Slashdot Mirror
Obama Administration Withholds FoIA Requests More Often Than Bush's
bonch writes "Agencies under the Obama administration cite security provisions to withhold information more often than they did under the Bush administration. For example, the 'deliberative process' exemption of the Freedom of Information Act was used 70,779 times in 2009, up from the 47,395 of 2008. Amusingly, the Associated Press has been waiting three months for the government to deliver records on its own Open Government Directive."
Breitbart.com? Really? Has Slashdot become Free Republic?
It doesn't mean anything until we get request comparison numbers and there is more than one exemption for FOIA. What about the others?
That's change I can believe in.
I'd like to be surprised - but it seems like all the presidents are mostly interchangeable these days.
Feeling a bit let down by the current administration, I am.
Is this really surprising?
Often implies a rate... denied requests per requests total.
Its nice to know how many total denials there were... but out of how many total? Whats the percentage?
(No, I didn't read the article.. back to lunch)
If the same number of FoI requests were submitted in 2009 in 2008 then there is reason to be angry. However, if there were twice or three times the requests, then an increase in denials is consistant.
However, there had damn well better be good reason for this. O promised to be a more open administration.
it wouldn't surprise me if anti-obama spinsters would repeatedly request denied items just to contrive this story. out of context it's meaningless.
You can't look at Obama as left/right lib/conservative, you have to consider him as authoritarian.
http://www.dark-wraith.com/
He had him pegged as this at least a year ago, if you check his archives.
Dave
1) This is an AP story, Breitbart didn't write it.
2) If you don't think 2,000 pages that nobody has read which rebuilds 17% of the US economy according to the whims of a couple hundred Democrats doesn't represent an oppressive regime, then I don't know what to tell you.
I know you are trolling but one of Pres. Obama's big campaign points was that he was going to "change" Washington. He was going to run this wide open and "transparent" government. So far he has been anything but transparent. It's disappointing, I had some hopes about Pres. Obama (and I did not vote for him).
It's amazing how much hoopla goes into picking and voting for a particular party, when government is so much bigger than just one man (or woman). It makes you wonder if anything will ever, or can ever, change.
Why do you particularly trust Obama more than Bush? Obama's allegiance is, like Bush's was, to large corporations; it is simply a different set of corporations. When it comes to what is best for the people of America, both Obama and his administration operate under the assumption that the only way to benefit American citizens is to increase the profits of American corporations, even if that means subverting democratic processes at home and abroad. If you are not worried about your government sidestepping the very democratic principles that it was founded upon, then what exactly were you worried about when it came to Republicans?
Palm trees and 8
The agencies cited exemptions at least 466,872 times in budget year 2009, compared with 312,683 times the previous year, the review found. Over the same period, the number of information requests declined by about 11 percent, from 493,610 requests in fiscal 2008 to 444,924 in 2009.
Seriously, there is no need to speculate when the information was right there in front of you eyes.
How much do you want to bet that at least 30,000 of those requests were for Obama's birth certificate?
"We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
... and he doesn't need to answer to the ignorant masses or explain himself to them.
That's right. If you are not with us, you must not be against us!
is a river in Egypt.
If the media really cared about open government and barring corruption, they would be publishing daily headlines about denials to FOIA requests, how long they have been waiting, and what the alleged reason is. If the press did their job and informed the people rather than preach propaganda, people could be better armed with information to put pressure on elected officials and force them to move on come election day if the officials don't mend their ways.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
The first reaction, especially given the headline is, Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
But, as pointed out in the article: "Obama's directive, memorialized in written instructions from the Justice Department, appears to have been widely ignored."
Then we look into the details. The fiscal year that this article is covering started in October 2008 and ended in October 2009. So for the first quarter of the time period covered by this article, we weren't even in the Obama Administration.
Also, if we assume that the decision to exempt information from FOIA requests is made by senior officers in the respective agencies, and we know that Bush had 8 years to appoint people who shared his views, and that the Senate Republicans have been doing an impressive job of blocking and delaying Obama's appointments, let alone the "cleaning" that occurs once the new bosses are in place.
Should it come as a surprise to anyone that this last year was no better, and perhaps even worse than the previous year? Absolutely not. I would expect that this coming year should show improvement, provided the white house is willing to back up Obama's directive now that they have had time to get more of their appointments into positions of authority.
That said, I sure hope this article makes it to the President's desk and that he thinks long and hard about it.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Have you seen what he's up against? The Democrats were never as obstructive to President Bush.
The problem is that Obama's main idea of change - bipartisanship - is the least productive way of making change
in America.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
So Obama's numbers are higher in his rookie year than Bush's after eight years of experience? Well, duh. Give the guy a chance to figure out the process. Also, give us all eight years of Bush's numbers to look at.
Bullshit. Bipartisanship works both ways... The Democrats are asking the Republicans to "work with us", yet the Democrats are refusing to do the same! If you disagree, please explain the purpose of the closed door meetings between Dems and the Pres on healthcare. In what way can a closed meeting promote "working together" when half of the decision makers are not even invited...
What he's up against? He made his bed (By touting "change" and "openness"), and now he needs to lie in it... The truth has come out in the past year. He's a politician... Plain and simple. Sure, his campaign made it look like he was something different, but the reality of the matter is in the end of the day, they are all politicians...
Who gave Bush 4 yrs before they howled, vandalized, bitched and moan - and ridiculed!?
Liar! You are an absolute liar! Go ahead and mod me down shout out that I posted anonymously The fact is this reply will ALWAYS point to your comment as being a lie!
He didn't say change* in his campaigning. He said CHANGE period. Why are you making excuses for him?
* only if it is easy
Have you seen what he's up against? The Democrats were never as obstructive to President Bush.
The only people stopping Obama are angry voters, and the Dems he can't get on board with his agenda. Note...the Dems control BOTH Houses of Congress by a wide margin. He's not "obstructed" by the R's, as they can't do squat to stop him. They can't even filibuster now that they have Scott Brown since the D's are happy to use Reconciliation.
Watch a little Rachel Maddow, read a little of the HuffPo, you'll be surprised just how many times liberal sources DO report on stuff like this. The liberal blogosphere is kinda pissed that Obama isn't the far-left bleeding-hear socialist that conservatives make him out to be, and they call him out on it quite a bit.
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
After all, threats against the president's life have tripled since Obama was elected ;)
Blar.
Do you realize that line means the numbers quoted are not comparable. If more than one "exemption" can be cited per request, then the number of exemptions, which they are quoting, does not actually tell you how many FOIA requests were withheld. It could easily be that the Obama administration is being more clear about what is being withheld and why for any given request, and that leads to a larger "exemptions" count. The problem is, without more info the numbers obviously do not mean what they are being represented to mean.
