Slashdot Mirror
Obama Sides With Bush In Spy Case
palegray.net is one of many who writes "President Obama has publicly sided with the Bush administration on the question of whether the President should be allowed to establish warrantless wiretapping programs designed to monitor US citizens. The President has asked a federal judge to stay a ruling that would allow key evidence into the domestic spying case against the government. 'Thursday's filing by the Obama administration marked the first time it officially lodged a court document in the lawsuit asking the courts to rule on the constitutionality of the Bush administration's warrantless-eavesdropping program.'" jamie points out that Obama's views and opinions were made clear through his Senate vote and numerous public statements, but many others see this as a disappointing start to an administration promising transparency and openness.
So much for not sacrificing ideals for safety.
Asshole.
Finally, change we can believe in!
You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
Well now, that depends on who is being held open now, doesn't it?
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Change! Change! Change!
..Oh bummer =(
and it has no side to it to be defended.
Read radical news here
Or just people in the US?
Is there a distinction at all?
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
Obama might not always be right.
Bush might not have always been wrong.
There just might be a valid reason for this (then again there might not be).
They guy has been in office less than a week. Progress has already been made.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
enjoy freedom,
enjoy while you can
Freedom? What freedom?
Free Martian Whores!
"Don't be evil*"
*for small values of "evil"
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
The other day, someone on the radio commented that the Obama administration is shaping up to be "bush on steroids". I fervently hope that's wrong.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Let us think back to Bush's speeches and promises, and how he failed on nearly every one.
But, the people who screamed 'traitor' at the anti-war activist and supported Bush to the bitter end have suddenly found the ability to criticize our president during wartime.
The HURRRRRRRRRRRRrrrtastic tags tell the story of astro-turfing conservatives.
At least this economy has the low-income trailer-park republicans finally signing up to fight their war.
Blar.
My hope is that the True Believers get so pissed at Obama that they want to lynch him - that means he is probably taking middle of the road policies and compromising on things. You know - governing.
On another board someone noted that the President Elect walked into his first intelligence briefing smiling fr the cameras and he came out looking like he'd been hit between the eyes with a hammer. Hopefully that was a solid reminder that "governing" is different than "campaigning".
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
That's a very misleading way to state it. What happened, was, the Obama people asked for a stay of the Judge's motion pending appeal.
It's not an endorsement, as you might think from the summary and linked article, of the policy. It's a procedural move.
I'm not saying that Obama doesn't or won't back Bush's view. Just that this particular filing doesn't support that conclusion in a meaningful way.
5...4...3..2..1.. The only change we'll be seeing is the removal of our right to be able to defend ourselves. Say goodbye to your firearms, hello to more government intrusion into your life. Only now, there's no way to control government. At least he's going to live up to his promises. Change we can believe in!
Warning: Corny karma killing post above.
Feel betrayed? Good.
Why are True Believers always so surprised when the object of their adulation turns out to have feet of clay?
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Warrantless wiretaps are good now. You see, they weren't good before. But they are good now.
Anyone who can't see that is a racist reactionary.
Everything you do pisses everyone off, equally!
Really, I'm just withholding comment until some form of long-term context is established.
-Rob
Biblical fiscal responsibility
Meet the new boss,
Air guitar riff
Same as the old boss...
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Get what you voted...
I wonder what they think of the missiles that hit Pakistan today? I am sure they were approved by the President. You know, the "O" not the "W".
The fact that he asked for a stay doesn't indicate much of anything, particularly since a lot of the people at the DOJ right now are Bush appointees (you know the type) who really need to be fired ASAP. By all means, we should be making as much noise about this as possible, but it doesn't automatically mean that Obama is pro-wiretapping.
No, I voted for the Republican nominee. I had simply thought that the liberals would at least remove one ill before creating a number of others (a small consolation to a slightly-more-socialist-that-his-opponent being elected, but so it goes). Now I see that their intent is to pile bad upon bad.
http://www.allen-poole.com/
jamie points out that Obama's views and opinions were made clear through his Senate vote and numerous public statements
in which he said that he was going to help filibuster the Senate bill that he then voted for. Whoops.
This is so obviously FUD. The administration ordered a stay on all pending regulation and issues from the Bush Administration and this case happens to be one of them. So, what does someone looking to nail Obama do.. "oh well, they aren't immediately disavowing this terrible, terrible injustice, therefore, well they must be complicit!" Shake, stir, and toss to the usual gang of idiots on Slashdot and voila.. A major out of context brouhahah is born! Get a grip, morons.
What would Richard Feynman do, if he were here right now? He'd do some math and he'd follow through!
It's like the saying goes. There're two types of criminals; the ones holding office, and the ones that haven't been elected yet.
I have nothing compelling to say
Let us think back to Bush's speeches and promises, and how he failed on nearly every one.
What about the part where he promised to help stabilize Iraq?
What about where he promised we'd see no new terrorist attacks on American soil?
There's a lot of things to dislike Bush over, like spending for one. But Bush has delivered on some huge promises, as much as many here are not willing to admit that or dislike some means uses to accomplish this end.
It only stands to reason that Obama would like to continue successes on both agendas.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"Pelosi must be having a fit...LOL"
After today's NY Senatorial pick, she'll have an aneurysm - the lady has an "A" rating from the NRA.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
All Your Base are belong to us.
Nothing changes in Washington... Next time I'm voting Communist..
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
> I did not trust this new Administration during his campaign
I'd argue, that trusting ANY politician or group thereof is a rather silly thing to do (that's being polite btw. Really it's just plain stupid).
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
Actually, I should apologize - I read your comment too hastily and misinterpreted it. God knows there are other posting that deserve it.
Sorry.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Everything else, who gives a shit.
Blar.
President Obama 'orders Pakistan drone attacks'
"Missiles fired from suspected US drones killed at least 15 people inside Pakistan today, the first such strikes since Barack Obama became president and a clear sign that the controversial military policy begun by George W Bush has not changed."
"...locals also said that three children lost their lives."
Attacking sovereign nations and killing children...that's the change Americans voted in, as in, not change at all.
I will note, that as I disliked both nominees this past election, I have done my best to avoid the usage of their proper names. Thus, use of PotUS, chief executive, or current administration.
http://www.allen-poole.com/
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
The summary and the article it links to make it seem like much more of a big deal than it actually is:
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/alharamainobama.pdf
It's a procedural motion for a stay pending appeal. It's not a policy endorsement, it's them looking to have the judge's ruling put on hold until appeals are over.
That's not to say that Obama won't wind up agreeing with Bush on this, just that this particular filing doesn't actually indicate that.
For those who defended Bush seizing these powers and attacked those of us who opposed such as "supporting the terrorists", enjoy those selfsame powers in the hands of him who many of you seemed to fear most.
On the plus side, at least now you may take actions in your self-interest that mesh with those in the principled opposition.
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
It was politics all along.
A court just recently affirmed the legality of it. Obama continues in the tradition.
The reality is that this stuff has done on for decades. The tradition is that any intelligence collected could not be used to build a case against a US citizen. It is not admissible in court. You cannot be prosecuted based on the intelligence.
Call Detail Records and metadata are owned by the telco's and are therefore proprietary and not private. They can do whatever they want with them.
The *only* thing that has changed is that the wall between the FBI and the NSA built during the Clinton administration was torn down. NSA/CIA can now give leads to the FBI that can be taken to a FISA court. The court can provide a retroactive warrant. Only after FISA court approval can the FBI and the Justice Department use the lead to build a case.
worse, I lost any respect for Republicans for not stopping Geitner at the committee level.
This whole Administration is starting too look like Clinton The New Generation... new face at the top but the base looks rotten.
After Congress gets done stimulating themselves when will someone look at us and see what we want?
Obama was supposed to represent change yet the only change he represents is there is now a "D" next to the office affiliation. Now that he is in all the abuses of power he decried during the campaign are too valuable to be given up even though some should for what is best for America.
I was hoping we were not going to be stuck with another rubber stamping President, because in the end that was Bush's biggest fault. I don't want a President who wants to be friends with Congress. I want a President who is friends with us first. He is supposed to be the voice of the nation, not his party and certainly not special interest. He interests should be us.
There is always a chance he will grow a pair and go a new direction but it doesn't look good that he has passed the first few ramps on the interstate of government. His Gitmo decision sounded real good till you read the fine print, they have a year to change their minds. His appointment scream "continue the course" and this decision is more of the same. His recent declaration that Congress was on the right path with the stimulus package really pissed me off. Right course for who?
