Slashdot Mirror
Senators Tell Facebook To Quit Sharing Users' Info
Hugh Pickens notes a USA Today story reporting that two US senators have joined Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) in telling Facebook to quit sharing more of its users' data than they signed up for. Politico.com ups USA Today's ante, saying that it was
three more senators, not two more, who
joined Schumer's call: Michael Bennet (D-CO), Mark Begich (D-AK), and Al Franken (D-MN). The senators are asking the FTC to look at Facebook's controversial new information-sharing policies, arguing that the massively popular social network overstepped its bounds when it began sharing user data with other websites. Sen. Schumer said he learned about the new rules from his daughter, who is in law school, but added that he's noticed no difference on his own Facebook page, which, he assured reporters, "is very boring." "I can attest to that," deadpanned Franken, who made his living as a comedian before entering the Senate, and whose Facebook followers outnumber Schumer's by ten to one.
It's kind of sad that apparently one of our more intelligent congresscritters, one who's willing to speak out for consumer rights at least (no matter how silly this case may actually be according to some people) "started out" as a comedian. But i guess if you're using lifetime politicians as a baseline...
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
because i have 0 facebook friends.
The major problem I see here is that Facebook is allowed to change its terms without notifying anyone.
See subject.
I am tired of companies changing the rules but saying you can opt-out. How about we get to "opt-in" if we want Facebook to share our data with 3rd party websites??
I am willing to share certain information with just my Facebook friends, but I don't want it shared with every website on the Internet. Sheesh.
Perhaps Senator Franken thinks the same thing?
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
The problem I see is that this will lead to more regulation, which leads to less innovation, more draconian laws (see DMCA) and losses of freedom. What congress needs to do is to force -everyone- not just Facebook, MySpace, etc. is that they can't just change terms and conditions whenever they see fit without making us agree to them again.
This is -fraud- and must be eliminated. Think of it this way, you go to Wal-Mart, buy a new blender thinking it had the feature to, say, crush ice. So for the first week it does it just fine then the next week it won't crush ice because that feature had been removed. You should have a right to demand a refund. (And that example wasn't too far out there, look at Sony and the PS3...) and you should have the -right- to be notified when things change. If you aren't informed of the change, you didn't agree to it therefore the contract should be voided.
Any license that states that they can change the conditions must be made illegal. A contract or license is an -agreement- and agreements mean that 2 parties need to know what they are agreeing to. If they don't, its not an agreement.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
...to do this...like, I don't know, pass a law or something?
The Senators aren't telling people how to use Facebook, they're telling Facebook how (not) to use their customer's data.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Isn't the whole point of Facebook to share user information.
I mean personally I find it pretty pointless, but some people seem to like being able to share their bowel movements. (and other less useful information.)
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
Exactly, Don't like how Facebook uses your information? Don't use it.
Ever hear of multitasking? People can work on more than one thing at a time.
This contradicts the policies of forcing email services like google, yahoo and telecom companies to share info. It's a full time job to keep track of what bills are coming out of that town, and many of them are slight of hand. I'm sure this one is no different.
Or their impression is, "Some stuffy old guys are like totally pissed off that I want to have my cell number in my profile."
All the while, not really thinking about the possibility that someone is harvesting/selling/whatever with that information because it's "their" page. Quite simply - it took me a long time to understand why someone would care what sort of information I post out there than can be traced back to me for many (il)legit reasons. I obviously learned that lesson after creating my slashdot ID... *sigh*
Click here to agree to the new condition. If you disagree we will still keep your data and sell what you agreed previously to let us sell, but you lose the service. If you agree we will rape your privacy three ways.
The only way to win the game is not to play to begin with. Wargame got it right, only it applies to nearly all service and goods on the net.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
The first time I went to my own Facebook home page after this policy change, I had a big notification box right at the top telling me about it, and including a link to my own privacy settings to make changes if I wanted to. I had to dismiss that box or it would keep reappearing.
If immigration services had done their jobs in the summer of 2001 there woulnd't have been a 9/11 attack. Most of the 9/11 Hijackers were here on EXPIRED student visas. If the FBI had done their job they could have prevented it as well.
So what do we do?
We create several more layers of obsfication for the problem. We pass a patriot act that screw over the average american on civil rights, we create another bloated beuracracy in the form of Homeland Security.
What should have happened is that after the congressional investigation into 9/11 there should have been several rounds of mass firings in several key government agencies followed by promotions of those who sounded the alarms but were met with deaf ears of their (now fired) co-workers.