(From the EPA report, though all agencies use the same criteria)
a. Exemption 1: Classified national defense and foreign relations information
b. Exemption 2: Internal agency rules and practices
c. Exemption 3: Information that is prohibited from disclosure by another federal law
d. Exemption 4: Trade secrets and other confidential business information
e. Exemption 5: Inter-agency or intra-agency communications that are protected by legal privileges
f. Exemption 6: Information involving matters of personal privacy
g. Exemption 7: Records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, to the extent that the production of those records (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or (F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual
h. Exemption 8: Information relating to the supervision of financial institutions
i. Exemption 9: Geological information on wells
Some of those exemptions provide for a certain amount of creativity on the part of the denier.
Our founding fathers had a dream: they set out with the goal that G-D should provide for the people of this great nation, and that the government would not interfere. That's why they won our independence from Ireland in 1812. For a while, our Country got along fine. Now, everyone talks about bad presidents, but I want to talk about a recent one: Obama almost ruined the dream of our Founding Fathers. He tried to remake this nation in his image between the years of our Lord 2008 and 2012, and was the worst president since Roosevelt! I know, I know, but everyone hates on Roosevelt. I wanted to do something different.
Obama, if he'd gotten his way, would have had my hard-earned taxpayer dollars to educate other people's children, improve roads for other people's SUvs, and to defend other people's homes from fire. He was really a fascist, socialist nutjob: what kind of society does that lead to? I mean, when you help out other people, all anyone does it sit around all day waiting for a handout. And after that, what happen is sodomy, and even worse, atheism. I'm glad Sarah Palin put a stop to that when she beat Obama in 2012. I'm glad we don't have elections anyone. Sometimes elections lead to bad people like FDR and Obama being in charge. I can't wait for Sarah's next State of the Union: I hear she'll have five tanks at this one! Those soldiers are soooo cute.
*giggle* but anyway, I mean, at first, Obama's reign wasn't all that bad. He tried to force credit card companies to not give the American people certain offers; he called them "lies", but as Ronald Reagan said, it's really government that's the problem. If he'd been on Mount Rushmore back then, he would have cried. I do have to give credit where credit is due: he stopped those evil commies using the "freedom of information" act to give away our government to China. That law should have been called the "freedom of spying act". I mean, if Sarah hadn't repealed it, China might have found out we'd nuke them in 2019.
The worst part of Obama's reign was when he tried to ruin the best healthcare system in the world by shoving rules and regulations and taxes down our throats. I'm glad that was repealed. Today, we still have the best health care system in the world. If I'm successful, someday I hope to be able to buy into it! I hear they can actually cure tuberculosis! My parents miss too many days at the factory because they keep coughing up blood. I'd love for them to be able to work real, honest 65 hour weeks like God said they should. That way, we could get our own place!
But I digress. This speech is about hope for the future. If we all work hard, we can earn more and more until we get into a lower tax bracket and we're happy. Isn't that what life is about? I know everyone can do it: if at our class reunion, you're poor, it's because you're a bad person, and I know none of my friends are bad people.
- Cynthia LeBaron, Texas, class of 2027 graduation speech
What goes unmentioned:
97% of the millions of denied FoIA requests that make up this statistic were requests for Obama's birth certificate.
Indeed. Obama should quit trying to deal with these fools. It's 'No' for everything that contains even a small item that the Republicans disagree with. Bipartisan ship means that the right-wing folks need to accept some of the left wing folks' ideas. Instead it's just no no no even when the bills incorporate ideas from the Republican. Hell, Republicans who promised to vote Aye if Item X were placed in the bill still voted Nay!
Check the proposed Republican health care bills. They contain maybe 5% Democrat ideas. Republicans aren't interested in bipartisanship. They want it their way.
Blar.
The Obama Administration claims to the right to slay U.S citizens in "targeted killings" in the GWOT. But like the Bush Administration before it, the Obama Administration defines the "battlefield" as the entire planet. Which means that Obama claims the right to assasinate U.S. citizens anywhere, by invoking that magic word that suspends the Constitution: "terrorist". Nevermind that you can only be a suspected terrorist until you're convicted in a court of law. Nevermind that many of these people are not out on the front lines fighting American troops, but going about their daily lives when they are hit by a drone attack (see recent Slashdot discussion.
Then Obama is patting himself on the back for his transparency and accountability, at the same time he's issuing veto threats over bills that would strengthen Congressional oversight of intelligence.
But this really doesn't make any damned sense. It did for poppy Bush, because he was a CIA man. But Obama never worked for the CIA, so acting like a hard neocon on military/intelligence issues is baffling. Just as his acting like a neoliberal corporatist is baffling, as he's a self-made man and owes very few people any favors (compared to your normal politician).
Change you can believe in!
Were the inquiries both of a similar nature during both of the time periods in question? Or were there more rejected requests because the requests were asking for more sensitive info? Like most things that originate on Breibart/Drudge, too much information is missing....
If you do think that these 2,000 pages that "rebuild" 17% of the economy according to the whims of "a couple hundred Democrats" represent an oppressive regime, then I don't know what to tell you other than to get a reality check.
Deceptive statistics 101! If you read the article you will find a number of interesting facts buried way down toward the bottom:
So for starters we have the unknown contribution of the Bush Administration stone-walling in its closing days, the elevated number of exemptions related to clearing the backlog of probably difficult to adjudicate requests, the fact that more cases are being cleared with no exemptions at all..
In short, this was written up as a sensationalistic hit piece rather than presenting any sort of balanced analysis. The stats offered make it very hard any firm conclusions without resorting to supplementary hypotheticals.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
Every time I read a story about how Obama is continuing a Bush administration policy, or extending and exceding it, I post it to http://obamaisthenewbush.tumblr.com/
Having kept this up, on and off, for the last 6 months some patterns definitely appear. The Justice Department is seriously entrenched in covering its ass, cracking down hard on individual freedoms and privacy, and almost always falling on the side of big business.
I'm not disappointed because I believed all the pablum about "Change" and "Hope," but because Obama was a frickin' law professor. He should know better!
not all of 2009.
Just something to note.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I don't trust him for the simple fact that he's a politician.
Technoli
Go get more informative numbers from here. In 2008 56% of requests were granted. In 2009 61% of requests were granted. 2009 also worked to clear up the request backlog. It is a move in the right direction and as others have pointed out Bush was still in charge for part of FY 2009, so he might have skewed the numbers for the year.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/
No that's Bullshit. Democrats have presented a bill that's far to the right of a bill that Republicans would have even proposed, and Republicans are refusing to be a part of it at all. If there was not bi-partisanship than they would have rammed this through Congress and I'd be sitting pretty with socialized medicine right now. The problem is there have been far too many overtures to bi-partisanship.