I guess the lesson learned under Bush will need four more years to be learned, that for every grandiose name they use just think of the exact opposite and that will be reality.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Whatever. It's all good. (I am VERY much a small government person -- I feel that a bureaucratically appointed committee will INEVITABLY contain the people who are MOST INCOMPETENT at the task of spending MY MONEY).
http://www.allen-poole.com/
Morality aside, who would give up that much power if they were offered it?
It took Nixon and Watergate for Congress to strip the president and administration of their power the last time such powers were reduced, and 9/11 for Congress to give back that power.
Nothing short of a Congressional revolt similar to what took place during Watergate will force *any* president to give up those powers.
Obama will in all probability be a much better president than Bush, but that doesn't mean that he's going to give up those presidential powers just to win brownie points from the ACLU.
This space left intentionally blank.
I go to pro-choice rallies
Recycle my cans and jars
I'll honk if you love the Dead
Hope those funny grunge bands become stars
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me
I'm a liberal
Yeh, I read the New Republic
Rolling Stone and Mother Jones too
If I vote it's a Democrat
With a sensible economy view
But when it comes to terrorist Arabs
There's no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me, love me
I'm a liberal
From Jello Biafra's remake of the Phil Ochs song.
Seriously though, you just have to look at Obama's record to see that he was basically cut from the same cloth as Clinton and FDR. Both presidents who continued/expanded the role of government for security and social purposes. If you liked them you'll probably like Obama. As a libertarian-leaning person, I think he'll be a refreshing change from the last 8 years, and marginally better than McCain, but doesn't represent any significant change in the political spectrum of the last 50 years. Just another period in the spiral of expansionism.
And the thing is he has never really represented himself as anything different. You have this very charismatic leader, that agrees with you on some issues and suddenly people start fooling themselves into believing he is everything they want him regardless of what he says. I can't count how many times I've heard, "well he has to say that to get elected" over the last 6 months. Those people are now going to be shocked that he is doing the exact thing he promised, in addition to the normal broken campaign promises.
Unless you actually plan on doing something horrific and are dumb enough to talk about it over a phone this shouldn't be a problem.
So, can you tell me exactly how someone gets on the No-Fly lists? Can you tell me these records will never be used in a civil or criminal case?
What about a joke you made about the pretty new secretary at work 2 years ago--and she ends up kidnapped, killed, and/or raped? If "they" start combing through your past phone conversations, do you think the prosecution would ignore the possibility that you were sexually obsessed with her?
"If you haven't done anything wrong..." is not a good argument. It's about all the ways it can go wrong.
Never confuse movement with action. --Hemingway
If you have nothing to hide, you don't need privacy? Really?
So, suppose the government decides that a particular relgion, or activist group, or whatever, has goals that are "un-American"; or harbors or aids terrorists; etc. Is it ok that they intercept communications and use what they find to identify and persecute members and/or supporters of that organization?
It's not a question of whether you're doing something "wrong"; it's a question of whether you're doing anything that someone in power might choose to dislike.
Didn't it occur to anyone here that Obama's attorney general pick hasn't even been confirmed yet? Obama is only nominally in charge of the DOJ at this point. So who do you think it is filing these papers? Well, the names are right in the PDF, starting with Michael F. Hertz. Yes, Michael F. Hertz, Deputy Assistant Attorney General under Alberto Gonzales.
My hand to God. Baby geese. Goslings. They were juggled.
I don't go to church, but I pay so others can go even though I think it is a hateful waste of time.
I am a product of my society, and have no problem giving back some of my wealth to help my less fortunate fellow citizens.
I do not agree with most 'welfare' programs that hand out money, but health care is worth the cost.
Blar.
Folks,
This sucks. However let's keep in mind that the order to close the detention/torture center at Gitmo has gone out, and to close the CIA detention centers, and the order to err on the side of disclosure in FOIA cases.
Let's keep in mind that it's a request for stay, not the last word. But it looks like Obama isn't on our side regarding this issue, and we might have to work for a long time to win it. Consider what we are winning so far, and keep on working. We were never going to get a candidate elected who agreed with us on everything.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
What is trumping is not safety at all, but fear for your safety, which is a very different thing. I challenge anyone to show that we are actually safer now than we were 8 years ago.
Despite all the "sacrifices" that have been made regarding rights, I don't think so.
(Note: I put "sacrifices" in quotes, because it order for someone to truly sacrifice something, it has to be given not taken.)
This doesn't mean anything, hes just putting it on hold.
in this document? Does that look like his Attorney General's name to you? No, that's Deputy Assistant Attorney General Michael F. Hertz, who served under Alberto Gonzales; Obama's AG hasn't been confirmed yet.
The US government didn't magically transform itself at the stroke of noon on Tuesday.
My hand to God. Baby geese. Goslings. They were juggled.
My take: let's wait this out. It's very important to keep in line, but keep in mind that the AG and new justice dept. aren't even appointed.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Let's hypothesize that Bush/Obama are acting in good faith, and let's use as many weasel words in their favor as possible.
That leaves us with a situation where it appears (apparently deceptively) that the government broke the law. The government does not want a court to review their actions to clear them of this wrongful accusation, because the evidence is a national security secret and could result in the deaths of many secret agents and programs and an inability to gather foreign intelligence in the future.
It is insufficient to seal this evidence and let the court review it behind closed doors, because...
I come up with a total blank. What am I missing? They think the judge will blab to Osama? I can't come up with a best case scenario that doesn't involve something ridiculous.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Obama is blocking almost every policy matter still pending from Bush. This is just one of many issues being blocked until the Obama administration can get caught up and take an official stance on it. He may well "side with Bush", but he hasn't really done so yet.
Hikery.net - The best hiking site ever. Made by yours truly.
Since you said that, I take it that if the government didn't force you to give your money towards health care, then you'd be willing to give some of it up voluntarily to a charity that deals with health care for the poor, or your local hospital?
yes: what makes you think others don't feel the same? Or are you superior to everyone else?
no: then you are a hypocrite, using authority to force people to do what you want when you wouldn't even do it yourself.
Show me a goddamned declaration of war from congress (not just a resolution backing the President's actions). There is a difference.
Show me a draft notice.
Show me indications that they are actually trying to WIN over there, as opposed to just filling the pockets of the friends of politicians.
Show me a nation mostly convinced that we should be over there in the first place. (I don't think you can.)
If you think this is a war, then you have never been in a real war.
Did you really expect anything different?
You know how the saying goes, hope in one hand, shit in the other and see which one fills up faster.
You must have bet some real suckers as Obama made his FISA position clear well before he was elected. There was even a big thing on his website about it.
Kudos on your score!
Dissolve... Resolve... Evolve...
I do not agree with most 'welfare' programs that hand out money, but health care is worth the cost.
No, it's not. Not until people are expected to take reasonable care of themselves. People aren't "hardwired" to eat more today any more than they were 50 years ago. It's a personal choice, and people like to sugar coat the truth or say "it's not your fault," but if you're obese, its YOUR fault and YOU need to get your diet under control. Instead of making excuses (or letting others do it for them) these people need to act.
Until that happens, I'm not going to support national health care. And before you tell me it costs more to treat other symptoms related to obesity, I say cut off health care to treat those as well. You want to be fat and get diabetes? Fine, don't expect anyone to help you pay your related medical bills.
I think it's unfair to react knee-jerk to this and denounce the new President. He's been there for three whole days and is probably still learning where all the conference rooms and restrooms are. Jumping into the middle of an ongoing court case and having the lawyers completely overhaul the strategy that they've been working on for months or years would be one of the easiest ways to throw a monkey wrench into existing operations without having a full grasp of the entirety of the issue.
Give him six months, and THEN give him hell for supporting warrantless [and unconstitutional] wiretaps.
It's like a choose you own adventure post
Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
The Obama Administration did not explain their actions, and they may not be what so many of the /. crowd would like to think.
Obama has always been about a smooth transition and letting go of past distractions. Yes what happened under Bush was horrible, but let's just let it drop and move forward.
Also, the action by the Administration lawyers doesn't show support for Bush policies, but support for the way the Bush legal team was handling the case. I'm no laywer, but it appears the government simply wants a stay on decision of a lower court until an appeal can be lodged and decided. A perfectly reasonable request in my book, even if you want the government to lose the case.
I say, give it time before you jump to conclusions.
Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
I read a few of the comments following this story, and they all seem to have a similar theme of having a fairly negative POV about Obama's stand on this issue.