No one had the GUTS to even suggest that they should fire anyone after the 9/11 hearings. More of the government mentality of promoting those who fail instead of firing their asses.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
And you expect most Facebook users to discern that difference?
No, most users are apparently clueless and stupid and government regulation is required to protect them since they won't do it themselves.
The people who would argue with that are probably the same people who think that a democratically-elected group of legislators passing a bill which the majority agreed with means that we're living under a tyranny. Possibly even the same people who don't understand the difference between socialism, communism, fascism, and the Nazis.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Everyone who signs up for Facebook agrees to their Terms which are clearly spelled out and say they could pull stuff like this. If you don't like the terms, don't sign up. This isn't a situation like a local utility where you don't have a choice to switch to something else.
Sugapablo
Government should be there to give us freedom, not to be our mother.
When Facebook added this "feature", the next time I logged in I was prompted with a big-ole dialog window informing me of all the changes, the implications of privacy, and how to change it if I didn't like the new settings.
That's all I really ask for and I don't find it unreasonable that Facebook is trying to get in as many areas as possible (through sharing everyone's stuff).
It's really easy to cancel a Facebook account too.
And how do you propose people get together to improve the human condition? Maybe they could organize into some sort of group that would decide to use shared resources to accomplish that task, and give their approval or disapproval in some sort of democratic fashion.
Now you might be able to realize that the entire purpose of a democratic government is to allow people to decide how to best use their nation's resources. Some people get their warm fuzzies from denying that this is the case.
Do you know how much good research is done by the CDC? NASA? Publicly funded universities? We wouldn't be communicating right now with computers, or over the internet, if it weren't for government spending to improve the human condition.
The goals stated are quite cheap compared to the profiteering war empire the founders warned against becoming. You just have to pull your head out of your ass and look around.
this targetting by the press and governments towards Facebook. Facebook is *entirely* optional. No-one forced you to type in 'www.facebook.com' and press enter. No-one forced you to click signup. No-one forced you to enter your information and click through the legalese. No-one forced you to upload pictures and fill in detailed personal information.
If you're worried about Facebook sharing your personal information, DON'T PUT IT ON THERE!
Karma: Can only be portioned out by the Cosmos.
They should have told American that they are dumbasses if they share all of their most personal thoughts online and if they don't want to the whole world to know what colour of poopie they made this morning the idiot users need to lock their profile the hell down.
Karma be damned. You're stupid, or hopefully just ignorant of what Facebook has been doing this last few years.
When I signed up for FB three and a half years ago, it was fairly easy to lock your profile down, setting all of the information about yourself to be "friends only". They even tightened it further and created a friend-groups mechanism and allowed you to assign special rights to specific wall posts (or types of posts) to just certain groups of friends (work, old friends, current, etc).
Then, the VC ran out, and monetization needed to happen. Beacon appeared. Profile Picture, networks, and friend lists became public, with no options to lock down. Most recently, all of the book, film, pasttime favorites, work history, education history, current city, and hometown were all forced public. What's strange is there are options to restrict them to "just friends", but the new ToS say they're public info, and people have tested them and found they are public despite the privacy controls. Essentially, information you once entered into FB under the previous promise of (and current implied) privacy is being retroactively classified as public data and being made available to partner websites and any joe user. Imagine a worst case scenario: 22 yo woman signs up for FB two years ago, has her profile totally locked down so that only her friends can see anything. So, she feels safe putting a pretty picture of herself as her profile pic, listing her current city, and doesn't mind "liking" the local bars and restaurants she frequents (extremely common), where she works, and listing her favorite books, movies, etc. Unless she's been a _lot_ more prudent then average joe about re-checking her profile with a different non-friended profile, all that info is now public. I did say worst case, right? Maybe she's got a stalker ex from another city and he now knows where she lives and works. She thought FB was keeping that info from him; not any more.
This isn't going to stop unless someone smacks Facebook, and the Senators are holding up their hands and counting slowly and clearly.
No, most users are apparently clueless and stupid and government regulation is required to protect them since they won't do it themselves.
Maybe they just have different priorities or don't care or whatever. But it's easier for you to assume they're just not as smart as you. That said, if facebook did an about face on their privacy statements, that's probably fraud. No need for any additional laws.
