McCain Campaign Protests YouTube's DMCA Policy

Colz Grigor writes "It appears that CBS and Fox have submitted DMCA takedown notices to YouTube for videos from the McCain campaign. The campaign is now complaining about YouTube's DMCA policy making it too easy for copyright holders to remove fair-use videos. I hope they pursue this by addressing flaws in the DMCA."

Comments

We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[eldavojohn]

Is it wrong for me to hope that the same thing happens to Obama so that when either of them win, they remember the idiocy that is the DMCA and reform it?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[bigstrat2003]

Is it wrong for me to hope that the same thing happens to Obama so that when either of them win...

No, it isn't.

they remember the idiocy that is the DMCA and reform it?

It is naive of you to hope for this part, though. Good luck with that.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[neoform]

If anything happens, they'll just see to it that the DMCA doesn't apply to political ads.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[cduffy]

It's completely different provisions that make the DMCA unpopular.

Shielding service providers as long as they promptly process takedowns and put content back up on counter-notices is a Good Thing; without it YouTube wouldn't exist. Moreover, the DMCA provides for legal penalties if misused -- if a supposed copyright holder has something taken back down after the person who posted it gave a counter-notice, they're on the hook if such was done wrongly.

The McCain campaign is presumably whining about the process because the information they're trying to promulgate is time-sensitive (only relevant up to the election) and they don't want the downtime it takes to provide counter-notices -- but once they do provide counter-notices, CBS/NBC/whoever won't be able to have it taken back down without risking their own necks. It's a good process, though, and I don't see any reason to fill it with loopholes.

The parts of the DMCA that make it illegal to circumvent the dongle check in the 15-year-old piece of accounting software my consulting client's small business uses (company long out of business, dongle recently broken) are complete BS, but the takedown and counter-notice process is reasonable.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Elemenope]

CBS and FOX won't do it to Obama because they *like* Obama. They don't mind if Obama uses their videos to help him win the election.

Yeah, FOX *loves* Obama.

What, are you stoned?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[IndustrialComplex]

*I say they, I'll pretty much bet the Obama camp takes a similar stance to the McCain camp, I guess we'll see.

Well, one way to hold Obama's feet to the fire is to say that you will vote for McCain if Obama doesn't say that he will reform the DCMA.

Here is the thing, if this issue really is that important to you, then you must be willing to make sacrifices (Voting for McCain if you were planning to vote Obama, or the reverse). They need to know that their position, or lack thereof is worse than people not voting for them, they are actively voting against them. It is a bitter pill to swallow, for them and us. Who will blink first?

This holds true for whatever candidate you support. Threaten to withdraw that support, and mean it, if there are issues you need addressed. The other candidate may not be what you prefer, but you can be damned sure that all promises made to special interests will be forgotten if keeping them means costing them the actual election. If there is one thing that politicians like more than lobbyist money, it is winning the election in the first place.

If IP/copyright reform is as important to Slashdotters as we claim, then you HAVE to take positions like this to force it to be a real issue. Again, a bitter pill, and not for everyone, but you have to ask yourself, how important is copyright reform to me?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[MyLongNickName]

* (The real blame lies with the 1990s president who repealed the Glass-Steagall of 1933 which allowed banks to invest in risky stocks, and thereby created the current crisis. But the media is being hush-hush about that. Don't want to risk losing the Obama election.)

Continue to believe what you want to believe. But the repeal of this act had nothing to do with the current crash. The majority of this can be put onto bad lending practices and the bundling and selling of these loans. The repeal of the GS Act of 1933 did not allow for 125% LTV loans to folks who did not substantiate their income. It did not cause banks to ignore credit risk. That was just greed. And the fact is that the Fair Credit Act specifically required that banks take into account borrowers' ability to repay when making loans. Had existing regulation been enforced, none of this crap would have come to pass.

I am a fiscal conservative, and hate to see government regulation when it isn't necessary. What I see coming to pass is a lot more feel good legislation, and lax enforcement. We have the proper level of regulation in place right now, but when it is not enforced, it is worthless.

But, hey, good job trying to pass the buck. Of course, prefacing it with "FOX luvs the Democrats!!!111!" kinda outs you right off the bat.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Danse]

CBS and FOX won't do it to Obama because they *like* Obama. They don't mind if Obama uses their videos to help him win the election.