Rather than simply bitch about your spin on this, lets look at why he is doing this. IANAL, but it seems to me that he is holding on to secret information pending the outcome of legal process to determine if it is admissible evidence. This would seem to be prudent, as if it is admitted as evidence, it is no long really secret. Any lawyers out there, please jump if I am getting this wrong.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
What I'm not sure of is whether this action was taken at Obama's express order, or was taken by one of the civil servants who is still following Bush's policy?
In any case, Obama has barely had any time at all to really take control of the bureaucracy. I imagine a great many things are being done in his name that he would not want done right now, but it takes time to change the direction of a giant machine like the Executive Branch.
--PM
I'd like to see some discussion from someone more versed in the case and its legal proceedings before I make up my mind on this. I read TFA, and a couple of other similar articles, but also read the filing itself. Nothing from it led me to believe that the Obama administration was explicitly siding with Bush on this case, only that it was asking for a stay in proceedings until the appeal filed by Bush was handled. That seems reasonable to me, as the appeal had already been issued.
My questions for those more educated than myself on the matter is, would it have been more appropriate for Obama to ask that the appeal be dismissed outright and for the case to proceed? Would that cause more trouble for the case than simply reiterating that the case continue on the track that it had been when Bush left office?
Imagine how many people it must take to listen in to everyone's conversations. Now imagine all those poor people jobless. There's your problem.
Yes, but when the private sector loses money, I have CHOSEN to pay them to do it. I am to blame and I take full responsibility for any such losses. When the government loses money, they have forced the money out of me under threat of jail time.
http://www.allen-poole.com/
It's a personal choice, and people like to sugar coat the truth or say "it's not your fault," but if you're obese, its YOUR fault and YOU need to get your diet under control.
These are the same people that probably sugar coat the truth and then eat it.
The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments. - Nietzche
How cute, you thought he was different than other politicians.
I don't go to church, but I pay so others can go even though I think it is a hateful waste of time.
I am a product of my society, and have no problem giving back some of my wealth to help my less fortunate fellow citizens.
I do not agree with most 'welfare' programs that hand out money, but health care is worth the cost.
That's great there are lots of private organizations that provide health care for the poor and disadvantaged. Which one are you giving your money to?
I always like to hear about organizations that are helping people.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
...that maybe, just maybe, Obama did this because when he finally got to the throne he learned the reasons this made it out there in the first place? That maybe, just maybe, there might be something, or some reason, that the mighty Slashdotters don't know? That when he sat down with everyone, he sat back and said "Oh, gee whiz, I hadn't realized that was why Bush & Co. did that. now I get it. Hmm. Maybe I shouldn't screw with it."
Baseless self confidence kills more people each year than bathtubs.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You pay so others can go? I'm confused, how is church payed for by the government? It's a tax-exempt organization, but it doesn't get free government handouts. Churches are funded by their members. That's completely different than free health care provided by the government.
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
You're already supporting national health care. It's just not universal health care. The US government spends more per capita on health care than many countries, including Canada. But instead of putting money into the pockets of doctors, you're putting money into the pockets of insurance company shareholders.
Thakk you, Comrade. Your loyalty to the People and faith in our Glorious Leaders is noted and appreciated.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
..a "stay" is just like hitting the pause button. Perhaps we're all jumping the gun here. It may be that (like so many things Bush left) Obama hasn't had time to review this case and filed to keep it paused until the Justice Dept. can give him an opinion.
Or, I could be totally wrong and DOOM is around the corner... ;)
Nitewing '98
Everything works...in theory.
No. I have no belief in the effectiveness of privately-run charity.
yes: what makes you think others don't feel the same?
How about the present state of the US healthcare system? Irritating things, facts.
no: then you are a hypocrite, using authority to force people to do what you want when you wouldn't even do it yourself.
How so? As a high-earning guy without children, I probably pay more than my "fair share", whatever that means, of taxes, so there's no hypocrisy I see in wanting them.
I am trolling
...was before he even won the election, with his vote for FISA. :(
The only thing that could make this post better would be a flow chart.
Sic Semper MicroSoft
Like most things in my life...I'd rather have the option to be responsible and handle them myself in my own way.
I have my own insurance, a high deductible policy to only be used for catastrophic needs. I sock money away in a HSA pre-tax...and use that for meds, and routine visits, etc. In the long run, I come out way ahead of those with employer benefits, etc. When I go to the Dr. and tell them I'm paying myself, they usually give me at least a 15% discount off the top of what they'd charge an insurance co.
At this point, I like doing things myself.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I thought I heard that last week?
Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling a pig in the mud. After a while, you realize the engineer enjoys it.
Linking obesity and welfare is a stretch.
In real terms, husbands leave wives with children. Support is iffy. There are the blind, the developmentally disabled, the physically disabled, and others that we as a society have a need to care for, lest they find themselves in the gutter.
You can buy lots of pasta and pork hocks for cheap. You eat them and get fat.
But then, an XBox life can do that to you, too.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Not a problem. Warrantless wiretapping != Communism last I checked the math.
As an aside, I find it humorous that your weak and trite response merits a score of 2 as opposed to my post which is actually novel relative to all the other whining about the subject of the original post.
Hmm...but, you're still not paying enough in taxes you feel?
I pay plenty too, and I figure what I pay now is enough (if not too much). I don't want yet ANOTHER federal excuse to raid my paycheck for a national health care system.
We already have medicare/medicade for the truly poor and elderly. Anyone in between, can take care of themselves like most of us do.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
We also don't have eight hour waiting periods to be seen either, which is why many of you Candians come here to Vermont to have your medical procedures done. If your universal care is so wonderful, why do Canadians make up a signifcant part of patients seen at my local health care providers?
I'm not saying the US system is perfect either, but a universal system is not the answer.
You're not understanding the full impact of what happened.
let's say you own a company, and you get supplied short term credit to make things like payroll or materials for unexpected large orders. Your bank then decides you're not good enough to extend a hand for short term credit thanks to the credit crunch. You are now screwed.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Churches do not pay taxes, but they receive the same government services as everyone else (police and fire protection, roads, etc.) Therefore, yes, they are subsidized by the government. Furthermore, the "faith-based programs" started by Bush (which look like another policy which will be continued by Obama) consist of government handouts of cash to churches.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
If you start with ECHELON, then you kinda gotta assume that State of the Art follows the same "sipping from a fire hose" logic, only better. The new electronic lingua franca for communications of all kinds, where the phone company is just one more client for terabytes of available bandwidth (so to speak), sort of requires you to listen to everyone if you want to listen to anyone. You have to dumb down to one channel of interest somehow. IMHO, you could make an argument that First Amendment freedom of the press protects the right to listen as well as the right to mouth off, so the NSA gets a pass on that one. They have to listen to the 99.44% of /. that's utter drivel (of course, this ain't that ;-)
``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
You are free to do so, I also believe in that, may I recommend the organization I use do distribute my wealth?
I also give some of my money to a health insurance policy. Everyone who believes in having some security against unforeseen health problems are also free to do so. But I also believe in freedom of choice. I'm free to choose the exact level of protection I want. I don't want to be spoon-fed with a health insurance plan.
Did I make a wrong choice? Ooops! Perhaps I didn't have the health insurance I needed, perhaps I crossed the street at the wrong time, perhaps I ate the wrong mushroom. But at least it was *MY* choice, I'd rather die of a disease my health insurance didn't cover than from a disease the State Health Insurance Plan didn't provide for.
The blinders that rich people in the US use to not see the large percentage of the population which isn't well off are are amazing. There are a shitload of people for whom a 60" HDTV is just not an option, and for whom lack of health care insurance is a real hardship.
Loose lips lose spit.
There is nothing novel about your post. It is simply a rehashing of the usual craven, stupid excuses for sacrificing freedom of which this nation has already heard far too many. There are many countries in which not only does the government behave in ways which would be more to your liking, but in which there are no laws against it doing so; perhaps you should move to one of them? If you choose to stay here in the US, however, you'll have to learn to deal with the fact that many of your fellow Americans are braver and smarter than you.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
about the 9/11 perpetrators running around the tribal areas of pakistan, and pakistan's inability to control the area or find the perps
or i suppose looking bad to other countries is a crime only the usa can be guilty of
the desire to see al qaeda assholes in pakistan's hinterlands punished is universal: liberal americans, conservative americans, radicals of all flavors
so remind me again about what the justified hunt for al qaeda has to with electing "liars" please?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
No, I understand.
