I don’t think I missed your point, I think that the financial aspect of medical care for the elderly is the dominant one. There may indeed be cultural differences in Europe, but the statistic I was quoting – that the elderly experience a higher quality of life in old age – was from a study (which at the moment I can no longer find, sadly) that was specifically contrasting the US with Canada, where the cultures are by and large very similar.
What is quite different, though, is the political ideology. By an odd coincidence, yesterday I heard an interview with the minister of health for the province of Manitoba who said that Manitoba had been the first province to create a program of home care services for the elderly (back in the 70’s, I believe) that was eventually adopted by all the others, and was discussing the province’s plans to expand those programs. As I mentioned, these are things like home nursing care, personal care services, medical equipment, etc. that are fully publicly funded and are above and beyond the basic single-payer health care system.
Which one might contrast with the recent decision by a large number of states (all of them Republican controlled) to opt out of the federal Medicaid expansion program – even though the program would be fully funded by the feds for three years and 90% subsidized thereafter. And I’m sure a large number of voters supported this stand against Creeping Socialism, even though some of them may end up dying as a result of it.
Which brings us back to the topic of discussion here, which is how and why voters are persuaded to vote for someone else’s interests and against their own. A great example of this occurred in 1961, when a B-list actor named Ronald Reagan warned of the dark perils of socialism and totalitarianism should Medicare be enacted. It was an underhanded campaign against Medicare financed and conducted by the AMA called Operation Coffee Cup and was an early example of what today would be called astroturfing and viral marketing. Among Reagan’s statements were the following:
Needless to say, Medicare, as inadequate as it is, is today one of the most socially vital and popular government programs around. And also needless to say – and I can’t emphasize this enough – if Medicare was not in existence today, there is no way – NO WAY – that in today’s political climate of unrestrained lobbying and political spending that it could ever be enacted. Even the pathetic “public option” of the original ACA proposal was quashed and pulverized by the insurance lobby before it ever had a chance. What was left was a program that, although it had some token regulation and promised some potential benefits, ultimately guaranteed the industry even greater income than they already had. The most important hurdle the ACA had to pass was not the House and not the Senate, but the self-serving industry that oversees them both.
To say speech is power is pure bullshit. It is influence, not power. Nobody can utter magic words that have the power to do something. That is an undeniable fact. There is no 2000-year history that contradicts it.
You can’t just walk into a legal debate and redefine something like that and expect to get away with it. Sorry.
What a wonderful statement!
If we were arguing a court case, I would close my argument right here.
But thanks for admitting that you are proposing a limit on constitutionally-protected freedom.
Don’t play those stupid word games with me. “Free” means the government may not restrict it.
So what? We’re better than most democracies.
[/QUOTE]
So? This is the U.S. We have a First Amendment – an amendment that was designed to protect us from people just like you. Deal with it.
Ah, yes, American exceptionalism and blind ideological absolutism all in one fell swoop! “Better than most democracies”, indeed. So much “better”, in fact, that the vast majority of its citizens are saddled with a large and growing income disparity – the largest Gini coefficient in the industrialized world; so much “better” that not even rudimentary universal health care has been established, and it’s increasingly unaffordable for many of those who do have it. While corporate dominance reigns almost absolute in every sphere of public influence. Hence the situations like those described in my immediately preceding post, about care for the elderly and the war on Medicare.
I disagree. Canadian culture and American culture, while similar, are very different. They are what America was in the 1890-1910’s: A hybrid of socialist and capitalist ideals with a pragmatic approach and a dash of caution. There is American influence, but it’s been a point of Canadian pride to resist that influence and adopt whatever usefulness (technology/idea/etc) that accompanies that influence and ignore the influence itself.
And this is a perfect example. At a time when information was relatively short on what good can come from that approach, Manitoba became the pioneer. The other provinces followed course when the evidence came in that it helped without destroying the fabric of society. It was a different time, though, when a lot of social programs were still fairly new. In the 70’s Europe had started moving beyond the damage of the war and were investing in their own social programs in a widening net.
The Canadian eye looked at these programs with interest. The American eye looked at these programs with derision. Socialism was viewed as a “soft” form of communism. This continues to this day, though the boogey man has changed from “Communism” to “liberals.”
I’m not arguing against this because the political fracas has gotten to the point that actual facts don’t matter to either political party. Cartoonish sacks with dollar signs do.