>>>I hope they pursue this by addressing flaws in the DMCA.

Do you actually know that Obama's campaign hasn't had takedowns used against them, or are you assuming?

** (The real blame lies with the 1990s president who repealed the Glass-Steagall of 1933 which allowed banks to invest in risky stocks, and thereby created the current crisis. But the media is being hush-hush about that. Don't want to risk losing the Obama election.)

Sure. I'm sure that a single piece of legislation caused the whole thing. I notice that you conveniently forget that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was sponsored by republicans (Phil Gramm strikes again), and passed the senate on a party-line vote with only one democrat crossing over. But sure, you go right ahead and believe that the Republicans are in no way responsible for our situation.

I notice also that you neglect to take any notice of other things that contributed quite a bit to our situation, such as the Commodity and Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (more of Phil Gramm's handiwork). This was also a republican bill, but it was supported by a few dems as well. You might want to look into how this relates to the AIG situation and how that affected the banks.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Alsee]

they'll just see to it that the DMCA doesn't apply to political ads.

McCain looks and acts like a 300 year old vampire. Obama is gonna give him an ass kicking Blade style!

AdObama4Pres-Blade1.torrent 619.43 MB

----------------------

McCain is 72 years young, and as strong and healthy as when he was 20!

AdMcCainYoungAndVigorous-Cocoon.torrent 601.45 MB

-

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[pmbasehore]

OK, at the risk of sounding reasonable (and losing karma) I think we need to put the blame where blame is due.

As a conservative, I generally vote Republican. However, I am mature enough to recognize that many of the elected officials in the Republican party have directly or indirectly caused the current economic situation. I am also knowledgeable enough to recognize that the elected officials in the Democratic party are equally to blame.

The blame lies with Republicans, Democrats, the Legislative branch, and the Executive branch. (I don't have enough information to blame the Judicial branch for anything.) ALL are equally guilty, and BOTH parties make equally valid statements about the other's responsibility.

Yes, Clinton's fiscal decisions (Glass-Steagall act repealed, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, others) had their hand in creating this downturn. Yes, Republican legislation (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) and partisanship also had their hand in creating this downturn.

Skip the partisanship. Give the blame where it is due--not with the party that differs with your own viewpoint (whichever party that may be), but the elected officials sitting in the Senate, the House, and Pennsylvania Avenue.

Let's be a little more reasonable here, OK?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

FOX is less socialist than NBC, CBS, ABC, et cetera, but they are still socialist.

Best. Joke. Ever.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

(For that matter, Democratic president Clinton could have vetoed the bill in 1999, and thereby kept Glass-Steagall in full force.)

Look it up: any bill passed by more than two thirds is veto-proof.

I do blame the Republicans as well as the Democrats in congress for passing the bill, but we have bank lobbyists to thank for that!

In case you are forgetting, the senate currently has 51 democratic senators, not nearly enough to override Bush's inevitable veto.

Next time you contribute, please at least try to educate yourself on the basic principles of our government.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Socialised healthcare? MADNESS, and it'll never work anyways. Name at least one first world country that has public health care!

Oh, wait... All of them, sans the US.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[megamerican]

Glass-Steagal has everything to do with the current crisis. Without its repeal there wouldn't be a quadrillion in derivatives (of course no one knows the real value of that). That is the big black hole that is causing this entire mess. It is why gold and other commodities were going down even though the FED was pumping in 100's of billions of dollars. People were liquidating their paper assets of gold because they had no physical gold to cover their positions.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html

In 1933, Senator Carter Glass (D-Va.) and Congressman Henry Steagall (D-Ala.) introduce the historic legislation that bears their name, seeking to limit the conflicts of interest created when commercial banks are permitted to underwrite stocks or bonds. In the early part of the century, individual investors were seriously hurt by banks whose overriding interest was promoting stocks of interest and benefit to the banks, rather than to individual investors. The new law bans commercial banks from underwriting securities, forcing banks to choose between being a simple lender or an underwriter (brokerage).

After 12 attempts in 25 years, Congress finally repeals Glass-Steagall, rewarding financial companies for more than 20 years and $300 million worth of lobbying efforts. Supporters hail the change as the long-overdue demise of a Depression-era relic.