Any time an economy bases a large portion of its business on not only credit systems, but on speculative credit systems, it is subject to a periodic rise and fall. And often one immediately follows the other. This is something which will happen because speculation and credit are both highly tied into human emotion. When the world feels like spending, it thrives, when it gets scared, it starves. This is the way of things.
Here's the thing though. If the entire economy goes bankrupt, if I starve because of it, I have not been forced into that situation. Even if I felt that I had no other options, no one has held a gun to my back and forced me to get a mortgage. Someone is forcing me to pay for government and government waste and they waste it.
I don't think I really need to argue about corruption in NJ, but as far as waste -- I have worked with people on welfare, I was a case manager at a non-profit once and trust me, the government sucks at its job, consistently. I have seen them screw the poor and demand help for people who could not account for hundreds of dollars per month in their budgets. Is this right? Would I ever willingly buy something which functioned like that? For losing 1/4 of my paycheck to this incompetency, I'm getting jack in return.
http://www.allen-poole.com/
And this, my friends, is why I vote Libertarian. It doesn't matter which of the two big parties is in office. Either way, the government is just going to get bigger and bigger, and our list of freedoms is going to get smaller and smaller.
I only hope I'll live long enough to see the day when a president is finally elected who believes in small government and freedom for all, like our founding fathers did. As it stands now, we seem to be moving ever closer to a totalitarian regime with each new president who's elected. I just hope I can get out of here before soldiers start getting posted on every street corner.
I wonder, when America does finally get to that point, do you think the new Democratic Iraq and Afghanistan will show up to unseat our leaders? It'd be kind of ironic to hear them going on about "The Middle-Eastern Man's Burden." Maybe they'll find some weapons of mass destruction here, while they're at it.
He's in bed with the 2 party ruling class. What did you expect?
they have forced the money out of me under threat of jail time
So you take only private roads to work and shower with bottled water?
Just callin' it like I see it.
There are very many ways you can be screwed in the private sector that you have no control over. If you have no control, then the "choice" is only an illusion, and you have been screwed just as hard.
Of course, we could form our own collective group of citizens to increase our bargaining power and impose restrictions on those we choose to do business with, but then we'd be labeled with some dirty term like "union" or "government".
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're
Also that paid is a real word; payed is not
moox. for a new generation.
I said novel relative to the rest of the other whining posts in this thread. Not novel in absolute terms.
How warrantless wireteapping of suspect individuals equates to some large sacrifice of freedom I don't understand. In fact, it appears our leaders agree with my position, even if you don't.
I have no illusions that I'm more brave or smart than many of my fellow Americans. I would contest that I'm perhaps more brave and more smart than you, however.
Same names and faces actually. This came from what is still effectively the Bush DOJ.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
I don't care if it's a *problem*. What I care about is that no one has any business looking into my business unless I specifically have been doing something suspicion-worthy.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
The computer is your friend.
morcego
I fully support taxation which is for certain things. I believe a municipality has the right to tax its citizens for the police force. I will even go so far as to say there are things which necessitate government involvement. My object comes from something deeper.
In 2006, Governor Corzine announced that he was raising the sales tax to 7% to accommodate for budget shortfalls (God forbid he CUTS spending). A week later he said that he was pledging $2 million for sidewalks. Now, I like sidewalks as much as the next pedestrian, but when the state is already in $37 billion in debt, mightn't it be a good idea to avoid spending more money? But this is what the government has done, without fail, in the state of NJ and it is what DC does as regularly, if not more often. For goodness sakes, the initial $800 billion federal relief plan included exclusions for factories which made wooden arrows for children. This isn't intelligent spending.
Oh, and I have a pump, and power from a co-op. The major roads I normally take to get to work are municipal roads, if I take state or international roads for more than about 5 miles, I get stuck in about 20-30 minutes worth of traffic.
http://www.allen-poole.com/
This is what he did on his first day: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ExecutiveOrderPresidentialRecords/ http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ExecutiveOrder-EthicsCommitments/ Not too shabby.
Now there's a surprise. So is this the change people were hoping for?
Liberty in your lifetime
Thanks. Apparently, you're not.
That's because 40% of American households earn less than 40k a year. Four thousand dollars is at least ten percent of their entire yearly income, before taxes, assuming that they have insurance that pays.
If they already have one child, that's basically out of their reach. And these people are not dropping money on anything but bills.
The reason you can't incentivize health care by rewarding treatment is because everyone becomes over-treated, and there's a big difference between how much having a baby actually costs and how much people are willing to pay for it. Just like utilities such as water and electricity would be far more expensive if they weren't regulated.
Single payer systems work all across the rest of the western world, even in Britain, where they have nearly the same obesity rates and exercise habits. Just allow everyone who wants to keep their private health care to keep paying for it and receive a tax credit.
The US population in late middle age is less healthy than the equivalent British population for diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, lung disease, and cancer.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/295/17/2037
Democracy cannot survive when the rulers can keep secrets from the people.
And this case is a complete joke. Really? It is a secret? Seriously? Is it still a secret when like 7 billion people know it? Who exactly are we still hiding the secret from? Mr Magoo?
You're only going to get fat in front of the Xbox if you spend all your time snacking while doing it in addition to eating oversized meals on a regular basis
moox. for a new generation.
Flamebait? Just because I stated the opposite viewpoint in a strong fashion? What a joke you guys are.
Oh, and I guess all those people who are unemployed are just "lazy bums who are leeching my tax dollars and not working", and "all fat people are just eating too much" or "all lung cancer sufferers are smokers and don't deserve any of my help to get better" or "anyone with liver disease is an alkie".
There is no doubt that obesity and smoking are major burdens on the UK health system, but everyone pays their NI, everyone is treated. The NHS run campaigns to educate people on how to eat and live healthily, but there are no rules.
I thought the US was all about "the government can't tell me what to do".
You're advocating forcing people to eat and live a certain way else they'll be denied there supposedly "universal" care. Short of making eating junk food illegal, I just don;t see how that would fly.
Americans have got to wake up and realise that the world does not always revolve around the individual. When something like national healthcare is mentioned, you cannot think of it in terms of "how will this affect me? Me me me. My money! My money will help pay for poor people to get healthcare! That's unfair! I pay my way and so should they!", without thinking about the big picture that if *everyone* is helping, then those that really can't help much (the unemployed, the extremely poor, the homeless) get help, while the better off also benefit. Try telling someone in the UK (no matter how much money they make) that your prescription can cost upwards of $100 for some meds. *All* prescriptions on the NHS cost a fixed sum, and it's £6.something.
Six quid. For any number of pills, for any medication.
I'm not sure where all that medical insurance money is going in the US, but if your drugs can cost more than $100 per month, it's not into pills.
Spain has an universal health care system, and yet people can go to a doctor outside of the system if they wish: There's less lines, but higher fees. This makes private insurance much cheaper, because they really are not expected to cover the disaster situations: In most ways, they are just a supplement over what the public system won't take care of as quickly as you'd like.
As it is now in the US, with people spending a thousand a month insurance still having to spend hundreds of dollars on fees and deductibles for visiting an emergency room, does insurance even make sense?
But you have still chosen to be in a position to be screwed. Your entire business can burn down, that sucks, but it was your business and, except in the case of arson, you lost it fair and square, no one forced the building to catch fire. There is a bad crop one year so the farm is lost -- well, no one forced the bad crop upon you.
It sucks, but you have at least taken your own risks. If you get screwed you get screwed. But, along the way, in the private sector, you can use your money as you will. If it comes to it, you can (literally) sell the farm, cut your losses and change where you are in the private sector. You might lose an important member of your staff, you might overhire, you might get sued, but YOU still got into that situation.
When it comes to money, I generally look to the rule of cost-benefit analysis. What does the government cost me? 25% of my income before I see it, 7% sales tax, property taxes, taxes on alcohol and tobacco, and likely soon a tax on owning a second car (how is my wife supposed to get to work when she works different hours from me?) Yet, for this, I get wars I don't like, causes I don't support, and people in office I don't trust. And I will admit, there are a number of things I benefit from in the federal/state government (mostly the highway system), but I will also point out that (as often as not), the government causes as many problems as it solves.
Oh, and one more thing, eventually this debt will have to be REPAID. How is that going to happen if the government continually becomes BIGGER? It simply cannot. So, this either leaves us with a government which defaults on its debt, or inflates the dollar to compensate, neither of these sound particularly appealing.
http://www.allen-poole.com/
I'm positive our government did this type of thing prior to the current terror threats (you bet during the Cold War!).