The reason that people vote “Against their interest” is because they are hopeless that any good can come from the political machine. Just look at the last ten federal (not presidential) elections. It’s swung back and forth between D and R fairly consistently because people are trying to find a medium between tree hugging libby lib and bible thumping theocrat. Unfortunately, it’s hard to find those middle positions for the average voter because the politicians are all in bed with whoever has enough money to throw around.
If we want the public to vote for actual progress, we need to cure the disenfranchisement people have, first. But that won’t happen because everywhere they look, D or R, they can see that they aren’t getting what they would like.
I’d bet bet you $10 that if you went and asked, most people would be fine with UHC that was cost effective, regardless of political affiliation. But when the public had a severe outcry against the ACA (from all political affiliations you’ll note) what happened? Nothing. Not a thing. Even with a large swing to the Rs in the following election. So, who would you vote for? The people that passed the ACA which is already harming your family with increased costs or the people who are impotent?
Well, the people who are impotent are at least saying the right things (“keep gov costs down”) half the time, even if they are batshit crazy the other half. The people that passed the ACA aren’t even talking about fixing any flaws that we can see now until “after it’s been fully implemented” which feels like kicking the can down the road to the average voter.
To use your logic - should we ban all speech by those who advocate polices that lead to income disparity? Even if that speech doesn’t involve spending money?
Why not? How can you possibly say that speech should be limited for that reason, but only if it involves spending money? Why not ban it all?
If you think we would be better off without the First Amendment, by all means, propose repealing it.
In the mean time, we have one, and you have to live by it. So arguing about whether we’re better with or without it is pointless. The First Amendment clearly forbids you from limiting speech, by any speaker, including by limiting that speaker’s ability to spend as much money or use any other resources to speak as much as they want to.
What an utterly bizarre other-worldy interpretation of what I’m saying. If I’m advocating against the First Amendment, then so was Thomas Jefferson as already quoted, and so was Theodore Roosevelt – and a good deal more forcefully than anything I’ve ever said:
You can also take issue with the Supreme Court at various times taking issue with an absolutist interpretation of the First Amendment, for instance:
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988)
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968
As I said, all you’re expressing is blind ideological absolutism. The considered measures of well-functioning democracies are intended to encourage the diversity of free speech, not suppress it. By blindly allowing unfettered political advocacy without limit by the wealthy and powerful, it effectively drowns out other voices. Even if the motivation is well-intentioned, it has the opposite of the intended effect. It’s analogous to the removal or relaxation of rules on the concentration of media ownership (which has also been happening, just to make matters worse). It may superficially appear to serve the cause of freedom, but in practice it kills diversity of opinion, suppresses honest debate, and potentially puts the power of the media entirely in the hands of uncontested self-serving interests. None of this serves the public interest, and that’s why you have the kinds of situations I’ve described, which even you seem to acknowledge are not good.
In the sense that they were prohibited from airing them on television. During the 2 nonconsecutive months of this limitation the Citizens United people could have arranged for public screenings or show them on their tablets to people on the sidewalk or whatever. The ideas themselves are not prohibited.
You are right. I was misunderstanding the situation. I leave the question of legality to you.
This is the crux of it I think. Are we willing to accept some limitation on paid political speech in order to limit the influence of money in elections?
Citizens United had NOTHING to do with DONATIONS to candidates.
Donations to candidates from corporations is already regulated. Citizens United didn’t change that. Roosevelt’s ban on donations from corporate treasuries is still law today.
This is about spending money on speech. That’s totally different.
I will answer the rest of your post, but I could stop here. You need to understand what this debate is about before you post further.
There’s that goofy double-speak again. You can’t ban speech in order to make it more free. Not in the U.S. anyway.
Oh, bullshit.
Anyone can say as much as they want. Anyone can listen as much as they want.
Only if you assume the public are idiots who only do whatever they are told by hearing the most 30-second TV ads over and over. Which could be true, but that’s their fault.
It is not your place to decide what the public interest is. The public decides for itself.
They were BANNED from television for two months. Still a ban. Just because it was a small ban doesn’t make it not a ban.
If its such a small burden on those who were banned, why ban it in the first place? If it had no effect, why are you defending it?
Thanks. This is a huge source of misunderstanding about this case, the others being that it had nothing to do with donations to candidates and it had nothing to do with “corporate personhood,” which is never mentioned in the case.
CU is one of the most misunderstood cases in modern history. It was a slam-dunk free speech case.
The First Amendment settles that question easily. We are not willing to settle on any limits on speech. Limits on spending on speech are clearly limits on speech.