Republicans don't want bi-partisanship. They want Obama to fail.
Closed door meetings? Stop bringing up bullshit Limbaugh talking points. There are always closed door meetings on capital hill. Are Republicans having public meetings on crafting there competing health care bill? That's a bullshit point.
Same (or worse) as the old boss. Is anybody really surprised?
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
I had no particular hopes for Obama, and so far, I'm impressed. Expectation management is the key to happiness.
What nonsense. Since you offer no proof to your statement let me follow you lead.
The Republicans were never as obstructive to President Obama as the Democrats were to President Bush. The problem with Obama's main idea of change - partisanship - is the closed door meetings and backroom deals that are done to get change in America, a change most Americans do not want.
The old "nobody has read" argument. Very convincing. And, BTW, rebuilding 17% of the US economy doesn't have to be a bad thing if that part of the economy is unsustainable. If private enterprise did it you'd think that was progress because they know better but if government tries to do it they are an oppressive regime. Please, go back to your inflammatory, unhelpful water cooler then. Obama may be abusing the FoIA stuff and he and congress might end up making mistakes with healthcare and each individual point should be debated but the broad accusations when I'm guessing you haven't read the bill either is not behaving any better.
1) Sort of a fair point. What I'm saying is though, Breitbart and Drudge will run things from any source, with no confirmation and are slanted in their selection. But yeah, I respect AP, so I'll give that to you. 2) If its rebuilding it in a way I like. And yeah, I haven't read it all, but I've gotten some good synopses from sources I trust. If you're going to make an extraordinary claim like "The Dems are as oppressive as the last Republican administration," you're going to need a lot of evidence. We're talking about a party who's core value is conformity. And who presided over a mood of the time of pervasive bullying, anti-intellectualism, and fear mongering. This whole "they're all the same line," got tired after Bush beat Gore in 2000. Because Bush and Gore were the same. Yeah right. What a load.
Why do you hate atheists, pudge?
Why does the right wing appeal to you, pudge? Were you beaten as a child? Do you think lack of success in life is a moral failure? Are you the guy who goes around moderating any post that has a hint of sympathy for the human condition "-1 offtopic", while making sure all the "YOU CAN'T TELL A BUSINESS WHAT TO DO, COMMIES" posts are moderated through the roof? I thought that smelled a little funny, even for the Slashdot crowd.
God, the terrible and declining quality of Slashdot's community makes sense when one of the key people behind the site is himself a right-wing lunatic who beats off to authoritarianism and theocracy.
Maybe the Democrats were "never as obstructive to President Bush" because they generally agreed with what he did when he did it. No Child Left Behind? That is a liberal (Democrat) education reform. It had support on both sides but it was pretty much written by Ted Kennedy. The war in Afghanistan? Both sides agreed that it was the right thing to do at the time. The war in Iraq? Same thing. I could go on. Besides, Pres. Bush seemed to get a lot done even though he had a slimmer Republican majority backing him than Pres. Obama has with Democrats. Democrats basically have a super majority and they still aren't getting anything done. Is it the Republicans blocking them? Partially, but if you believe polls, a majority of Americans disagree with all the big bills Congress and Pres. Obama are trying to pass.
Pres. Obama talks about trying to build bipartisan cooperation on bills yet he barely makes the faintest of overtures to the other side of the aisle. When Republicans protest what he's trying to do, all Pres. Obama does is say, "Remember Pres. Bush!" Pres. Obama is being held hostage by a past he and the other Democrats in Washington created for themselves. Instead of going forward in a true spirit of bipartisanship, Democrats are being just as partisan as Republicans ever were.
If they cannot accomplish what they want to accomplish with the majority of seats that they have, then the Democrats are simply ineffective. Pres. Obama needs to quickly learn like Pres. Clinton and Pres. Bush did that if he wants to stay in the White House and have a shot at helping effect meaningful change, he needs to stop calling for bipartisanship while at the same time ignoring the Republicans.
So yes, I do agree with you - bipartisanship is not an effective way of making change in America but that is begging the question that we need change. Do we need change because that was/is Obama's campaign slogan or do we need change simply for change's sake or do we need change because America needs fixing? The problem is that yes, Pres. Obama touts bipartisanship but he does not follow it. Democrats are ineffective right now because they are trying to force unpopular issues through Congress using shady tactics (just because some of these tactics were used in the past does not make them right and it does not justify their use now). Pres. Obama isn't just "up against" the Republicans, he's up against factions of Democrats (for being not liberal enough or too liberal), Independents (for having fiscal policy that makes Pres. Bush look like the stingiest, thriftiest guy you'll ever meet), and a majority of Americans. I'm not saying that a President should necessarily pander to polls but for someone who is as focused on polls as Pres. Obama seems to be, he sure does a good job at ignoring them.
I don't have to read it. A government takeover of healthcare is wrong on its face.
And one of the main reasons is that it requires laws thousands of pages long that nobody can possibly understand.
Do you realize that every single bill that isn't a referendum, ever proposed, could be described as "the whims of a couple hundred people?" What you say sure is true, but it sounds like you're implying something anomalous. There has never been a non-oppressive regime in the history of civilization, for which nearly every law they have, wasn 't passed as "the whim of a couple hundred."
You actually have a damn good point about the "2000 pages that nobody has read" part. That's a sure sign a bad law, even after reading the law, it somehow magically turns out to be benign (which IMHO is unlikely). What a shame you diluted your point with bullshit.
Did vote for change did ya not?
Hows that working out for ya?
You now own the change or rather it owns you dipshits
Drudge and Breitbart are Fox News on the Web.
What do you expect to happen in 5 years when people catch on? Those will become the top two sites on the Web, like Fox News is on cable?
You seem to hate them because they actually hire people who aren't liberals. Apparently "non-biased" means "100% liberal".
2) If you don't think 2,000 pages that nobody has read which rebuilds 17% of the US economy according to the whims of a couple hundred Democrats doesn't represent an oppressive regime, then I don't know what to tell yo
As opposed to not doing something because a couple of hundred Republicans oppose it? Every time Republicans mention that the majority of Americans oppose the Health bill, I want to ask them if they ever polled anybody other than their constituents. Because, you know, those of us who actually like the bill think we ought to be counted as Americans as well.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Bipartisan ship means that the right-wing folks need to accept some of the left wing folks' ideas.
Bull. That's not bipartisanship. That's horse trading.
Bipartisanship would be the Dems not liking the way insurance companies ride roughshod over subscribers, and the Reps not liking the idea of the government taking over 1/6th of the economy, so they reach an agreement that answers both concerns. A law that would require insurance policies to match one of a few DHHS outline policies, or state clearly how they differ.