As am I. But it was never right, never legal, and "we've always done it" is not an acceptable excuse to continue doing something wrong.
Just make sure it's not that peppermint-flavored dog poop.
No, just because 'we've always done it' is not a good excuse, you're right. But where we disagree is that I don't think it's 'wrong' either.
It's a question of whether the good produced outweighs the bad. In my opinion, it does.
Try 10 dollar per day.
http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
I'm a European. My taxes seem to manage to be sufficient to fund healthcare without being excessively burdensome. I wouldn't want to live in a country without nationalized healthcare, even if it meant an overall saving to me personally.
We already have medicare/medicade for the truly poor and elderly.
How well does that work out? My impression is that in the US a lot of conditions end up getting treated a lot later (and hence both less effectively and far more expensively) than they should be, because people won't go to a doctor unless it seems serious.
I am trolling
Just because somebody makes $10 a day doesn't mean I'm rich because I make $30 an hour. Everything is relative.
You better get at least 63" for that kinda scratch.
Somebody?
At least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day.
Everything is relative. True.
You are relatively rich ; ).
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
I don't have a problem either. In fact I bet most don't. The problem is that they are doing it without obtaining a warrant first. Or even getting one within 72 hours. FISA is there for a reason. By all means, wiretap away. But, GET A WARRANT issued by a FISA judge, so we can at least pretend we care about our republic and its constitution.
All points of time and space are connected.
They said:
an administration promising transparency and openness
No one said anything about accountability, we charge extra for that!
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
Eight hour waiting lines?
This is big news to me. Maybe I'm not living in the same Canada you're hearing about.
I think my UK friends will disagree when they do the conversion...£15/hour! Where does he work...McDonalds???
We also don't have eight hour waiting periods to be seen either
I guess you've never had to visit the ER.
I don't speak French; can you repeat that in Freedom please?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
To anyone wondering how many of these racist ACs are actually registered users in good standing you should check out the mod on parent comment.
ATM it is 0 Flamebait with the following percentages:
50% Flamebait
30% Insightful
20% Underrated
Let's see.
Leftist Socialist Leanings = Big Government
Big Government = Loss of personal freedoms.
hmm...
Yeah, I saw that one coming a mile away.
Oh don't forget it all in the name of safety and security and think of the childern.
my quote, "if your house has bars on the windows it's not a house it's a fancy jail cell"
What sort of "irritating facts" do you have to backup the notion that privately-run charities are not effective?
Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two.
Or so the theory goes, but a lot of people just above the poverty line still struggle, even though they aren't considered "truly poor," and it's those people who are uninsured.
All your base are belong to Wii.
Don't mean to point out the obvious, but TFA states that Obama's now the defendant, not Bush, because Obama's now the president. Requesting a stay only means that he's buying some time. I'd do the same if I found myself in a new job being sued for what my predecessor did.
On the other hand, he can disagree with spying on US citizens but still support immunity for the telecoms. A private company (or individual) should not be punished for cooperating with the government when the government was doing something illegal. Sure, its a Nuremberg defense, but the difference here is that we're talking about a legally ambiguous request, not a heinous immoral act like genocide or DRM.
I couldn't agree more. I have no interest in paying for health insurance for the same land monsters that have destroyed the public school system, without some kind of assurance that they'll be forced to take care of themselves.
I propose the following physical standards:
Must be able to run 5 miles in under 40 minutes.
Must be able to perform 3 sets of 10 pull ups, spaced no more than 60 seconds apart.
Must be able to perform 3 sets of 8 dumbbell bench presses at 100% of body weight, spaced no more than 3 minutes apart.
Must be able to perform 3 sets of 8 squats at 150% of body weight, spaced no more than 3 minutes apart.
I can quite easily perform all of these tasks, which greatly reduces the cost of my health insurance. Why should my costs double so that I can take care of a bunch of worthless fatbodies? If you can't perform these exercises, how do you feel about the government forcing you to exercise? Without mandatory physical standards, you'll run into the same issues you run into with the public school system; parent's don't care about their children and don't emphasize education or discipline. I live a couple of miles away from a public high school that's in the top 5% nationally, yet all 5 of the private high schools within 15 miles rank substantially higher. If you want your children to have a quality education in the United States, you have to pay for public schools for everyone else's children, and private schools for your own. The same will be true of health care.
You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
People are entitled to their opinions, as politically incorrect or bigoted as they may be.
I never usually pay attention to FPs, but I suspect that whoever modded it insightful was just pissed about Obama's hypocrisy on this issue and chose a poor way to show it - still though, like the Jewish lawyer who has vigorously defended the KKK or white supremacists (I think it was the klan but can't remember) on first amendment grounds, I may not agree with someone's point of view or may find it infantile, bigoted, pointless or personally highly offensive - but I still support their being able to say it.
The first blow was massive appointment of Czars to take running things out of the hands of the secretaries, etc. That was a method of bypassing congress and the system of checks and balances.
This is the second blow. Trust me, there are plenty yet to come. Did you actually believe a real person would be allowed to get press coverage as a presidential candidate? Let alone be party nominated? The parties are all on the same team, and it isn't our team.
or option 3. He would agree to if everyone else in his country also did.
And oh, well, look at that, that's what happened.
That "we need the money to research new drugs" line has always been bullshit peddled by the drug companies. I do not buy it for a second. There is no reason for cheap, generic, easy to manufacture drugs cost as much as they do in the US.
And that the US is somehow "shouldering the burden of drug research on its own, for the good of us all" is terribly arrogant. It is nowhere close to accurate.
"...but I still support their being able to say it."
Do you support the continued supply of mod points to these moderators though?
Is the old metamod system still in play? Did I opt out when I went with the Beta index? If it is still around I should mention that I get mod points all the time but no metamod invitations anymore.
no: then you are a hypocrite
False. It's the sort of thing that only works if everyone does it. This relates to the concept of cooperative play in game theory, and one of the reasons why we have an evolutionary drive towards tribalism.
Think of it this way. Let's say five of us have access to a fishery. It can indefinitely support each of us catching one fish per week. If any of us overfish it, however, then the fishery goes dry (i.e. runs out of fish) and is permanently destroyed.
We understand that this is the case, and would like to keep it indefinitely. Are we just going to restrict ourselves out of own volition? Of course not; it doesn't work. All it takes is one guy to decide to overfish it, and the fishery is destroyed. In fact, you know of several people who will overfish it unless they are stopped.
So are you a hypocrite if you overfish it? Not at all. It's going to be destroyed by your neighbors; you may as well take what you can.
The only way this can work is if we ALL agree to band together: should anyone step out of line, the rest of us have to punish that person. In tribal times, this would simply be violence or death; nowadays it's prison or a fine. With this system, we can work together, and the fishery can be sustained indefinitely.
You can see in this example why you have such a wide range of base instincts and why they are so useful. This is why people are altruistic; it is necessary for this scenario to happen. This is why these same people are vengeful; possibility (or certainty) of revenge or punishment is a strong disincentive towards taking advantage of someone.
As an aside note, this is *exactly* how wildlife regulations currently work in the civilized world. You have an allotment of fish or mammals you are allowed to fish or hunt; if you poach, you get a fine or prison.
Like your 'donations' scheme, it only works if everyone does it. I'm not going to donate to health care in a two tier system when a negligible percentage of the population does it. It won't make a difference and I'm wasting my money.
If you haven't guessed, I am Canadian, and I like the system we have here. I am never sick, but I am more than happy to pay my share, because everyone does. We are a better country for it.
Well most hospitals I've been to in the US without private insurance keep we waiting for at least 4 hours in the ER. At least in SC.
I waited for 4 hours after a car accident where I was clearly and visibly burned and injured. The ER wasn't packed either. Some kid with the sniffles came in and left before I was even seen once.
You don't have 4 hour waits if you've got awesome insurance they can bill for $10,000 for a case of the sniffles.
I thought the US was all about "the government can't tell me what to do".
You're advocating forcing people to eat and live a certain way else they'll be denied there supposedly "universal" care.
If it's alright for the government to force me to pay for health insurance for all the fatbodied land-monsters out there, then it's just as alright for the government to force all of those fatbodies to get their asses in gear.
You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
The sin has already been committed. If this evidence can be used to seal the case on someone who needs to Go Away, then so be it.