On Oct. 21, with the House-Senate conference committee deadlocked after marathon negotiations, the main sticking point is partisan bickering over the bill's effect on the Community Reinvestment Act, which sets rules for lending to poor communities. Sandy Weill calls President Clinton in the evening to try to break the deadlock after Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, warned Citigroup lobbyist Roger Levy that Weill has to get White House moving on the bill or he would shut down the House-Senate conference. Serious negotiations resume, and a deal is announced at 2:45 a.m. on Oct. 22. Whether Weill made any difference in precipitating a deal is unclear.

On Oct. 22, Weill and John Reed issue a statement congratulating Congress and President Clinton, including 19 administration officials and lawmakers by name. The House and Senate approve a final version of the bill on Nov. 4, and Clinton signs it into law later that month.

Just days after the administration (including the Treasury Department) agrees to support the repeal, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, the former co-chairman of a major Wall Street investment bank, Goldman Sachs, raises eyebrows by accepting a top job at Citigroup as Weill's chief lieutenant. The previous year, Weill had called Secretary Rubin to give him advance notice of the upcoming merger announcement. When Weill told Rubin he had some important news, the secretary reportedly quipped, "You're buying the government?"

I suggest reading the whole history on the link I provided. You can't blame just one party for it. Had the Republicans been completely against it it would have never passed. Had Clinton vetoed it, it wouldn't have been overridden. Alan Greenspan is also to blame.

In December 1996, with the support of Chairman Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve Board issues a precedent-shattering decision permitting bank holding companies to own investment bank affiliates with up to 25 percent of their business in securities underwriting (up from 10 percent).

This expansion of the loophole created by the Fed's 1987 reinterpretation of Section 20 of Glass-Steagall effectively renders Glass-Steagall obsolete. Virtually any bank holding company wanting to engage in securities business would be able to stay under the 25 percent limit on revenue. However, the law remains on the books, and along with the Bank Hol

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[mweather]

And what's the waiting time for that same surgery in the US if you have no money to pay for it?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Shakrai]

It's a matter of degree. In Canada, the average waiting time for a necessary surgery is 18 weeks [www.cbc.ca].

And how is that relevant to Obama's health care plan? He hasn't purposed a single-payer Gov't sponsored system.

Having your appointment happen an hour late isn't even close.

No, it's not, but the point is that health care in this country is already broken. Pointing to other countries where it's broken more doesn't justify leaving our existing system in place.

We don't have enough primary care doctors because they don't make as much money as specialists yet have the same costs of doing business (malpractice insurance being the big one). Ditto for OB/GYNs. Our insurance system sucks -- what's the point of having insurance if you wind up paying out more money than you can afford in deductibles and co-payments? Isn't insurance supposed to protect you from financial disaster? What's the point of having insurance if you have to argue with them on your death bed to get them to pay the bills? Why can my car insurance company offer a simple deductible after which all damage is fully covered but no health insurance provider can?

Our pharmaceutical industry sucks -- why can they profitably sell drugs in Canada at cheaper prices than they can in the United States? Why do they get away with making minor reformulations of their product (typically an "extended release" version) to extend/get new patents and shut out generics? Why do they spend more on marketing than they do on research? Shouldn't life-saving drugs sell themselves?

We need solutions from both sides of the aisle to fix this problem. The insurance and pharmaceutical companies need to be reined in and regulated better (typically a democratic solution). Scum-sucking ambulance chasers need to be reined in (typically a republican solution). Punitive damages shouldn't be allowed unless the health care provider was grossly negligent -- if he/she wasn't than you shouldn't be able to collect more than your actual damages.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[mdwh2]

Well I have cable, Internet access, cell phone, and two computers bought in the last two years. And I can get public healthcare whenever I want.

You could afford it too if you had SAVED your money, instead of demanding your neighbors' pay the bill for you (tax their paychecks & give the money to you).

What country do you live in where you get to have tax paid for you by your neighbour? I pay taxes too.

There are arguments for public healthcare that are nothing to do with whether we should have welfare for the poor:

* Everyone benefits from a healthy society, such as stopping contagious diseases, and having a healthy workforce.

* Private companies tend to discriminate, making it unfair to anyone with any pre-existing conditions for example. I'm happy to pay for costs myself (whether towards a policy, or taxation), but I'd rather not gamble my health with the private insurance companies, thanks.