Dems are concerned about the huge cost of the tax liability and portability between jobs, and Reps are concerned about the lack of accountability. A viable compromise would be that all policies are taxed like normal income, raising necessary funds and removing the chain between insurance and a job.
In no way is bipartisanship a "you get one, I get one" game. That leads to the ridiculous robbing of the public purse and our grandchildren's inheritance that we see now.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
I would say the delay in getting the so called "Open Government" documents is more ironic than amusing.
The problem is there have been far too many overtures to bi-partisanship.
By that I suppose you mean those Democrats who have supported the Republican opposition to health care takeover (which reflects the majority opinion of the American people), since there have been no overtures to bipartisanship from the Democratic leadership.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/03/18/Dan_Choi_Protests_in_Front_of_WH/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:%20AdvocatecomDailyNews%20(Advocate.com%20Daily%20News)&utm_content=FaceBook
Read radical news here
p>2) If you don't think 2,000 pages that nobody has read which rebuilds 17% of the US economy according to the whims of a couple hundred Democrats doesn't represent an oppressive regime, then I don't know what to tell you.
So a government is an "oppressive regime" any time it passes a long bill on an important topic that an unpopular political party doesn't like?
Bush was the EVIL HITLER CHIMP and Obama represents hope and change. Bush was about lying to us and decalring war on the world. Obama is about peace and love and he's so smart.
This is clearly lies...orchestrated by Rove and Cheney.
Obama wouldn't allow this...which is why he closed Gitmo and abolished the Patriot Act and ended the war in Afghanistan.
Oh wait.
I've done some work with federal agencies and how they process FOIA requests:
A request for information under the FOIA can be granted, partially denied, or denied. If the request is granted, the exact records requested are returned unedited. If the request is denied, one or more reasons (exceptions) must be stated from a list of allowed exemptions. If a request is partially denied, one or more exemptions must be stated and what the requester receives back will either be a subset of what was asked for or will be redacted to remove sensitive information. For example, PIA (personally identifiable information - like SSNs, birth dates, medical records, etc.) is an exemption and is grounds for a partial denial, but it usually only means that this information will be redacted from the requested records.
So if you are looking at statistics (annual FOIA reports are required by law from every government entity and the reports themselves are either published or available via FOIA request themselves), you need to know the total number of new requests, the total number of requests held over from the previous fiscal year, the number of requests granted, the number partially denied, and the number totally denied. There are also individual statistics for denials and partial denials broken down by exemptions. There isn't anything on the annual report about how many exemptions were applied to individual requests - that would just have to be averaged out.
The Obama administration did encourage more release of records under the FOIA and a relaxing of exemptions. The idea was to assume that any record could be released unless an exemption prevented it. The previous directive was to presume that any record could not released and then try to justify it. If they couldn't justify denying it, they would grudgingly release it. The other thing that has been encouraged is pre-emptive release. For any request that is granted (no exemptions) there is no reason to not put that record on the agency's public web site to avoid processing any future requests for it. Or if there are certain types of records that can be released and that get requested often, go ahead and publish them. Theoretically this will reduce the number of FOIA requests processed, but I think it's probably too early to see a difference based on this policy.
-- stream of did I lock the front door consciousness
That's pretty thin evidence of non-transparency. They concentrate on FOIA requests, and they don't do a good job of that.
From the Google Version: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hI24fNqhDbP2mY1wZyUBRJRa_UqAD9EG54N80
- paragraph 2: Obama told agencies specifically not to use the "deliberate process" exemption so frequently
- paragraph 4: Obama was only president for 9 months of the period in question, with no breakout by quarter. I assume a bit of lag as the new administration asserts itself
- paragraph 6: refers to non-FOIA transparency - release of full White House visitor logs and more federal data online than before
- paragraphs 7 & 8: Obama, Emanuel and Bauer all claim to be trying to improve transparency
- paragraph 9: "nearly every one of the law's nine exemptions"? is that 7? 8? which ones were reduced?
- paragraph 10: more exemptions are being cited, but there are no numbers of how many or what percentage of requests were rejected in part or in full
- paragraph 11: the "Open Government Directive" (a good thing) mentioned in a negative context - that they're still waiting after 3 months. much further down we find out they've cut the backlog of requests down by nearly half so far (paragraph 22). how long were requests taking circa 2008?
- paragraph 21: some fuzzy numbers suggesting there's more transparency, but they're no more convincing as the figures suggesting the opposite (how many agencies increased full and partial requests?)
In short, the article's a mess of numbers that don't mean much. Perhaps the next directive could be to report all the real statistics for each agency monthly.
Have you seen what he's up against? The Democrats were never as obstructive to President Bush.
The problem is that Obama's main idea of change - bipartisanship - is the least productive way of making change
in America.
That is demonstratively false. Democrats fought bitterly against most of Bush's domestic initiatives, especially Social Security reform, and the big one, reform of Fannie and Freddie ("I just don't see what the problem is here" - Barney Frank).
They also filibustered on judges continously. As for bipartisanship, President Obama has been pretty clear that bipartisanship means knuckling under to the majority ("I won, didn't I?".
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
So you're saying the only way to be bi-partisan is to have no health care reform bill. That's the kind of bi-partisanship I'd expect from a Republican.
Blue-dog Democrats are just Republicans who got sick of the fact that Republicans are the party of doing jack shit and somehow still running up massive deficits. So yes, it is bi-partisanship to work with them.
Republicans have one platform - oppose Barrack Obama. Congratulations, they're doing a great job. When they look at their actual party platform and realize they've labeled everything in it as socialism, they're going to have a problem though.
I'm guessing you are a troll, but in the unlikely chance that you are not....
If this was purely an ideological debate, are you seriously suggesting that every single Republican in Congress has EXACTLY the same feelings on ALL the proposals made by Democrats?
Seriously? Are they clones? Pure copies somehow of each other? How many Republicans have voted for any bill Democrats have put forward? To suggest there is not an institutional obstructionism on the part of Republicans is either very blind or pure lies.
I'm so tired of Republicans acting all put-upon and oppressed. You honestly... HONESTLY.. suggest, that the Republican run Congress of the Bush years was somehow MORE bi-partisan than the leadership of this congress? What exactly did they give the democrats during those eight years? A middle finger and a shit-sandwich. That's what. Jesus, cry me a river Conservatives.
It is very hard to claim that someone is trying to work with someone else when they create the bill behind closed doors with sweetheart deals and then rush it to the floor for a vote before anyone can read the amended thing. On top of that when someone from the other party asks the bill to be read as part of the Senate rules (granted also as a stall tactic), the leader of the party breaks the rules in stopping it. You cannot break the rules of the Congress and still claim to be trying to play nice.