That said, the warrentless wiretaps stop Now.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
I promise to end all the bad stuff that person A did. Become president, become privy to information that's super top secret president level stuff. Oh, um, we learn lots and stopped x number of bad things in a quasi-legal way. Oh, the stuff we stopped, it's super top secret president level stuff, I can't tell you. Sorry about making a promise on a uninformed issue that only 3 people know about.
Who are "these moderators?" Is it more than one?
Certainly a post as offensive as that one and with as many different sorts of moderations is going to be tackled by metamoderation.
I guess I feel like it will be sorted out in meta moderation - that if someone is truly abusing their mod points that's going to come out....
I mean - by and large I think the moderation system works, everyone has had a post poorly moderated, or had someone mod a post for what seems like petty personal reasons, but democratic type of system is always open to a little abuse.
As for the second question, i dunno..I get mod points all of the time and still see the metamod link at the top after modding things....One thing I have noticed is that the entire site doesn't seem to work properly in IE7, but I usually use chrome or Firefox.
When I go to the Dr. and tell them I'm paying myself, they usually give me at least a 15% discount off the top of what they'd charge an insurance co.
Which must set you thinking: if that sort of shenanigans didn't happen, I'd be paying less for my insurance premiums.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
No, I won't admit something that's not true, even though you want to believe it's so. Just because I strongly worded my opinion on the original post doesn't mean I wanted to start a flamewar. I simply stated a position...and I think that people who don't think the government hasn't always been doing this are ignorant. I didn't call them any number of more negative things that I could have.
I actually thought someone might agree with me...but apparently not a single person viewing these posts did. I find that both odd and disturbing.
I still take umbrage with getting marked flamebait on this post. Perhaps I'll have to simply post something a little more smart alec'y or yet another tired old joke in order to get mod'ed up.
Well, not getting what you want out of government is a very different matter from a general public vs private sector claim. There are some things -- defense, most notably -- that government certainly should be more efficient at. That's really the point. If they're fucking it up, replace them.
Not necessarily. The reason they charge more to insurance companies is for the shenanigans that they pull on the doctors. Think about all the paperwork, time, and effort that is spent getting the insurance companies to cough up the money owed to the doctors. That's not free. Apparently it's probably an extra 10% in cost and the extra 5% is incentive for more people to pay directly.
This happened to me, only i probably appeared to be the kid with the sniffles.
Only Urgent care thought I had a ruptured appendix when it was really the stomach flu.
It's not the ER's fault for admitting me with a sense of urgency in this case - However the Urgent care doctor did not completely diagnose me and sent me off asap (Probably because it was close to closing time)
So, while visibly I was shaking, pale, and couldn't speak without being interrupted with sharp stomach pains - I certainly had less obvious wounds like a broken leg. Did I feel bad about it afterwards? Yea - but I would never have gone to the ER in the first place, that's why I went to urgent care.
I guess the moral of my story is: You probably don't know anything about that kid with the sniffles or whatever their given circumstances were and should at least keep that in mind while being resentful of the system.
(And yea - my insurance got RAPED. I paid 80$ to the ER and the bill was over 8000. Then again I had to pay Urgent care 60$ for a copay and 120 in bloodwork that they didn't even use and 10 minutes of bed time)
No, I am not an English major. My posts are subject to typos and incorrect grammar. Do not expect perfection.
When I go to the Dr. and tell them I'm paying myself, they usually give me at least a 15% discount off the top of what they'd charge an insurance co.
Why in the world would you do that? Your insurance company gets much better rates than you receive individually (typically 1/3, as little as 1/10th) and you need them to track your expenses against your deductible (in case you break you leg and do your damnedest to reach that deductible). I've had plans with two different companies and I never pay a cent until billed by the provider, after the charge has been reduced to the insurance company contract rate.
I look at all my high deductible "Explanation of Benefits" statements and it's typical to see medication reduced by half or more from the walk-up rate, with the largest reduction I've seen coming close to 90%. For lab tests, I've seen far greater reductions (yes, really). Based on that, it seems clear to me that the uninsured, those paying cash, are the ones being ripped off in this system. The insured have the catastrophic event protection of the insurance system as well as the cost savings of the high deductible plans available to them.
I'm a big proponent of high deductible plans, as I find them to be a winner regardless of your health status if your deductible is also your out-of-pocket-maximum. If you don't have a health issue, you pocket your insurance savings and your pre-tax savings. If you have a serious event, you pocket your insurance savings, spend your pre-tax savings and avoid the 10% to 20% hospital copays of a traditional plan. If you fall between, your partial payment of the pretax savings is nicely offset by the lack of drug and office visit copays and you still save on the insurance cost.
I've also found that insurance costs are reduced so much that the employer can pay a portion of the deductible and still save money overall. In addition to paying most of the insurance premium (80% for employees, 70% for dependents), my company (that's also me, btw) pays half the deductible on a $2K/$4K plan. We get the full deduction from our income and employees (me again) can even opt to pay nothing into the savings system and have little risk of their out-of-pocket expense exceeding that of a traditional plan. We both save those dreaded payroll taxes, too.
Now, if I could find out why my hospital wants $44K+ each day for "room and board" and why the insurance company allowed $24K+, I'd have the answer to why health insurance costs so much. And yes, the other charges were all itemized separately. I'll grant that the room was private, but it hardly seems like difference could be that much of a factor, since the insurer had no trouble with it.
Well, the kid in my case was just feeling like crap because of a nasty cold he got at school plus an ear infection. He had like a 103 degree fever. I actually talked to his mom for a while when I was sitting there unable to walk with a nicely burned hand and a towel on my face trying to get my nose to stop gushing blood.
Appendicitis is serious, I don't blame the ER for taking it pretty seriously.
I made sure I did my homework before I started throwing accusations at the triage staff. Even the kid's parents thought it was bullshit.
That might be the only remaining function of democracy in the US, letting the population take turns saying it's not their fault. ;)
FRA: STFU GTFO
I believe in America, too, but in constitutional American principles, not politicians. I am NOT in fact a liberal, but I am a skeptic, and I appreciate your tongue-in-cheek comment.
Patients should be paying for accident/disability
insurance if they want a big payout when a doctor
screws up. That "if" matters; nobody should be
forced to have these costs.
Doctors should never pay. If they screw up because
of incompetence, they should lose their career.
If they screw up because they want to do harm,
they should lose their freedom: go to jail.
Right now, as a patient, I'm paying crazy bills
in part because there are people who habitually
sue the doctors. I want to opt out, and I don't
want my doctor being a middleman passing money
from me to a malpractice insurance company.
"but if you're obese, its YOUR fault and YOU need to get your diet under control. Instead of making excuses (or letting others do it for them) these people need to act."
Ok.....
Whole foods, and foods not built around cheap fillers and/or laden with cheap processed sugars are ....
EXPENSIVE to those less capable of funds. I used to run 50 miles or more a month, own 2 businesses, and truly believed that if you didn't have something it's because you weren't trying hard enough.
Wrong.
some are gifted with affluence and/or influence from birth. Some have a natural genetic tendency towards being thin. Some of us were born with exceptional intellect.
I have two young daughters, one eats a fair amount, the other EATS. They both don't remotely exercise enough. One has an absolutely perfect figure by magazine standards, the other will suffer verbally from ignorant asshats like you. The "fat" one eats less, btw. she is intellectually gifted. The other is very normal.
I would spew senseless vitriol at you, but instead, I recommend you try to not be completely ignorant when making definitive statements.
Stupid fuck.
Socialized medicine doesn't cover "optional" procedures?
Socialized medicine cannot cater to elitists that want the best of the best, and will pay for it?
Socialized medicine will not cover cosmetic "upgrade" procedures?
I think in those reasons, and a few similar reasons, the bulk of it is explained.
I have waited 4 hours in a -not- busy E.R., with head trauma and a good bit of blood loss, as a child. Here. In the U.S.. This was with G.E.'s blue Cross medical coverage (nothing better in 1980, that I know of), and few others even in the waiting area. It took threat of physical violence from my father to get service. Somehow, somebody magically became freed up.
This scenario is very common. We have plenty of 8 hour waits in cities that have actual populations. What are there, 15 people in your city?