The people who would argue with that are probably the same people who think that a democratically-elected group of legislators passing a bill which the majority agreed with means that we're living under a tyranny
tyranny of the majority, not that i'm arguing every bill/law is tyranny, just that what you said doesn't mean tyranny is impossible. which is why, government is supposed to be limited in what it can do. In the US constitution there is a list of things that congress is allowed to do, and if it's not on that list, it's quite clearly not allowed to do it. But this get abused, because apparently the general welfare clause, means that government can do whatever it wants. thus our founders wasted their time writing all the other items that our government may do.
the elected officials are worried about what's happening in fucking Facebook? perhaps they could do something a little more important for the Internet, like fix the FCC's mandate or whatever, so that they're able to ensure net neutrality.
oh, wait, i forgot: this is Facebook we're talking about! was there an Internet before Facebook? someone, fix Facebook fast or the Internet will break!
come to think of it, let them deal with Facebook. maybe that will keep them from fucking something else up. i don't give a whit about Facebook.
"To stop the terrorists."
Maybe they just have different priorities or don't care or whatever. But it's easier for you to assume they're just not as smart as you.
Regardless of what the cause is, if people aren't going to take steps to protect themselves, and if the government has an obligation to protect its people, then the only solution is regulation. I'm not trying to argue in favor of more government regulation, I'm just saying that if those assumptions hold, then the conclusion is more regulation. The opposite of government regulation is personal responsibility, and there's a notable lack of that floating around lately.
tyranny of the majority
"Tyranny of the majority" is just another way of describing democracy while using the word tyranny. The fact is that he head of state of the United States is not a tyrant. Within our laws it's not even possible for the holder of that office to become a tyrant.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
government has an obligation to protect its people, then the only solution is regulation.
I do not believe, the government has the obligation to protect people from hurting themselves.
"Tyranny of the majority" is just another way of describing democracy while using the word tyranny. The fact is that he head of state of the United States is not a tyrant. Within our laws it's not even possible for the holder of that office to become a tyrant.
"A government in which a single ruler (a tyrant) has absolute power."
Unrestricted democracy, is tyranny. if joe blow says that I can't dance on saturday nights(completely random example), and it so does the majority, bam it's voted, they win, that's tyranny. Which is my point, that government needed to be restricted. a democracy or a republic in and of itself is not good enough.
I don't think the president or congress is a tyrant. However, there are some tyrannical laws (such as drug laws)
I do not believe, the government has the obligation to protect people from hurting themselves.
They aren't hurting themselves, they're being hurt by Facebook.
if joe blow says that I can't dance on saturday nights(completely random example), and it so does the majority, bam it's voted, they win, that's tyranny.
Tyranny for whom, for Joe Blow? Does Joe feel like he's living under a tyrant? If they have absolute power by definition, then why do they need to vote? Is it because they don't have absolute power? Is a group of people considered to be a single ruler? You quoted the definition of a tyranny, and then you went and gave an example which bears no relationship to a single ruler with absolute power. Any group of more than one person voting on an issue is by your definition not a tyranny. It doesn't really matter whether some people disagree with the outcome. Democracy doesn't mean that everyone needs to agree on one thing.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Regardless of what the cause is, if people aren't going to take steps to protect themselves, and if the government has an obligation to protect its people, then the only solution is regulation.
At some point personal responsibility comes into play. If people are not going to protect themselves, or their personal data, then they need to rethink their priorities. If they post anything and everything about their lives on the internet then either they don't care or they don't understand. Does that mean the government should legislate that they be 'educated' about these facts until they 'understand' them?
I'm not a fan of FB or it's social 'fishing' experiment in data mining, but people need to understand that 'privacy' starts at home. If you make everything public you can't cry about it when everyone can read it.
Tyranny for whom, for Joe Blow?
tyranny for the people who don't vote the same way as joe blow.
If they have absolute power by definition, then why do they need to vote?
if they voted that they wouldn't need the power then, i guess they wouldn't need to.
Is a group of people considered to be a single ruler?
i would say it's fairly indistinguishable as far as results go. Would you say, if you had 2 people that were tyrants, that's not tyranny? I would think it is.
you could, have 49% of the population exterminated, if 51% voted that way. That's tyranny of the majority.
The government collects some data for legitimate purposes and abuses it for other things, and they collect some data for abusive purposes and does even more abusive things with it. Sure, Facebook may do the same thing, but you don't get arrested for driving without a Facebook account, and it's not illegal to tell Facebook that your birthday is Feb. 29th, 1903, or some other bogus date.