As I see it, the Democratic Party is hell-bent to shove this health-care bill down everyone's throat. The most amusing thing I saw in this process was during the meeting/lunch with the President one of the Republicans validly pointed out the fiscal flaws in the bill and the response was simply "Were not going to talk about that".
Voting them all out of office, now that's change I can believe in.
Editorial bias can be expressed just as much by selecting which articles to present as by actually writing those articles. Even ostensibly unbiased, "mere aggregation" right-wing sites use this effect to create in the mind of the reader a worldview conducive to supporting the right. They over-emphasize terrorism, fear, and silly fluff pieces. They immediately harp on and play up even the most minor of scandals, so long as they deal with left-leaning politicians. These sites de-emphasize economic news, subtle world politics, or reports that make the case for more progressive action.
These sites undoubtedly present a right-wing atmosphere, and do it using only unedited, individually-neutral news stories written by professionals as building blocks. In a way, it's a far more effective form of propaganda than distributing opinion pieces: the easy defense is "we're just reporting the news", and someone relying heavily on one of these sites for news might be more receptive to the propaganda because the articles don't trigger his bullshit sensors the same way an op-ed would.
I don't have to read it. A government takeover of healthcare is wrong on its face.
Hannity! You post on Slashdot?!
I was having this exact same thought. Man, the conservatives just bubbled out of the woodwork lately, gettin the floors all slimy.
This proves that the Obama administration is more open, when they'll admit to blocking 23,000 more documents than Bush did.
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
The same old pattern repeats itself. Those who disagree with the numbers are quick to argue their fallibility. Plenty of rationalizations are provided to argue that these claims are untrue. It easy to dismiss something when it doesn't fit your worldview. At the other end we've got the people who openly embrace these claims and then will refer to them as gospel. Yet another bit of evidence to support your mindset.
I don't see why it's so hard to believe for some that this administration may actually be rejecting requests in greater numbers. Of course, it's meaningless because it isn't like the Bush administration was a pushover. It's very likely that the number of rejections would have gone up were he still serving as president.
The real problem I see is that there are still people out there so naive as to believe that politicians actually care about any of us. I don't understand how people can continue to be fiercely loyal to either republicans or democrats. There certainly must be politicians out there who care, but you'll find those guys are small-time unknowns who have no say in the fundamental workings of this country. And they'll never be in a position of influence because they wont play the game. The big players are all looking out for themselves and the special interests they represent.
Sure, but remember. That's your fault. You've created a party and media empire that only exists to say everything Democrats do is wrong. The only way to get anything done is not to tell Republicans about it. Ball's in your court. Start acting like adults and you'll be treated like them.
Democrats already treat you far better than you deserve.
Yeah, I know it's fucking insane to try to get some work done. We've been trying to pass this bill since the first day of the Obama administration. I think at the one year mark is a perfectly acceptable point to say you're gathered enough input from obstructionists, and you're done listening to what they have to say.
And don't give me this "breaking procedural rules" bullshit. Your party is the party of breaking procedural rules and rewriting the entire congressional rule book anytime you are in power. Turn-about's fair play.
Well I'm glad you feel that way. Personally, I trusted Bush a whole lot more that Obama, but that's the beauty of this country. Everyone has a right to thier own opinion. I'll agree with you on this though, there are times when it is not in our best interests to be fully transparent. For instance, where strategic military operations are taking place, or whether or not a particular strategy is working. It's best to keep your enemies guessing. However, when it comes to things like 2 TRILLION $$$ for a domestic economic recovery plan and bank bailouts rammed through in the dead of night I'd like very much to know where that's going and why it hasn't really improved our situation. Yes unemployment is fluctuating, but unemployment doesn't take into consideration those who have been unemployed for so long that they no longer qualify for unemployment. Supposedly the banks are on solid footing now (many institutions handing out bonuses), but it's still like pulling teeth to get a loan. Those are things that should be transparent, and we as Americans ought to be demanding answers.
I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
...get over it.
Read this. Of course, you are an idiot so you probably won't understand it. You would rather just whine and moan.
This makes no sense: it uses the frequency of use of the (non-security) "deliberative process" exemption as a supposed example of the Obama administration using "security provisions" more frequently than Bush's did. It clearly isn't an example of that, since the deliberative process exemption isn't a security provision.
It's like saying "John Doe owns more pickup trucks than Bob Smith. For instance, John Doe owns 36 Toyota Corollas, while Bob Smith only owns 24."
Parts of TFA that were NOT quoted by the summary:
When I judge a site for bias, I like to look at the comments sections. BreitBart's blogspam site seems to only swing one way.
Blar.
By that I suppose you mean those Democrats who have supported the Republican opposition to health care takeover (which reflects the majority opinion of the American people), since there have been no overtures to bipartisanship from the Democratic leadership.
The polling on the bill has moderated a great deal in recent weeks as Obama has come out and started fighting for the bill. A number of polls now show the public fairly evenly balanced between opposing and supporting the bill.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
(Johnson)It's time someone had the courage to stand up and say: "I'm against those things that everybody hates
(Jackson)Now I respect my opponent. I think he's a good man but, quite frankly, I agree with everything he just said!
(Fry)These are the candidates? They sound like clones. Wait a minute. They are clones!
(Leela)Don't let their identical DNA fool you. They differ on some key issues.
(Johnson)I say your three cent titanium tax goes too far.
(Jackson)And I say your three cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough!
(Fry)If I were registered to vote, I send these clowns a message by staying home on election day and dressing up like a clown.
I don't have to read it. A government takeover of healthcare is wrong on its face.
And one of the main reasons is that it requires laws thousands of pages long that nobody can possibly understand.
As opposed to all of the other bills that go through Congress every year? Every interest group (commercial, union, or private) has a huge number of lobbyists and legislative specialists who pore over every bill that goes through congress.
Believe me, they have read this bill.
And government isn't "taking over" healthcare. They are not privatizing the health care market, they are setting up conditions to allow a real market in individual / small business insurance to exist.
Mitt Romney did something similar with MassachusettsCare, and the Republicans proposed something similar in opposition to the Clinton plan back in 1994.
Many in the Republican party act as if any Democratic initiative is the end of the republic and must be blocked, even if they do worse themselves when in power.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
"Bipartisanship" is a word used by the party in power so they can blame the minority when they're unable to move their agenda along. It's the minority that doesn't want to compromise or whatever.
Or... worse... it's a word used to describe the worst assfucking you can get in this country. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGlVhss6Gr4
Because Bush and Gore were the same. Yeah right. What a load.