The US has state schools does it not? Surely we should privatise schools instead of having this "socialist" schooling system? And what about the military, what's this nonsense about Government funded defence? Anyone who suggests otherwise has a "gimme gimme gimme" attitude, and they want to "raid their neighbors' wallets", right?

You see, even if the US, there are lots of things where things are funded by the Government, and it is sensible to do so. My views lean towards right-wing pro-capitalist, but this doesn't mean that we have to have an entirely 100% laissez-faire capitalist society. I find this attitude that any kind of regulation amounts to "socialism" rather odd, especially since the US clearly isn't anywhere near a 100% laissez-faire capitalist society, anyway.

(I'm also curious how you manage to save 1/2 a million in just five years just by not having cable etc?)

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Mr. Slippery]

Plus corporations benefit from a strong, central, socialist government

For-profit corporations owned by capitalist stockholders can benefit from a strong, central government that works on behalf of capitalists. That's what we've had at least since the 1950s rise of the "military industrial complex".

They would not benefit from a socialist government.

The problem here is that you - like many Americans - are operating under an incorrect definition of socialism. Since the Red Scares of the early 1900s, it's been just about impossible to have a reasonable discussion of socialism in the U.S., until it's reached the point that a large number of people think socialism, communism, and Stalinism are the same thing, and that the only possible alternative to being fucked over by capitalist robber-barons is to be fucked over by a Stalinist state.

Socialism is orthogonal to the size and strength of government. Socialism means an economic system based on the exchange of labor and the democratic control of capital by those who do the work. It contrasts with capitalism, an economic system based on the control of capital by a state-backed minority class of "owners".

Both can be found in free-market and in command economy forms, and both can co-exist with authoritarian or with libertarian policies on social issues. For examples of free-market socialism, consult your local libertarian socialist, a.k.a. anarchist; for command economy capitalism, review the U.S. during WWII.

If control of capital is concentrated into the hands of a few, you've got capitalism; if it's spread out democratically, you've got socialism. Slapping a few regulations on a capitalist system does not make it socialist, any more than installing a speed governor on a northbound train makes it head south.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Celarnor]

I have fibromyalgia. This requires me to take 300mg of preglabin a day. There is no generic. A five day supply, if I didn't have insurance, would cost me a little over $200. That's $1200 a month. I'm a college student, I certainly can't find that kind of money.

Earlier this month, I had a kidneystone; three ER visits before it got under control. ($4,151 each, according to the bill): $12,453 The surgery was $7,162. The surgery to remove the stent they had put in was $6,812.

So, this month, healthcare has cost me $27,627. I can barely afford my deductible; you really think people can pay that kind of cash out of pocket?

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Shakrai]

And whose fault is that? Maybe you should stop wasting money on $1000 a year Cable TV, or $900 a year Internet access, or $700 a year cellphone connections, or buying a new $2000 laptop every other year. ----- Maybe then you could afford the healthcare. Let me introduce you to new words: "self-sacrifice" "self-help" and "self-responsibility/initiative".

Oh, blow it out your fucking ass with the self-responsibility bullshit. I don't waste money on any of those things that you mentioned and I have a pretty decent chunk of change tucked away (six months of my income). In spite of all of that I still couldn't afford a major medical diagnosis without insurance. It would bankrupt me.

Ever known anyone that got cancer? Those bills run into the hundreds of thousands. Mind telling me how someone who is making middle class wages can afford to take a hit like that?

Funny you mention this example, because that's EXACTLY what I do. In the event of an accident, buying a used car for $3000-$5000 makes a whole lot more sense than paying ~$15,000 per decade to the insurance rapists. I have the state-required minimum, but I do not insure my car. It's cheaper to just junk it, and buy a used one.

Well kudos to you for being financially responsible. Next time my wife gets sick I'll tell her it's cheaper to just junk her and find a new one.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Silverstrike]

I pay $0 on cable, $180 on internet, and I haven't bought a new computer in six years. As a result of this self-sacrifice, I have saved 1/2 a million in just five years, and I can EASILY afford a doctor's visit at any of a hundred hospitals within driving distance.