Once you give anybody data, they've got it, and they can do pretty much anything they want with it unless you've got an enforceable contract with them, which isn't generally the case with governments. Consider license plates on cars - they used to basically just be a receipt saying you'd paid taxes on the car - but as communications technology improved, it became possible for cops to use it to chase a given car, and now that optical character recognition has improved, it's possible to identify every car on a given street, or every car taking a given bridge, and track that for whatever reason you want. (Even without OCR, San Francisco did that a decade or so ago to identify most of the users of a freeway they were going to tear down, so they could send everybody a postcard telling them to find a different route - they used electronic cameras, but the plates were read in non-real-time by prisoners at the jail.)
Is there any reason you should trust a census with more information beyond "how many people live here"? Yeah, it's nice to be able to trace your ancestors using census records, but these days it may be more reliable to pass that information on to your descendants by giving it to Facebook...
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Technically, any decision that is supported by less than 100% of the population in question is an illegitimate decision that is closer to tyranny than participatory democracy.
And since even the constitution can be amended with a sufficient number of ayes, tyranny of the majority is a way of life in modern democracies. The alternative is a tyranny of the minority.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
One very effective way to fight Facebook, if this stuff pisses you off as much as it pisses me off, is to set up lots of bogus accounts. Seed their database with total trash made-up people. If enough of us were to do that, their database would quickly become pretty worthless.
Yes. Crapflooding For Social Progress.
I'm sure many Slashbots can see the merit in this idea.
This won't stop anyone from using Facebook. The masses don't even know it happened. They are still worried joining groups like "Stop Facebook from charging 3.99 per month beginning july 10th".
Resistance is Futile!
...a long time ago. It all THEIR paper now or it is a crime.
stop telling moderators how to moderate :P
This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
yet again, "personal responsibility" is nothing more than a gimme for corporations to shirk any and all of their responsibility.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Thankfully, the Senators can "tell" anyone anything they want, but no one has to listen. They're apparently asking the FTC to make rules, but if this isn't illegal already I don't think there is much the FTC can realistically do about it. They don't have magical extra-legal rulemaking authority, only that granted by existing legislation.
The Senators do have the authority to propose new legislation, but unfortunately Chuck Schumer is leading the charge in this case, so I guarantee it wouldn't be anything that a civil libertarian (or really, anyone whose top priority isn't Thinking of The Children) would want to see. This time there is probably no cause for alarm, since it is clear that he only wants to posture and make headlines, not actually do something.
If Facebook arbitrarily changes its privacy policy, and then doesn't give users a chance to opt out (by deleting their data in lieu of accepting the new policy), we already have a legal remedy for that. Lawsuits. Class-action lawsuits. Bring it on! Hell, this is just the sort of thing that would appeal to another headline-seeking, ambitious New York politician, AG Andrew Cuomo. His similarly ambitious, headline-grabbing predecessor, the now-former Governor Elliot Spitzer, obtained a settlement from AOL over making it exceedingly difficult to cancel its service. If a lawsuit isn't viable in this case, I can only believe that the users are indeed bringing it on themselves.
Just don't encourage Schumer, please.
Well somebody has to do it--you've seen how incompetent they normally are.
http://www.facebook.com/help/contact.php?show_form=delete_account
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Stop using Facebook, altogether.
Don't buy into Mark Suckerberg's crap.
did these senators vote for the patriot act? they are nothing but hypocrites.
I actually REMEMBER when SNL was funny. Kevin Nealon was running the Weekend Update desk, and was the only guy I can actually remember who was funny at it. And Adam Sandler would occasionally stop by dressed in a cheap tux and sing the week's news in opera form. Good times.
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
Hey, one more thing for your sig: 9) [NO CARRIER]
On-topic: If facebook were honest and forewarned all their users in detail about privacy changes, and handled the changes in a responsible way. I'd have a harder time supporting regulations against them. But since they have a long track record of springing surprise changes on their users and retroactively changing privacy settings on existing data (and using new defaults that loosen users' existing controls), I say regulate the fuckers.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Would you say, if you had 2 people that were tyrants, that's not tyranny?
Uh, yeah I would, due to the fact that a tyranny is A SINGLE RULER WITH ABSOLUTE POWER. Two people with absolute power is, once again, by definition, not a tyranny. It's something else. Not everything where people get oppressed is a tyranny. There are many, many, many forms of oppression, such as mob rule, that are not tyrannies. The failure to understand that and lump every kind of oppression into the "tyranny" bucket is the issue here. I'm not saying that democratic voting does not result in some sort of oppression, all I'm saying is that it's TOTALLY DIFFERENT than a tyranny. How can you not understand this? Tyranny and oppression are not synonyms. One is a form of government, and one is a social condition.
you could, have 49% of the population exterminated, if 51% voted that way. That's tyranny of the majority.