No, Cheney and Lieberman are the same. Actually, Lieberman's worse.. Bush and Gore are sock puppets.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
I came here to find out how he left would spin this. Pretty good guys. Excuses, 1) They were mostly requests for his birth certificate. No proof given. And why not just let that one go and give access? Not that I care either way, just asking. 2) Bush was still on the clock for 1 quarter of that time. Fine, except Bush had 47 thousand denials while the following year it was 78K. It would be amazing if Bush had that many denials in one quarter. 3) It's a matter of the numb er of requests vs. the number of Hell, I don't even understand what Taevin is trying to say. But thanks for not letting me down. Obama is still a bove any and all criticism when it comes to the left.
axes
Hey, Gitmo is still open guys, what the hell. Taxes are going up on people making less than 250k a year. Unemployment, said not to get above 8% is hovering around 10%. The health care bill is being railroaded through in ways that are at best suspect. His appointies are have a tendency to make racist statements that are only allowed to be said by the left. Straight up bribes to two state senators, Louisiana and Nebraska. The list just goes on and on but you all have heard it before, and no doubt you have made your excuses and reasons for every single one of them. It's a proud day to be a Liberal.
Excuse me, when George W. Bush had Teddy Kennedy write the No Child Left Behind fiasco (which Bush at the time considered one of his "signature" pieces of legislature), the Republicans had a majority in both houses of Congress. Which one of Obama's "signature" pieces of legislation did he ask a Republican to write? For that matter, which piece of legislation did Obama ask for Republican input on? Actually ask, not just do so in a press conference but in the actual legislative process.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Really? I haven't seen any reports of support for the bill exceeding 36% or opposition below 46%.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
You can't be serious. The unconstitutional attempts Congress is making to force legislation down the throats of a public that doesn't want it is near-suicidal. Somehow, it's the Republicans who don't want bi-partisanship? How biased could you possibly be?
The fact that, in addition to "sitting pretty with socialized medicine," you'd also face Medicare cuts and a trillion dollar bill for 10 years is one of the reasons Republicans and the public don't want this. On top of a skyrocketing deficit that won't stop climbing, desperate attempts to pin this on Republicans only serve to drive independents away even more.
For crying out loud, Pelosi is now considering passing legislation without having anyone vote on it. I can't help thinking you'd be absolutely livid if Republicans were pulling that kind of bullshit.
again, what the heck does "wrong on its face" mean? It is empty rhetoric. If you want to mention specific items that you think are wrong, great. I may even agree with you. But, if you want to not read something and then dismiss it outright as just being wrong then to me you have no ground to stand on. People are losing health insurance left and right or their rates are skyrocketing. Should we just let the status quo remain? What are your ideas for fixing this serious problem? The only one I've heard from Republicans is Tort reform. Sure, sounds good. That maybe takes care of a few percentage points of the costs that are bringing the system slowly to its knees but that only will slow the catastrophe down a year or two in the long run. Any other ideas from the Republicans? From you?
before you keep yelling about Skyrocketing budget deficits you may want to see what the CBO has to say about (you know, people that actually know a little about the subject). They are saying it will save money. That should be good news to any fiscal conservative
nice.
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
Oily taint. That is all.
"That should be good news to any fiscal conservative"
Yeah, but all the fiscal conservatives are Democrats.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!
You are incorrect, there was not bi-partisanship and they have tried to ram this through Congress. The back room deals with state Democrats to have the Federal government pay for Medicare costs is an example. The problem is a minority portion of Democrats are pro-life and effectively have blocked any ramming that has been attempted. Please stop bringing up bullshit democratic underground talking points that Obama has attempted bi-partisanship, Obama has been as bi-partisan as Bush was.
If that bill had gone through, I would be paying for your dead ass with more taxes. I probably make less per year than you do. Do you make less than $24,000 a year? If not, I hope you rot, socialist scumbag.
I hope you like your change.
Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
-kfg
Another reason that the USA needs to be split up and no longer remain United. Being United does not help anyone, does the federal government help anybody positively?
I'm sure that many Federal judge appointees would like to parley with you about your opinion.
Perhaps you should rethink your statement.
On the face of it, this has been the most partisan move that we've seen in politics in a long time. It's to the point where Dems are refusing to listen to their own voters.
Also, in case you hadn't noticed, Dems had a super-majority in both Houses when this crapfest was thrown up. So the blockade consists of other Dems. This is still the case in the House.
Most of the closed door meetings were meetings the Republicans publicly said they would not attend. I am drunk and can't remember my login but I read several articles and blogs about these "closed door" meetings. The only Repubs that showed up showed up to talk nonsense and waste time. When I sober up I will try to find the links.
You think like a ReThuglican Jew
"De spits" has a weekly column "typish amerikaans" which is dutch for "americans are silly and fat". (Oh okay, it means "typically american", but you know silly is implied and fat is just a given)
Today it was about the government of Hawaii getting sick of the constant requests for the birth certificate of Obama by nutters (aka republicans) who want to prove he wasn't born in the US and therefor can't be president. I say that since he seems to have half a brain and a waist, that already proves he is not a true American, but apparently they need more.
Would the denial of such a request be counted? So how many of these requests are legit to begin with?
A request for the documents about torture of foreign nationals is a bit different then wanting the files on the UFO's being kept at area 51.
Not that I think Obama is all that different from the previous guys. Governments all over the world are having a real problem with the increased demands of openness by its citizens. But I also know that figures like this can be very easily manipulated.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
"Oppressive regime?" really? _really_?
You've got to be trolling. Every aspect of (2) is extremely contentious. Lots of people have read lots of the document (e.g., the Congressional Budget Office), and real policy takes lots of words -- that's just how it goes.
Please, explain with something approaching objectivity what you meant by:
"nobody has read"
"rebuilds"
"whims"
"oppressive"
"regime"
So how's all that "hope" and "change" working out for you?
Republicans and Democrats are two advertising campaigns for the same rotten statist / semi-socialist product. They actually like to take turns - one hand (or iron fist) washes the other. The diapers change, but the source of the poo remains.
Third party politics are a bit better. Dropping out of the corrupt system entirely with movements like Seasteading and the Free State Project is best. Tax resistance -- if you have the balls -- can also play a very effective part in getting your voice heard.
"Let them march all they want, as long as they continue to pay their taxes." -- Alexander Haig
(Signed: Alex Libman's sock-puppet.)
If you look at all the comments modded above 3 in this thread, 9 out of 10 conservative viewpoints. I find it difficult to believe /. mods are that right-leaning overall. Many of the upvoted comments are blatant trolls simply making fun of people who voted for Obama. Is it just me or did the modding system run off the rails in this thread? Now I fully expect /. to have a libertarian slant, but something is fishy here.