Given your estimates, you'd have saved $18,000 in 5 years. Your ability to save $500,000 in five years is helped by your frugality, but your frugality is certainly not the reason for your ability to save. Your above average income is.

If you SAVED your money, instead of wasting it on non-important trivia, you wouldn't have to hold your hand out. You'd be able to pay your own bills.

Yea, that's a really arrogant statement coming from someone who obviously is able to make $100,000+/year. I grew up the only son of a Bartender(mother) and a non-Union(Unions are evil through, right?) Bricklayer(father). Obviously, we did not have health insurance. I distinctly remember weeks of ramen and huge pots of homemade soup after I came down with strep throat, because the doctor's appointment and prescribed amoxicillian depleted the family budget for the month. This draconian cost cutting would happen anytime I got sick a as child. Can you even imagine how that made a young sick child feel? To know that his illness is essentially bankrupting the family?

Its not about "raiding" your wallet. Its about the acknowledging the value of human life and human dignity. Entitlement programs aren't there to keep fat rednecks on their couches in trailer parks. Yes, those people exist, and yes they do take advantage of government programs. But that is simply part of the cost. It can be mitigated with good regulation, and it can be controlled with good planning and thoughtful program design. But these programs are there there for people like my parents. Who built your house, served your beer, and who the rest of the world has to stand on top of to be "wealthy".

Because you can't on the top of the pile without standing on all the people underneath.

And to the GP: Don't worry. Obama's proposals will let you keep your employer coverage you covet. So you don't have to stand in line with the "Rabble".

One last thing, before you dismiss me as a poor parasite who wants to take your money away too. I'm a Sr. Software Engineer at a major development house, and I also run a consulting company. I will clear over $200,000 this year. I will pay for these programs too -- probably more than you will.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in a major metro area in the US with more than fifty hospitals and hundreds of smaller medical offices. In fact, my city is known as a center of medical care. Do you know how long it takes me to get an appointment with my PCP, or any other general practitioner for that matter? Two months. There was a newspaper article recently about emergency rooms being overworked; people have to go there for things as simple as the flu, because they can't get to see their doctors in any reasonable time frame. Don't tell me that socialized medicine is the problem here.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[vux984]

It's a matter of degree. In Canada, the average waiting time for a necessary surgery is 18 weeks. Having your appointment happen an hour late isn't even close.

Necessary surgery != Surgery you need today.

In Canada, its a perpetual system of triage. People who need the surgery most get it first.

That combined with budget limitations means that there are a lot of people who 'need' surgery but have to wait a long time to get it. In some cases they are perfectly fine, other times they are in discomfort or pain until they get it but their lives aren't at risk, and the condition isn't likely to worsen while they wait. And so these people end up waiting an unfortunately long time creating the long average times.

But if you need surgery now, its an immediate threat, or they expect your condition is going to worsen, you are moved up to the front of the queue. If its serious people get surgery within hours of showing up at the doctor.

So yeah, the Canadian system is a bummer for people who 'need surgery soon', because they usually have to wait a few months.

But contrasted with the American system, and I'm not sure what you are so smug about. Millions of uninsured people can't get the surgery at all. Millions of insured people are 'under insured' and won't get the surgery, millions more have adequate insurance and their insurance company still elects not to approve the procedure... "18 weeks" vs "No".

By any metrics Canada is healthier than the US. Lower infant mortality, longer life expectancy, better overall health. The majority of americans would actually be better off under the Canadian system than the American system, yet the wealthy elite have convinced them otherwise. Suckers.

Doubly so, because the wealthy elite are never subject to the system anyway, they can ALWAYS fly to Cuba or wherever to get some procedure or other done tomorrow, so by keeping unified health care out they aren't even protecting themselves from 'long wait times' because they'd never be subject to them anyway. They'd just rather see millions of their fellow american's die in the street than pay more taxes.

Re:We Can Only Hope the Same Happens to Obama

[Foolicious]

No, buy many Americans jump on a plane to India because they can't afford to get their treatment in the US.

No. No no no. This is terribly and awfully anecdotal. You cannot just sling around words like "common" and "many" without providing even minor evidence of such. You need to provide evidence of the number of Americans that actually travel to India and then conduct a discussion around whether or not this number would qualify as "many" Americans. You cannot take something you read in a magazine or saw on 20/20 and start formulating policy based on that.