No it's not. It's oppression, and it's genocide, but it's not tyranny. It is not a single person with absolute power, it's 51% of the people hating the other 49%. That is not a tyranny, it's a civil war.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Technically, any decision that is supported by less than 100% of the population in question is an illegitimate decision that is closer to tyranny than participatory democracy.
It's completely disingenuous to say that. How about this:
Technically, any decision that is supported by more than 50% of the population in question is a decision that is closer to participatory democracy than tyranny.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
lol ok dude. single entity, single person. whatever, if you want to differentiate between them, go for it. their effects are the same. Personally, i'm more concerned about the results than what you call it.
Right, so it's fine if we've got hoards of protesters calling the government fascist and tyrannical. It's all the same, right? You know what two of the leading causes of death are? Car accidents, and cancer. Both of those have the same effect, death, so obviously we can conclude that car accidents and cancer are the exact same thing. It doesn't matter if the causes are different, because the result is the same, so we might as well respond to the results instead of looking for the causes.
This level of logic and reasoning should really help to progress the national debate. I especially like the posters which show Obama as Hitler, and call him a socialist. It doesn't matter to those people that Hitler had many of the socialists in Germany, who were his enemies, murdered after he came to power. History and facts are irrelevant when the government dares to do something like pass a law to require health care. Clearly health care is a major threat to this nation and the constitution. That whole warrantless wiretapping thing done by the previous president and continued by the current, that's fine and dandy, there's no way in hell that something as innocent as eavesdropping on citizens without court approval could ever be used to infringe on our rights as Americans. Clearly the real danger is health care.
Thanks for helping to progress the national debate, you're doing some fine work. Clearly the only reasonable goal to strive for is a system of government where not a single citizen ever feels oppressed. Since this government does not meet that criterion, then clearly the correct course of action is to remove the government and install a new one. I'm sure no one will feel oppressed or disenfranchised if that were to happen.
Again, thanks for helping the country.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Right, so it's fine if we've got hoards of protesters calling the government fascist and tyrannical. It's all the same, right? You know what two of the leading causes of death are? Car accidents, and cancer
You're not arguing about car accidents and cancer, you're arguing about 2 slightly different forms of cancer, that are formed in basically the same way, and have basically the same effects.
I especially like the posters which show Obama as Hitler, and call him a socialist.
I don't like comparing him to hitler. But then again comparing bush to hitler was the in thing to do, not so long ago. didn't lose any sleep over that, not gonna lose sleep over this.
As for calling him a socialist.. so what?
Clearly health care is a major threat to this nation and the constitution. That whole warrantless wiretapping thing done by the previous president and continued by the current, that's fine and dandy, there's no way in hell that something as innocent as eavesdropping on citizens without court approval could ever be used to infringe on our rights as Americans. Clearly the real danger is health care.
well i agree that we should be concerned about wiretapping, and i was hopefully obama wouldn't just continue bush's policies.. but that's all it was, was hope.
If you think that we're gonna to have socialized healthcare, and socialized heatlhcare means a drastic reduction in quality.. how is that not a threat? There's certainly no where in the constitution where it's allowed, but government doing things it's not supposed to is hardly new or unique to these last few decades.
Thanks for helping to progress the national debate, you're doing some fine work. Clearly the only reasonable goal to strive for is a system of government where not a single citizen ever feels oppressed. Since this government does not meet that criterion, then clearly the correct course of action is to remove the government and install a new one. I'm sure no one will feel oppressed or disenfranchised if that were to happen.
lol. i'm trying to have a discussion of sorts. you know, like civilized people are supposed to do? I never said i wanted to remove this government and install a new one, i said, i want to limit what government can do. You know, do what the constitution was created for. If you think democracy is all that's necessary, visit india. They have democracy there, and no, it's not because they're over populated.
You're not arguing about car accidents and cancer, you're arguing about 2 slightly different forms of cancer, that are formed in basically the same way, and have basically the same effects.
Really? Representative democracy and tyranny are formed the same way, and have the same effects? Pray tell, what exactly distinguishes them?
If you think that we're gonna to have socialized healthcare, and socialized heatlhcare means a drastic reduction in quality.. how is that not a threat?