Well, let me just say this... I have read most of the bill that passed the Senate. There IS a socialized medicine aspect. The government would setup a public based insurance for uninsurable people (And had something like a $500 Million per year seed). Sure, it's not the generic public option that the Dems are after and the Repubs are bashing, but it IS a form of government run insurance (And hence a form of socialized medicine). Replacing one bad idea with another doesn't make either right. I'm not saying Medicare doesn't do a lot of good, but it's so inefficient that it's almost silly... So rather than try to twist the facts to blame the republicans for "blocking" everything Obama's trying to do, understand that the Dems own both the Senate and the House. If the Dems could all agree, they could have passed it months ago and there's nothing the Repubs could have done about it. The fact of the matter, is the Dems don't want to be seen as the problem, so they point the finger at the Republicans, saying "We can't get it through because of them", when in reality it's the Democrats who can't agree.
You're tired of Republicans? Great. I'm tired of the constant manipulation of the public by the Pres and the Congress. I'm tired of Congressmen acting for their own personal agenda instead of what is truly best for the country. I'm tired of the fair weather friendship between all of them. I'm tired of the desecration of our rights. I'm tired of the media putting a significant spin on whatever's happening (From both sides). You say Republicans are worthless obstructionists? I say they are ALL politicians. They all are in the exact same business. Dems have done the very same thing to the Repubs (But then again, Repubs have never proposed a $1T bill and tried to rush it through)... So before you go thinking that one party is holy and the other is evil, remember that at the root they are all (well, possibly one or two aren't) the same. They all are greedy, corrupt, ignorant and self serving... Until this country realizes that, we are lost...
Sure, but remember. That's your fault. You've created a party and media empire that only exists to say everything Democrats do is wrong. The only way to get anything done is not to tell Republicans about it. Ball's in your court. Start acting like adults and you'll be treated like them.
Democrats already treat you far better than you deserve.
Yeah, I know it's fucking insane to try to get some work done. We've been trying to pass this bill since the first day of the Obama administration. I think at the one year mark is a perfectly acceptable point to say you're gathered enough input from obstructionists, and you're done listening to what they have to say.
And don't give me this "breaking procedural rules" bullshit. Your party is the party of breaking procedural rules and rewriting the entire congressional rule book anytime you are in power. Turn-about's fair play.
Um, first off I am not a Republican and never would want to be considered one (nor am I Democrat). Both parties are corrupt and my opinion need to be challenged by a strong third party.
Secondly, last time I checked both parties have their set of media outlets firmly in their own pockets. As I have said elsewhere, it is sad that the last place I find semi-unbiased news coverage is on NPR.
Finally, do you realize how much you sound like a three-year old when you make a claim like your last paragraph? Just because someone else is willing to stoop to the lowest level doesn't mean that you hop right into the gutter with them. But that said neither party is really in a position to claim the moral high-ground.
One extra note, I don't recall the Republicans ever telling the public that the procedure would be televised, open and not behind closed doors.
Voting them all out of office, now that's change I can believe in.
As opposed to not doing something because a couple of hundred Republicans oppose it?
That statement is both false and disingenuous.
It's false because Republicans have proposed plans to solve healthcare concerns as they were stated by Democrats. They've been completely ignored, despite protestations by Democrats to the contrary.
It's disingenuous because there are plenty more than "a couple hundred Republicans" that oppose the bills proposed so far. Like the majority of the nation. Somewhere around ~70% want Congress to start over on healthcare. Pelosi and Reid can't even get their supermajority to pass healthcare, and they are now seriously considering using semantic sophistry to "deem" something into existence that is a fiction and seems clearly unconstitutional on its' face.
After this performance, I can understand Progressives and Democrats being angry and frustrated. Nobody wants what they're selling, and on top of it their leaderships' decision to double-down and do absolutely *anything* to pass this legislative bloatware against the wishes of the vast majority of Americans will nearly guarantee the Democrats won't be able to get a dog-catcher elected or re-elected for decades.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
I am not shocked. While I'm glad he won (considering the terrifying alernative), any happy illusions I had about Obama went out the window when he voted (while still in the Senate) to give AT&T a free pass for willingly breaking the law when asked to by the NSA. He chose the issue over what was right and continues to do so on virtually every other issue as well. The decline and fall continues apace.
This is meaningless without knowing the number of of actual requests.
Which they don’t know. Or else they would have used percentages for the amount of denied requests.
So I think this is deliberate.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
How is that whole Hopey Changey thing working for you now?
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
All we've been talking about is media outlets. Does nobody care about the rise of FoIA rejections under Obama?
FTFY.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
You say that like it's a bad thing. Anybody with an ounce of common sense wants the shit sandwich that 0bama, Pelosi, and Reid are trying to jam down our throats to fail. Socialism has failed everywhere it's been tried. When will regressives get it through their thick skulls that it's not that the right people haven't tried to implement socialism, but that socialism itself is an awful idea that belongs on the ashheap of history?
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
You Republicans have got to be the fucking dumbest group of knuckle-draggers to ever walk the earth. It's no wonder that anyone with half a brain calls themselves independent.
1) THERE IS NO SOCIALISM IN THE CURRENT HEALTH CARE BILL. THERE HASN'T BEEN ANYTHING RESEMBLING SOCIALISM IN THE HEALTHCARE BILL FOR ALMOST A YEAR. Note, I've used all caps because you guys listen to people like Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh, so I figure you need it in shouting form to get through your thick-ass skulls. Liberals want it, but it's not there. There is no socialism. No public option. Nada. Just free market capitalism with a gentle hand from the government. A very, very gentle hand.
2) When you say Socialism has failed everywhere it's been tried, I'd like to point you at this wikipedia article listing the top 10 economies in the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
Of those, 8 are varying degrees of socialist and 1 is communist. Exactly how is that failing?
You use that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means. There's not much freedom, for instance, in being forced to either purchase an approved coverage plan (which probably includes features I'd rather not pay for) or pay massive fines at tax time. There's not much freedom in not being able to alter your current plan (if you have one) if those changes don't comply with what the nanny-state government dictates that you shall have.
On more than one occasion, I've opted to not carry any health-insurance coverage. Analysis of the costs vs. the benefits didn't work in its favor. The couple of times I ended up needing something, I paid $50 at the urgent-care clinic and another $50 or so at the nearest pharmacy to get the resulting prescription filled. You, 0bama, Reid, Pelosi, and the rest of your ilk would deny people that choice. Who the frak are you to make those sorts of decisions for me? Die in a fire.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
"free market capitalism"
Free market capitalism has nothing to do with your rights. It's an economic system. As such under the new plan you'll still be able to choose from a variety of plans, and in fact will have more choice since insurance companies will be able to sell across state lines. Currently most of America has only 2 health plans to choose from. Under the plan they'll have more. That's a more open market with more choice. I'm in favor of socialism. If it was a socialist plan, I'd call it a socialist plan even if Republicans proposed it. I can't help it that you have to call everything Democrats propose socialism. I've heard morons in your party call the tort-reform plans in the bill socialism too. It doesn't make it so.