So get out of my country. I'm paying for it, you have no interest in doing so. Get the hell out and don't come back. Idiots who wasted our time telling us Government was the problem made the Government a problem. Saying it's inefficient is one thing, but where's the solution? where's the answer? Liberals atleast tell me that the answer lies in transparency, and opening up the Government and having systems of regulations of influence and power. Conservatives tell me that the answer lies in reducing power of the Government. Which leaves a power vacuum filled by the greedy, crazy and selfish. While politicians aren't clean by any means, atleast we can know that at the end of the day, the same politicians who may have wheeled and dealed some favors for their local constituents still have to win elections and be held accountable for their deeds. In the private sector, you can screw the pooch so bad other sectors of industry feel it, and still have big enough brass balls to spend a cool million redecorating your office.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Where does that $5K come from, on $400 per week? Taking the worst-case stereotype of societal leech and applying it to all less wealthy U.S. citizens is a sad attempt to validate your opinion.
Having known many people earning far less than 50k per year as a -family-, I will tell you that I have proof that your generalization is exactly that, or worse, completely misrepresenting the situation. The people that I know and have known in these classes are largely motivated and hard working people that do not carry debt. Your apparently "measly" $4000 delivery represents over 2 month's pay for too many people. while they are saving for that for those nine months, may they please be allowed to have shelter,food, and some type of transport to work? I realize that you probably believe that any idiot can make big money, since, after all, you do, but that skews with reality.
I have no sympathy for people that overspend themselves into oblivion. I also cannot understand how people can honestly feel that being poor is only caused by lack of motivation, or a personal failure.
I used to puzzle at why people would ever drive around on bald tires. Surely, they are capable of putting safety as a priority, right?
I now realize that eating and continuing to not freeze to death might be the priority for many Americans.
We aren't all fat, lazy, ignorant, and rich. some of us just catch a bad break, or can't get a lucky break. For those people, a $1000 bill for delivery can't be paid any time soon by selling their 10 year old 27 inch tube set.
I personally am currently unemployed, and face many obstacles to getting re-employed. Should I be selling everything i've worked for the last 10 years, if I get sick? I don't expect anyone to repair 4th or 5th gears on my expensive transmission, but I won't turn down help with medical bills, since I paid into a system that is bailing out the richest men and women in America's businesses.
The picture is big. And I don't have a big screen TV.
I suppose I could count the opportunity cost of a wife who stays at home, but that was a given.
There is some trivial increase in food for a pregnant woman. It costs $0 to birth a child, or $2000 if you insist on a midwife. You don't need a breat pump, bottles, infant formula, a crib, a walker, a play pen, a changing table, jars of icky baby food, or a stroller. Many of those things are definitely harmful. A knotted sheet makes a fine baby sling. You might need some cloth diapers or a car seat. Laundry costs go up a bit. (note: even without a baby, you're already burning money if you don't have your own washing equipment) You can get hand-me-down clothes from nearly everybody it seems, without even asking.
Even getting up into the school age years, it's still dirt cheap.
Teenagers may be another matter. Fortunately, they can earn their own keep. :-)
Those germs didn't come from nowhere. It sounds like you might have been much better off somewhere other than that hospital.
If you want the most exotic infection, there is one place where you can certainly find the germs: your local hospital.
you don't DESERVE children
You obviously can't afford the basics in life. Adding children won't help at all. It will mean somebody has to stay home instead of earning an income, or that you pay money for a lousy mother substitute.
Obviously your children will live in poverty. Obviously they will take after their parents to some degree, creating more poverty in the next generation.
Please stop. You're hurting my economy, and humanity in general.
Change!
The one word that he campaigned with.
He is just a different side of the same dollar.
WHere are the fuel taxes? Kyoto agreement? Iraq demobilisation? Closing down of > 10% of the bases on foreign soil?
The dollar is worthless and what is he doing to fix that? Create more dollars.
Let us watch what (positive) change Os^Hbama will bring.
"Wait a minute... this 'being president' stuff is harder than I thought."
Ah, Kudos then =)
No, I am not an English major. My posts are subject to typos and incorrect grammar. Do not expect perfection.
based on their campaign promises or the fact that they're far more well-elocuted that their predecessors.
For people to give that trust to a politician -- any politician -- is a recipe for disappointment.
>"... but many others see this as a disappointing start to an administration promising transparency and openness."
Well they are making citizens more transparent and open... to the government.
Life expectancy is shortened by violence and auto accidents.
US mortality compares favorably when age and diagnosis match.
Anyone who doesn't understand by now that Democrats are just Republican-Lite needs to have their heads examined.
You pay so others can go? I'm confused, how is church payed for by the government?
In many European countries (at least Denmark and Sweden, I know this for sure), there is an optional (opt-out) 'Church tax' (I don't recall its name which is less linked to Christianity) through which you can contribute to any officially acknowledged religious society you wish. This way you can support your preferred religious society, or the one you would be most likely to attend if you were a believer, or none at all.
Should I get my "I told you so" bumper sticker out yet, or should I wait for a couple of more bomb shells? Mark one up for informed voters and mark one down for the cult of personality.
Thank you! I was going to log in to make this point, and then I saw you've already made it, better than I would have.
I agree that what we're charged for the births that go smoothly is crazy, but look at infant (and mother) mortality rates from 70 years ago and tell me that birth is a normal process that shouldn't happen in a hospital.
I say this as a father who paid $8,0000 each for the births of my three sons (I had a very high deductible on my insurance; I'm a software contractor). All went smoothly, or it would have cost at least triple that.
From the perspective of what services we got, it was insanely expensive, although less so than the $1,000 we paid to get *one stitch* in my son's lip through the ER. But from the perspective of my wife and children having the support they needed to survive the process in case of a problem, it was a fantastic bargain.
That all said, we're moving somewhere with national health care, although our actual primary motivation is to get somewhere with clean air, a good educational system, and good public transportation. (We live in the US now.)
Sorry. The R's want to keep gay people 2nd class and want to put more religion in our government.
Those two issues alone are enough for me to choose one side over the other.
I support 3rd party candidates on a local and state level.
Blar.
From what I gather...a lot of the people outside the US perceive it as MUCH worse here than it is. I don't think we don't go to the Dr. till something is wrong so much for cost...but, just don't wanna waste their time or ours. Maybe it is more of a 'guy' thing, but, unless I feel like something is REALLY wrong, I just don't feel like taking off work to go to a Dr. wait around...just to have him tell me 99% of the time I'm fine. If something is wrong, I'm bleeding badly or feeling very poorly, sure I'll go, but, other than that...I just don't like to go for things that aren't serious.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I can understand the attitude, but I also know it's too often ultimately quite harmful - and I think taking financial matters out of the equation makes it a lot easier for doctors over here to encourage people to come and see them whenever something seems "up". Every doctor I've known personally (which is admittedly, well, three) has told me they preferred even the hypochondriacs who were in every other week to the guys (and it does indeed seem to be a mostly male thing) who'd let permanent damage happen because it took until there was severe pain for them to come in.
I am trolling
Fatsean, is that what your weight counselors been saying to you? Eat less junk food and get out more so you don't
sit all depressed on your couch all weekend watching FOX and Billy O'Reilly? If so that's some darn good advice,
best you take it... because I already have.
The first thing that really turned my life around and made me feel better about myself and others was to get rid of
my TV set. Dropping weight really just followed easily, as I got wise to avoiding the pre-processed junk food crap
they want people to eat. Take your life back man and who knows you will be one of the first people on your street
to take off that Obama sticker on your car.
| I'm not sure where all that medical insurance money is going in the US, but if your drugs can cost
| more than $100 per month, it's not into pills.
The Bush family has historically been majorly invested in pharmaceuticals.
Hide all sigs: Click HELP+Prefs (top), VIEWING (last on right), DISABLE SIGS (3rd on left) and SAVE (hidden at bottom).
The Bush family has been heavily invested in a lot of unpleasant things - big oil, big pharma, osama and family (before he decided to send some buddies on a one way vacation to New York), arms deals, Karl Rove...
The gap between the haves and the have nots is just getting wider and wider, and this is one of the primary wedges driving that gap. People will make do and mend with most things, but if they get sick, they have no choice but to pay.
This logic is why universal health care is evil. You are 100% right that if the public is paying for health care, it should have standing to dictate lifestyle choices that lead to more expensive health care costs.
Well then, I guess that's an incentive to work harder so you can get insurance isn't it? My sister said the same thing; she wants universal care, because she can't afford it. But she doesn't want to move up to management (which would be the next step) to be able to afford it. I was kind of shocked actually that she felt everyone else she pay for her when she wasn't willing to take on a job with more responsiblity (and more money).
Well, I supposed if doctors were actually omniscient they would have taken you first. However, a high fever can mean just about anything, and it could be exteremly serious. Even 103 can indicate something serious, and some quick googling revels that if your kid does get that high, you should take them in ASAP.