That's not what I think. If you can prove that socialized health care will result in a "drastic reduction of quality" for all concerned then we'll have a debate. I'm not going to debate a hypothetical situation or unproven assumption. One thing is a fact though: the US spends way more money on health care as a percentage of our GDP than the majority of other countries, yet our standard is lower. We spend more of our GDP than Germany, but Germany is still able to provide superior care to all of their citizens, even though we spend more and don't do that. This means that it's possible to both spend less and provide better care then we currently are. The entire system is a sham when a doctor is able to submit a bill for $150 for a Tylenol and expect it to get paid. I assume that would mean that I could walk in with a bottle of 100 Tylenol as payment for a $15,000 procedure, but for some reason it doesn't work that way.
I never said i wanted to remove this government and install a new one, i said, i want to limit what government can do.
No, you said that representative democracy and tyranny are the same thing, that it doesn't matter what you call them because they produce the same result. I wonder what someone who had to live under Pol Pot or Robert Mugabe would say if you told them that you live in a tyranny because we vote on issues and there's always a side which loses the vote. If you asked them if that was the same thing they faced, I wonder what they would say.
As for calling him a socialist.. so what?
Because he's not even close. Ask an American socialist if Obama is following their ideals. He's no more a socialist than he is a communist, so why all the bullshit rhetoric?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Really? Representative democracy and tyranny are formed the same way, and have the same effects? Pray tell, what exactly distinguishes them?
Like i've said a bazillion times, limited government is important.
If you can prove that socialized health care will result in a "drastic reduction of quality" for all concerned then we'll have a debate. I'm not going to debate a hypothetical situation or unproven assumption.
Look at canada, look at the UK, look at what socializing industries has done. nothing very hypothetical about it. the cases where it looks like socializing medicine has worked, are in small countries such as sweden and holland. and they'll implode within our life times anyways.
ne thing is a fact though: the US spends way more money on health care as a percentage of our GDP than the majority of other countries, yet our standard is lower. We spend more of our GDP than Germany, but Germany is still able to provide superior care to all of their citizens, even though we spend more and don't do that.
We provide pretty good care to most. there are a few that do fall through the cracks. Another fact, the US started getting involved in medical care not so long ago, and look what's happened? costs have risen, adjusting for inflation.
but look at lasik. not covered by insurance, not really regulated. quality has gone up, price has come down. look at food, look at clothing, look at technology. where we let free markets occur, prices go down, quality goes up.
you live in a tyranny because we vote on issues and there's always a side which loses the vote.
where did i say that? i quite specifically said, we don't. we still have a government that is somewhat limited. I did say some laws are tyrannical, such as our drug laws. I have repeated over and over, that we need limited government. And that democracy(of one form or the other) in and of itself, is not going to lead to freedom.
Because he's not even close. Ask an American socialist [sp-usa.org] if Obama is following their ideals. He's no more a socialist than he is a communist, so why all the bullshit rhetoric?
complaining about bullshit rhetoric in politics is kind of redundant.
Like i've said a bazillion times, limited government is important.
I agree with that, but even though it didn't even address my question I'll let it go.
the cases where it looks like socializing medicine has worked, are in small countries such as sweden and holland.
Right, small countries like Germany and France which have the 4th and 5th largest economies in the world ranked by GDP, the largest 2 economies in the EU. Germany spends $3328 per capita on health care, or 10.4% of their GDP. France spends $3554 per capita, or 11.1%. Canada spends $3672 per capita, or 10.0%. The US spends $6714 per capita, or 15.3% of our GDP which is nearly as large as the entire GDP for Europe. Those numbers come from the WHO. We're spending twice as much per capita as many other countries and still can't even manage to help everyone like they do.
Look at canada, look at the UK, look at what socializing industries has done.
Here's something fun to try: find someone from Canada, and ask them whether they would prefer the Canadian health system or the current US health system. See what they say.
and they'll implode within our life times anyways.
Wow, that's a great argument. We shouldn't do something because the countries that are currently succeeding at it are going to fail at some undetermined point in the future. That's some iron-clad reasoning right there.
Another fact, the US started getting involved in medical care not so long ago, and look what's happened? costs have risen, adjusting for inflation.
No shit, that's exactly why it needs to be fixed. Costs have risen, care has declined. That can be fixed.
but look at lasik. not covered by insurance, not really regulated. quality has gone up, price has come down.
That's because the technology has improved, genius, not because it's privatized.
where we let free markets occur, prices go down, quality goes up.