"Who the frak are you to make those sorts of decisions for me?"
A responsible person who carries health insurance and foots the bill when people like you end up in the emergency room. So yeah, I have no problem with you paying your bill at the end of the year if you choose not to carry health insurance. I either want socialism, or a system where dickheads like you pay your fair share. I'm fine with either.
Bush killed the economy and started two wars. Obama has to fix it and win them..
The AP article linked to has been edited down from its original form. The original article makes it plain that, "Agencies often cite more than one exemption when withholding part or all of the material sought in an open-records request." And that there have not been 466,872 denials. There have been 466,872 citations of FOIA exemptions for the purposes of denying part or all of a request. Indeed, there has been a decrease in the number of FOIA requests denied in their entirety:
"They denied FOIA requests in their entirety based on exemptions 20,005 times last fiscal year, compared with 21,057 times the previous year."
With mandates for particular types of coverage to be included, it's still less choice than you have now. As for selling across state lines, I have no problem with that. Too bad most of you libs do, including the House leadership.
That's one of the most asinine assertions I've ever heard. The only people opposed to tort reform are the scumbag ambulance chasers who'd be put out of business by it. Here's a newsflash for you: they're mostly Democrats, which is why it's not in either of the bills under consideration.
You must've missed the part where I said I paid my own bills at the urgent-care clinic (which, BTW, was not the local ER) and the pharmacy. Want to talk about responsibility again, asswipe? Doctors and pharmacists still take money directly from patients. It's apparently become rather uncommon, but they don't care too much how they get paid so long as they do get paid.
FWIW, I'm currently paying for PPO coverage arranged by my employer. It's my choice to do so. At this point, it's cheap enough to be a might-as-well type of purchase. Still, I have the choice to purchase it or not. Fascists like you would deny me that choice.
Scratch a liberal, find a fascist. Here's a better idea: since you hate freedom so much and prefer big-nanny government, why don't you quit trying to ruin my country and go move somewhere else that you liberal fascists have already ruined?
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Quoting op-eds in the Washington Post? Really? Op-eds? Excuse me while I go to the Daily Show site and find some rebuttals.
There's tort reform in the bill. Just because all the conservative op-eds are spinning it as "not real tort reform" doesn't make it so. You're picking nits. When the states all have their own standards you guys bitch that it's too confusing for business. When the federal government sets a standard you guys bitch that it's impeding on the rights of states to do what's best for them. You didn't say this bill doesn't have the tort reform program I like which is a, b, and c. You said there's no tort reform in the bill. Which is patently false.
"You must've missed the part where I said I paid my own bills at the urgent-care clinic"
No, I missed the part where you said you had a couple of hundred thousand dollars on hand in case you'd had to go to the hospital rather than the urgent care clinic. You're lucky. Not responsible.
You do realize that saying things like "Scratch a liberal, find a fascist" just proves to the world that you're an ignoramus who is easily lead by talk radio. You're probably against medicaid cuts too...
George Bush did that? He once asked a single Democrat to formulate a bill? In eight years? Wow, he's a friggin peacemaker in the vein of Jesus himself. And Obama hasn't asked Republicans in on one in the ENTIRE 14 months he's been in office? Man, screw that guy, he must just be an asshole.
You said that the Republican Congress was not more bipartisan than the current Democratic Congress. One is more than zero. So, yes it was more bipartisan. Actually I believe that there were several other major bills with Democrat involvement but it isn't worth my time to research it.
If Obama has accepted Republican contributions to any of his major legislative initiatives please enlighten me. No Child Left Behind was in the first 14 months of the Bush Administration so it is comparable.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Blue-dog Democrats are Democrats who know they can't get elected from their district if they show their true colors.
The Republican Party has suggested several steps to reform the healthcare system, but the Democratic leadership doesn't like them because they don't expand the power of the federal government.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
No they haven't. The Republican Party has suggested a few bullet points in various op-eds. That's not a plan.
Mostly they've suggest everyone move to HSAs. That's not reform. It's a choice we have today, and the free market has overwhelmingly rejected HSAs for pretty much everyone who's not in the top 20% of household earners in the US.
They have proposed several bills, just most of the press and the Democratic leadership have ignored them. No, it's not a "plan", it is focused solutions to address specific problems. The Democrats don't want that because if those ideas worked, they would lose their excuse for a major expansion of the federal government.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Oddly enough, our system doesn't work by suggesting bills to the press. You don't get points for not submitting a bill. If they had submitted a bill and Democrats had ignored it or voted it down I might think you had a point.
I've already addressed these "focused solutions" in depth elsewhere on Slasdot. But basically from what I can figure out from reading conservative op-eds it's made up of:
1) Things that people can already do and that suggesting is kind of silly (HSAs)
2) Things that have already been done at the state level and proven ineffective at controlling costs in a meaningful way (Tort Reform)
3) Things that no one in their right mind would agree to (investing health care savings in the stock market)
You just have some politicians bitching that the plan they didn't submit has been ignored. I'd ignore that kind of behavior too.
They have submitted bills, just because the Democrats bottled them up in committee and the prss has for the most part ignored them doesn't mean they weren't submitted.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Oh you're correct. I just went and looked them up. The reason they've been ignored is that they're composed of:
1) Points that have been included in the health care bill currently under consideration. I don't know how much these bills were taken into consideration when crafting the legislation, but the points are in both.
2) Junk points that are for scoring points with constituents and that never would be included in a bill that makes it to the floor in a Democratic congress (and that probably wouldn't have made it to the floor in a Republican congress).
Points that have been included in the health care bill currently under consideration.
If they are acceptable to put into the monstrosity, why not just pass them separately? Obviously, they would be acceptable to the Republicans and to the Democrats since the Democrats put them into the bill that the American people have resoundingly expressed their opposition to. Why not pass the stuff that everybody agrees on and get back to the other stuff later?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Because that's not how Congress works. Not now, not ever in the past.
Well, then you have no gripe against the Republicans opposing the bill. While there are things in there they are willing to support, the things they are opposed to are bad enough that the stuff they can support fails to make up for it.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I have no gripe with them opposing the bill on principal. But they claim it's socialism and that there's no bipartisanship and both of those statements are patently false.