If we could see evidence that -- just for sake of discussion -- 0.1% of (just guessing) 200 million insured people had to go to India for a procedure they could not afford in the US, there'd be some merit to your argument. Otherwise, you're just telling stories that may tug at the heart strings, but aren't at all useful for the purpose of making broad decisions.

Again, how many is many?

Fair use or Political attacks?

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Why should McCain be against takedowns? That seems to be the entirety of his election strategy this year.

Oh please

[Exanon]

To think that the DMCA defenders would actually change their minds over this is ridiculous. They wont care about the DMCA since it doesn't affect them for the most part. Once the videos are back, the DMCA will once again be "a much needed weapon to save hundreds of thousands of jobs in the US, it said so right here in this report".

Re:HAHAHAHAHAHA

[electrictroy]

here's the actual vote:
SENATE: 100% Democrats; 100% Republicans (unaminous)
HOUSE: 90% Democrats; 85% Republicans (veto-proof)
PRESIDENT:
Signed by *democrat* William J. Clinton in 1998.

What was that about being a "republican" bill? It looks like a typical Duopoly bill to me, supported by BOTH sides, since they both pretty much act alike.

Checkmate

[IndustrialComplex]

If anything happens, they'll just see to it that the DMCA doesn't apply to political ads.

That would be perfect.

Since there does exist an actual http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party Pirate Party. Now put a political message in the metadata of your files, and claim your exemption.

I'm certain that The Pirate Party would have no issue endorsing files so that they received DCMA exemptions.

(The Pirate Party of Podunk County has approved this message)

Want to end the campaign now? Ask this:

[IndustrialComplex]

I would love to have this question asked at tonight's debate.

"Senator McCain, your campaign is complaining that it is being unfairly censored by the DMCA. How do you reconcile your complaint when you yourself voted for this exact measure?

I'm no Obama supporter, but I'd love to watch him answer that question.

Web Forms - So you can laugh at your Senator

[The Breeze]

Here's a copy of an email I sent to my fellow Arizonan:

Ah, John. Your ill-advised vote back in 1998 for the DMCA has come back to bite you. It was with great pleasure that I read that Youtube was taking down your campaign videos due to a DMCA demand by Fox and CBS. You helped pass it. Sir, Barry Goldwater was a conservative. William Buckley was a conservative. A conservative wants FEWER laws, not more. LESS government regulation, not more. A conservative encourages a business-friendly environment - NOT a "business gets anything it wants" environment. You have forgotten the difference, and now you are paying the price. Your presidential campaign is all but over. You have lost the conservative base with your poorly-thought-out desperate attempts to please everyone. You had us, right until you took the supremely idiotic step of suspending your campaign - which was a clear political ploy that backfired. Capitalism is vital, but part of the price of capitalism is sometimes suffering failure. Bankruptcy, too is part of the failure process - entrepreneurs and other people need to know that they have a chance to start over if they fail. Your vote on the Bankruptcy Act of 2005, making it MORE difficult for all but the richest Americans to declare bankruptcy was another gift to business. And still, you persist in giving business whatever they want, at the expense of average Americans, with your recent idiotic vote on the "Copyright Czar" legislation. The record companies and motion picture companies have a broken business model that is being supplanted by new technologies, and like your ridiculous bank bailout bill you have chosen to give them what they want rather than letting them pay the price of failure. I will be voting for Bob Barr this election, not out of any hope that he will win, but rather in the hope that Republican political operatives will realize that increasing numbers of their traditional base can no longer stomach voting for so-called "Republicans" who don't seem any different from Democrats. I look forward to supporting your continued efforts in the Senate on behalf of Arizona, but your presidential campaign is over.

Re:Not if you do it right

[the_macman]

My girlfriend has a condition where her front teeth couldn't touch because her bottom jaw was misaligned. It caused her a lot of pain and she couldn't smile or chew properly.

The operation was going to cost $40k+.

She got a letter from her insurance company handed it to the doctor and the operation was completed. Shortly after all, these bills started showing up and the insurance company reneged on their promise. They claimed it was a "cosmetic surgery". After two years of legal battle they finally yielded and paid the doctor.

So I'm sorry you're wrong. Your letter isn't a golden ticket to hassle free surgery.