I do not believe that the government has an obligation to provide clothes and technology for its people. I do believe it has an obligation to provide medical care.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
The users on Facebook who have the most to lose when their private information is displayed for all to see are exactly the people who have no idea how to manipulate the privacy settings. On the other hand, tweens and teens who have nothing to lose by sharing their info have the know how to keep their profiles sealed shut. Different generations learn differently. Facebook needs to accomodate its policies to what "The Everyman" can understand. The Everyman is the average person on the street, and he certainly doesn't understand that one day Facebook is going to "change it's policy" to release all of his personal information unless he goes to his privacy settings and carefully manipulates them. This is all a ploy by Facebook to share our personal information with the world. Privacy Schmivacy.
haha true. Not sure if you noticed, my comment was actually a take-off of the second post...
This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
Right, small countries like Germany and France which have the 4th and 5th largest economies in the world ranked by GDP, the largest 2 economies in the EU. Germany spends $3328 per capita on health care, or 10.4% of their GDP. France spends $3554 per capita, or 11.1%. Canada spends $3672 per capita, or 10.0%. The US spends $6714 per capita, or 15.3% of our GDP which is nearly as large as the entire GDP for Europe. Those numbers come from the WHO. We're spending twice as much per capita as many other countries and still can't even manage to help everyone like they do.
I'm really not familiar with germany or france's situations. So i won't comment on them.
Here's something fun to try: find someone from Canada, and ask them whether they would prefer the Canadian health system or the current US health system. See what they say.
been there done that.
canadian 1, what? there's no problem's with canada's healthcare system.
canadian 2 there's a shit ton of people waiting around for care
canadian 3 there's problems in some of the provinces
canadian 4 the problems will go away when we build more hispitals
i think the general trend is, yeah it's not so bad, if you're healthy. but it'll sure suck when your dad dies because he's waiting into an ICU after a heart attack.
Wow, that's a great argument. We shouldn't do something because the countries that are currently succeeding at it are going to fail at some undetermined point in the future. That's some iron-clad reasoning right there.
well you're right, it's not. but it's what'll happen. it's what happens when we over regulate/socialize stuff. see communist countries. It took 70 years for the USSR to collapse, it was unavoidable, but I don't think you could predict when it would happen.
No shit, that's exactly why it needs to be fixed. Costs have risen, care has declined. That can be fixed.
notice, how this has happened since the US started getting involved?
That's because the technology has improved, genius, not because it's privatized.
why hasn't healthcare costs in general fallen, genius? there's certainly been a lot of technological improvements elsewhere.
I do not believe that the government has an obligation to provide clothes and technology for its people. I do believe it has an obligation to provide medical care.
WHy not food? why not clothing? you need both? Why not water? (which often does come from _local_ governments)? WHy didn't our founders say that government had to provide healtchare? they had doctors back then. If government can make costs go down and quality go up, why the fuck not everything? sounds fine to me, if government could make prices go down and quality go up, bring on the government!
WHy didn't our founders say that government had to provide healtchare?
The constitution also didn't say that people had the right to free speech, nor the right to bear arms, nor the right to vote at 18, nor that people have the right not to be searched without a reason, etc etc etc. Why do you think the constitution has been amended 27 times? Times change, so do the needs of the country. Within 15 years of its creation the constitution had already been amended 10 times. The last time an amendment was proposed was 32 years ago. Maybe it's time for another one.
notice, how this has happened since the US started getting involved?
That's right, if there's one thing we know how to do, it's fuck up a system. That doesn't mean we can't eventually get it right, and it doesn't mean we should stop trying.
Universal health care is policy in all industrialized countries (except the United States which is currently in transition).
Surely you're not going to tell me that every other industrialized nation except the US is in imminent danger of failing.
Germany has the world's oldest universal health care system, with origins dating back to Otto von Bismarck's social legislation, which included the Health Insurance Bill of 1883, Accident Insurance Bill of 1884, and Old Age and Disability Insurance Bill of 1889.
We have almost 130 years of experience to look at. It's no wonder that Germany is the model for the bill which was passed.
Most current universal health care systems were implemented in the period following the Second World War as a process of deliberate health care reform, intended to make health care available to all, in the spirit of Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, signed by every country doing so. The US did not ratify the social and economic rights sections, including Article 25's right to health.
Some more interesting reading here:
Are Patients in Universal Healthcare Countries Less Satisfied?
Some interesting data in those tables.
