung out all the inefficiencies they can and are now offering exactly the same coverage. How is it possible that a private insurer --who needs to make a profit to survive-- can compete against a public insurer that doesn't need to tack on that extra margin? If I'm a consumer, why in the world would I pay $1000 for a plan when I can get the exact same coverage for $850? Please explain the economics to me, because I don't see how in the world private insurers can survive."
This is what's never been explained satisfactorily. In your system, the private insurance rebate along with greater coverage is the key. It really sounds like well-thought out plan.
it's funny how desperate and pathetic the other side seems
by robstak - 8/22/09 9:31 AM In reply to: The tin foil hats are indeed out in force by minimalistdeath camps?
email snitching?
nothing makes me smile more than a sore loser...
-k
That expression sounds familiar...
by Slikkster - 8/23/09 7:50 AM In reply to: it's funny how desperate and pathetic the other side seems by robstakOh yeah, I remember now. That's what they called Al Gore! Seriously, though...if it were really just "the other side", Obama would have more than 50 percent support on the health care reforms proposed. He doesn't. So, obviously he's lost some support from his own camp.
i dont think thats necc true, right?
by robstak - 8/24/09 11:31 AM In reply to: That expression sounds familiar... by Slikksterjust because support is less than 50% doesnt mean that death camps exist. if you ask me the majority of america is uneducated and believe whatever they hear on tv or in church on sunday.
your point about al gore is well taken tho... lol.
socialism and anachism are polar opposites? and other points
by michaelkpate - 8/22/09 10:56 AM In reply to: The tin foil hats are indeed out in force by minimalistNot everyone would agree, as a couple minutes with Google can attest...
Anarchism is really a synonym for socialism. The anarchist is primarily a socialist whose aim is to abolish the exploitation of man by man. - Daniel Guérin http://a4a.mahost.org/guerin.html
Communism is inequality, but not as property is. Property is exploitation of the weak by the strong. Communism is exploitation of the strong by the weak. - Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, the father of the Anarchy movement http://thinkexist.com/quotes/pierre-joseph_proudhon/
No one owns the term "anarchism." It is used for a wide range of different currents of thought and action, varying widely. There are many self-styled anarchists who insist, often with great passion, that theirs is the only right way, and that others do not merit the term (and maybe are criminals of one or another sort). A look at the contemporary anarchist literature, particularly in the West and in intellectual circles (they may not like the term), will quickly show that a large part of it is denunciation of others for their deviations, rather as in the Marxist-Leninist sectarian literature. The ratio of such material to constructive work is depressingly high. - Noam Chomsky http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19961223.htm
Also, the controversy over the Death Panels, I think, began with this quote from Mr. Obama from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/magazine/03Obama-t.html
THE PRESIDENT: So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right? I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.
So how do you — how do we deal with it?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now.
When you assemble a group of "doctors, scientists, ethicists" and ask them to try to eliminate any sort of treatment of the "chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives" calculated to be "a huge driver of cost," some people think it not inappropriate to call that group a "Death Panel." Obviously, you and the President would prefer a different term, like "Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission."
Oh, and as for the Joker Image itself, it is really a shame that sort of thing goes on. I am sure the mainstream media would have been quick to condemn it during the previous administration.
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2008/07/bush-as-joker.html
Final Point - And back to the original issue -
The really ridiculous part of the whole controversy was the idea that the White House was going to use a single e-mail address to collect things to refute in the first place. Decades from now, flag@whitehouse.gov will still be on every spammers contact list. I have no doubt that it was probably rendered useless for anything within a day or two of the initial blog post http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/facts-are-stubborn-things/
My biggest disappointment about the non-coverage was not getting to hear a Molly rant about silly Linda Douglass and the White House Communications people are for making such a proposal. And this from the first President who was supposed to understand social implications of the Internet.
Deliberate or not, your one addition is very misleading
by DangMI - 8/22/09 11:31 AM In reply to: socialism and anachism are polar opposites? and other points by michaelkpateYou lay out the quotes very carefully and, as far as I know, accurately, and then you add one clause in your conclusion that never appeared anywhere ("ask them to try to eliminate any sort of treatment of the "chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives"). Where did you see anything about eliminate treatment? "Guidance", "Conversation", "not determinative"--all those are there, but eliminate treatment of the chronically ill? Nope, not there.
Why weren't these called death panels when the same basic method was proposed years ago by the Republicans? I think it's part of the Medicaid drug plan now (but I'm too lazy to go look it up right now).
I've gotta quit now--this is not a political show or site and I feel bad about having contributed to taking it this far down this road. I'm going to try to go back to my happy place, repeating to myself: Good people with good hearts can still disagree about methods and paths.
Dan
Apparently, I am not the only one you would conside "misled"
by michaelkpate - 8/22/09 12:38 PM In reply to: Deliberate or not, your one addition is very misleading by DangMIInteresting that you left out the word "try" from the part you quoted. I thought that pretty much covered all the things you mention.
So you are in favor of the President assembling such a panel merely as an academic exercise and then disregarding their conclusions? I thought the idea was to cut costs, not add to them. But just for the record, I am not the only one who got that impression:
And you see the president doing something very courageous, I think, which is that he's beginning to talk about limiting the sorts of operations that might be appropriate. The other day he talked about his grandmother who was given a hip replacement when she was a terminal cancer patient. Those are very, very difficult decisions, but they are going to have to be part an parcel of this plan. - Joe Klein http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/rationing-common-sense-by-digby-in-case.html
No matter what Congress does when it returns from its recess, rationing is a basic part of Obama's eventual master health care plan. - Nat Hentoff http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/hentoff081909.php3
At least some members of the House agree as well:
The House Appropriations Committee inadvertently stoked such concerns in a report accompanying its version of the economic recovery bill. It said that research comparing different treatments could "yield significant payoffs" because less effective, more expensive treatments "will no longer be prescribed." - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/health/policy/16health.html?_r=1
As well as one of Mr. Obama's main ethical advisors:
Allocation of very scarce medical interventions such as organs and vaccines is a persistent ethical challenge ... We recommend an alternative system—the complete lives system—which prioritises younger people who have not yet lived a complete life, and also incorporates prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value principles. - Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)60137-9/abstract
I don't remember when these were proposed in the past, but I think they could have been called "Death Panels" back then, too.
Personally, I am glad the show isn't covering the issue, either, if we are going to spend so much time arguing over it. I would just hope that we if we don't agree, we can be accurate about what methods and paths both sides are advocating.
flag@whitehouse.gov
by wizkids32 - 8/21/09 2:43 PM In reply to: flag@whitehouse.gov by dwbrown77They don't talk about politics hardly at all.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