In your case, it was clearly obvoius what your problem was, and that it wasn't going to kill you. A 103 fever could be a symptom of something potentially fatal... but doctors wont be able to tell until they actually see the patient and run some tests.
Just because you fail to understand how triage work doesn't mean it's flawed; it means you didn't think things through logically.
Socialized medicine doesn't cover "optional" procedures?
Your question is so vague that it can't be answered. Also, I never mentioned anything about optional procedures in my post. Did you reply to the wrong post?
Socialized medicine cannot cater to elitists that want the best of the best, and will pay for it?
Apparently not; that's why Canadians that can afford it come HERE.
Socialized medicine will not cover cosmetic "upgrade" procedures?
It shouldn't.. of course I think it's a matter of degree. I don't think a woman that wants a bigger rack should be billing medical insurance for that... but reconstructive surgery for a woman that lost her boobs to cancer would be fine with me. I don't expect people to be left as freaks after treatment, if possible.
I think in those reasons, and a few similar reasons, the bulk of it is explained.
Actually I'm not sure what you were getting at at all..
I have waited 4 hours in a -not- busy E.R., with head trauma and a good bit of blood loss, as a child. Here. In the U.S.. This was with G.E.'s blue Cross medical coverage (nothing better in 1980, that I know of), and few others even in the waiting area. It took threat of physical violence from my father to get service. Somehow, somebody magically became freed up.
This scenario is very common. We have plenty of 8 hour waits in cities that have actual populations. What are there, 15 people in your city?
Ahh.. another poster that doesn't understand triage. You guys keep bringing up the ER, which follows a triage plan. People that could have life threatening symptoms are always taken first over people that will survive even if they wait. And should another patient enter that also has potentially life threatening symptoms, you get bumped again.. because you're not going to die if you wait.
Oh, and if your dad would try that today, he would likely be arrested. As he should have been then. You (your dad) threaten physical harm on someone and then are suprised when they comply? God damn, are you really that naive?
This scenario is very common. We have plenty of 8 hour waits in cities that have actual populations. What are there, 15 people in your city?
The eight hour waits I mention are for just seeing your PCP. Totally non-emergent situtations. No, I've never had to wait that long to see my PCP.
Huh? Where did I like obesity and welfare? Given that obesity is a huge problem, it stands to reason that since the majority of people in the US are middle class, that the majority of obese people are middel class too. I haven't seen anything that said lower income are more likely than middle class to be obese (although I did less that upper class ARE less likely to be obese).
Oh, and eating pasta doesn't make you fat. Eating too much pasta or pork and NOT exercising at all makes you fat. That said.. off the top of your head, do you know how much a serving of pasta is, and about how many carbs are in it? What about calories? I know without looking it up (well, anymore).. but I'm responsible and track my calorie intake, and also my calorie expendature.
Fat is a lifestyle choice, not a disease. And yes, doctors DO want to make us think it's a disease; they cna make ALOT of money "treating" you that they wouldn't be able to if you just watched what you ate and exercised.
Well, certainly not now. We're in a recession. Of course, there are a signficant number of people that do fit your description. In MI, politians actually encourage people already on welfare and not working to have more kids.. so they can get more money for their state. Oh, and 99.9% of fat people simply ARE eating too much. People with glandular problems make up about 1 in every 100,000 people. Look it up.
And the US is supposed to be "the government should not be involved in the average citizen's everyday life." Which includes forcing me to pay for someone else's healthcare! But as soon as you take MY money to do that, I do get a say. Don't want me telling you how to live your life, DON'T USE MY MONEY TO CLEAN UP YOUR MESS.
Americans have got to wake up and realise that the world does not always revolve around the individual.
Actually it does. Only individuals rights. You can take the rights of 5 people and "add" them, and say that those five people have "more" rights than I do. There is no such things are rights that you get because other people agree. That's called tyranny. Mob rule. Democracy. (We're not a republic by accident, BTW). Of course it was a UK national that came up with the ideas on which this country was founded. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke
Prices for meds are high because we allow private companies to hold patents on their formulas. If we got rid of that (and banned them from advertising) prices would drop.
Personally, I don't need any medications at all. Since I improved my life style, I haven't had as much as a cold. My blood pressure is under control, and I have a family history. I have an annual. But most people can't seem to be bothered to do more than have two plate fulls of food, and then sit on the couch. A few extra minutes examining the nutrition info panel on almost all food, and 30 minutes of low intestity exercise three times a week would be all anyone would need. Seriously.. it's very little effort, and people can't be bothered. That's fine. They can die of diabetes. They're committing sucicide by poor diet and lack of exercise. Other's slowly drink themselves to death, or smoke themselves to death.
It's interesting you bring up lung cancer; if you're a smoker and get it...yup, die from it. Or pay yourself. That's always an option. Of course the other big cause of lung cancer is asbestoes. I can't fault people for that, since at the time no one knew.
In closing.. if your drugs cost more than $100 / month... maybe you need to re-examine your lifestyle. If you can't do that, I fail to see why I should help you pay for related complications.
So the $25k/yr secretary doesn't deserve healthcare yet every organization needs one? What makes you so much "better" than him/her that you deserve to be healthy and he/she doesn't?
You shouldn't have to be a key employee to get adequate health care. That's wrong.
We still need secretaries. We still need gas station attendants. Those people deserve adequate health care as much as you do. Without these people you'd have a much harder time getting your job done. We still depend on them. They may not have the ABILITY to move up.
You aren't "better" than anyone else.
So the $25k/yr secretary doesn't deserve healthcare yet every organization needs one? What makes you so much "better" than him/her that you deserve to be healthy and he/she doesn't?
Why are you equating having health insurance with being healthy? Look around buddy.. many people in the US DO have health care, but I certainly wouldn't call them healthy. Fat and lazy, perhaps. Not healthy. My health insurance doesn't pick my food, or pay my gym membership, or even give me discounts for exercising or eating right. It's not that the secretary doen't deserve insurance.. it's that she has to work for it. FWIW, I'm not sure having companies pay for healthcare has helped anything. It would likely be cheaper if employees had to directly pay the cost.. and could shop for a plan that suits their needs.
Anyway, stop the nonsense that having healthcare means you're healthy. It doesn't.
You shouldn't have to be a key employee to get adequate health care. That's wrong.
Which is why healthcare has to be offered to all employees. But to say I should have to pay for someone else (who, looking around, isn't ever BOTHERING to try and be healthy) is stupid.
We still need secretaries. We still need gas station attendants. Those people deserve adequate health care as much as you do.
Oh, shall I pay their electric bills too? How about help them pay their mortgage? After all, don't they "deserve" it? What you want to say is they're "entitled" to it, but you know exactly how a lot of people respond to that word. No, you're not entitled to have health insurance. And as I said, it's not necessary to have in order to be healthy.
Without these people you'd have a much harder time getting your job done. We still depend on them.
So what you're saying is that, without healthcare, all of our nations secretaries will die? Interesting premise. Can you back that up somehow? I have a suggestion though; if you're so concerned, you pay for their insurance for them. It's a free country, you're allowed to do that.
They may not have the ABILITY to move up.
Why not? Are they stupid? Is there a law prohibiting them from moving up?
You aren't "better" than anyone else.
I never said I was. I did go to college, get a BS, and have a skillset that the average person doesn't. It doens't make me better, but it makes me more useful.. thus my higher salary. On the flip side, there are jobs in this company that anyone can walk in off the street and easily be trained to do. That makes them less valuable. But it also doesn't mean they can't be healthy.
It'd be nice if they could get more affordable insurance, and I don't have a problem with that. But health insurance is broken.. and your only solution is to make me pay for a broken system. Auto insurance is there in the event of an accident. It's not there to pay for your gas, or to help you pay for regular maintance for your car. Yet that's exactly how health insurance works today. It's fundamentally broken. Insurance can't work if you're constantly making claims against it. Oh, and I would also like to point out that many health care providers provide a steep cash discount; 40 - 60% in some cases. Why people think health insurance is the ONLY way to pay for healthcare is beyond me.
See, I don't cry about my taxes. I pay them happily. I fear that were these minimal health care standards not funded by taxation, they would not be met. Why? Because of all the people crying that taxes are too high. They don't complain about the principle of paying taxes, they complain about not having their money. This makes me think they would be selfish if not forced to give a lowest-common-denominator damn for their fellow man.
Blar.