Here's a personal story as well: in 2003 I was finishing up college and living in a house with 4 other roommates, two couples. One of them was a guy who didn't take very good care of himself, without going into too much detail it was pretty clear that his immune system wasn't very strong because of how he treated his body. During February and March of that year he became sick, he just had a flu or cold or something like that. One Sunday I saw him walking from the basement to his room sort of staggering, he seemed pretty tired. Later that evening his girlfriend reported that she wasn't able to wake him. We called the medics, got some firemen there to lift him out of bed (he was crying, not knowing where he was, very out of it). His parents transported him to the hospital, where he became combative with the staff. They sedated him, and it put him in a coma for the next several years. He eventually awoke, but never spoke, did not recognize anyone, couldn't eat, etc. He spent about 5 years in various hospitals and clinics, including the reknowned Barrow Neurological Center here in Phoenix. Each year of his care cost his parents several hundred thousand dollars. Each year. He eventually died in a hospice due to complications that occured there.
The single reason he didn't go to the doctor when he originally got sick, which lasted for over a month, was because he did not have insurance and didn't want to pay so much just to go get an antibacterial. He told me exactly that when I asked him why he wasn't going to the doctor. The infection turned into menengitis, and that was that. He was 22 when he got sick. The end result was death and around a million dollars in health bills for his parents.
The US has the highest GDP in the world, by a lot. We can do better than that.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
The constitution also didn't say that people had the right to free speech, nor the right to bear arms, nor the right to vote at 18, nor that people have the right not to be searched without a reason, etc etc etc. Why do you think the constitution has been amended 27 times? Times change, so do the needs of the country. Within 15 years of its creation the constitution had already been amended 10 times. The last time an amendment was proposed was 32 years ago. Maybe it's time for another one.
fine so amend it. it'll still be stupid, but it'll atleast be legal.
That's right, if there's one thing we know how to do, it's fuck up a system. That doesn't mean we can't eventually get it right, and it doesn't mean we should stop trying.
So, we had a decent system before government started meddling, and you want to do more meddling.
I never said universal healthcare will fail immediately. i've made the point that it takes time(just like everything we socialize does). I've also never said our current system is great either. Our current system is quite fucked up, and leads to the situation that happened with your friend.
The US has the highest GDP in the world, by a lot. We can do better than that.
and how did we get to that position? a thing called freedom. Freedom is all we really need, but it means freedom economically and socially. You don't want economic freedom, you want government control. It will not work. it will make our situation worse. This bill forces people to buy insurance. Take about an insurance company's dream.
So, we had a decent system before government started meddling
Not necessarily. We had a system which fit the state that the country was in decades ago. That's not the same system we should be using now. That's like the RIAA trying to still sell everyone vinyl records. Times have changed, needs have changed.
You don't want economic freedom, you want government control.
I've never stated anything which should cause you to think that I value government control over economic freedom. Economic freedom is the backbone of this country. Economic freedom has nothing to do with the government providing health care to its citizens, and it's disingenuous for you to say that if you are in favor of government health care that you are also opposed to freedom. You still have the freedom to pay for your own health care. This bill does not remove any options you currently have, it simply gives new options to people who don't currently have them.
This bill forces people to buy insurance.
I have not read the hundreds of pages in the bill, so I frankly don't know what it says (and I'm smarter than thinking that the "information" coming from Fox is remotely accurate - you're not going to be jailed, either). I'm not even arguing that the current bill is the solution to all of our problems. I do find it interesting though that the Republicans asked for several changes to the bill, which they were given, and then not a damn one of them voted for it. Why make the changes if it's not going to change any minds? That's where reform needs to start, in Congress. The Democrats and Republicans have had it too good for too long, they're lazy now. We need people in there who want to be there because they want to help. It's the same bullshit going on with our new immigration bill, everyone all of a sudden hates us for daring to make a law, but the only thing anyone else is doing is talking. It doesn't help, you need to make changes, see if they work, if they don't work then figure out why and change it again.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Not necessarily. We had a system which fit the state that the country was in decades ago. That's not the same system we should be using now. That's like the RIAA trying to still sell everyone vinyl records. Times have changed, needs have changed.
The laws should be fundamental and rarely need to be changed. The proper role of government, in my view, is to protect freedom. there's nothing that's changed that requires different laws from 70 years ago.
I've never stated anything which should cause you to think that I value government control over economic freedom.
You stated heatlhcare should be a right. that affects, quite significantly, economic freedom.
I have not read the hundreds of pages in the bill, so I frankly don't know what it says
I don't know the details of the bill either, but this is a pretty key point that i don't think is in dispute.
I agree
I agree with author