I thought it was clear that I was differentiating this practice from book burning.
Who is this “we” you are talking about, kemo sabe? I, for one, believe it would be good for the nation to trade some minor restrictions on paid political speech in order to reduce the influence of money in politics.
Mostly misunderstood by you, it would appear. A slam-dunk case of free speech would be the right of a company president or billionaire stockholder to make public statements and do all the other things that you and I might do about things we have an opinion on. No one has a problem with that. Spending millions of dollars – or hundreds of millions – on concerted PR and propaganda campaigns in public media to sway public opinion is, by any sane rationale, an entirely different matter. As can be seen from some of the cited references here. Legal opinions that strongly disagree with this supposed “slam-dunk” abound – and I’m talking about opinions from respected legal scholars and commentators. You are also wrong, as I pointed out with examples, about the First Amendment being any kind of absolute. By your definition of “freedom”, there should be no laws at all and no restrictions on anything, and we’ve already discussed the paradoxical consequences of that.
There is no difference. To ban speech is to ban speech, whether by burning a book or threatening jail time for running a TV ad.
We refers to our Constitution. If you don’t like it, feel free to be the first ever to successfully amend the Bill of Rights because you find a right to be too broad. Good luck.
Nope. It’s a slam-dunk, both legally and logically.
Legally because it was clearly established 40 years ago, in Buckley v. Valeo, that restrictions on spending money on speech are the same as restricting the speech itself and are therefore unconstitutional.
Logically because the ONLY reason anyone is proposing a ban on the spending on speech is the speech itself. You think the money is bad because of the speech it brings. You wouldn’t care if it were spent on clothes or booze. It’s the speech you want to limit, because you think it is “too much.” You can’t logically separate the two. This is an attempt to limit speech, and it’s unconstitutional.
I have never said freedom speech should be “absolute.” There may be exceptions. YOUR exceptions, however, are completely invalid. You may not limit speech because you don’t like the source, or because you think a source has more than its “share” of speech, or because you think it “crowds out” others. Nope. And there’s no paradox to that either.
As I’ve said, book burning entails permanent and total prohibition while banning tv campaign ads is not only temporary but doesn’t actually restrict the work from anyone actively seeking it. Just because this distinction might be inconvenient for you doesn’t mean I didn’t just make it.
As I said, I’ll leave the legal arguments to you. Don’t make it right.
Please stop this nonsense. You’re embarassing yourself. Seriously. The tortured ways you’re trying to turn a limit on free speech into not actually a limit on free speech just proves my point further.
Okay. Once we agree that I’m legally right under the current Constitution, we can move on to discussing whether you think we need to get rid of the First Amendment so that your sense of what ought to be legal can prevail. I’m happy to defend the First Amendment here.
So the SCOTUS has ruled. But that really needs re-examination. And reversal. Or constitutional amendment if strictly necessary.
What we need to do is make it not merely difficult but impossible for anybody (including the candidates themselves) to affect the outcome of any election by spending money on it. Our only alternatives are that and a de facto plutocracy, which is what we’ve got now. The 1% have more than enough economic power, without allowing them to wield political power out of proportion to their numbers on top of that.
From The Next American Nation, by Michael Lind (The Free Press, 1995), pp. 256-259 (from before the McCain-Feingold Bill, but I don’t think the picture has changed all that much since it passed):
They don’t come much more libertarian than Goldwater, and even he was appalled at this state of affairs.
From the same book, pp. 311-313:
“Wall of separation between check and state” is, at least, something you can get on a bumper-sticker.
Today’s political campaigns function as collection agencies for broadcasters. You simply transfer money from contributors to television stations. Senator Bill Bradley, 2000.
We’ve got a real irony here. We have politicians selling access to something we all own -our government. And then we have broadcasters selling access to something we all own — our airwaves. It’s a terrible system. Newton Minow, former Federal Communications Commission chairman (2000).
You’re more likely to see Elvis again than to see this bill pass the Senate. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) (1999) on the McCain-Feingold Bill on Campaign Reform
Unless we fundamentally change this system, ultimately campaign finance will consume our democracy. Representative Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) (1996).
[Buckley v. Valeo is] one of the most weakly reasoned, poorly written, initially contradictory court opinions I’ve ever read. Senator (and former federal district court judge) George J. Mitchell (D-ME) (1990).
We don’t buy votes. What we do is we buy a candidate’s stance on an issue. Allen Pross, executive director, California Medical Association’s PAC (1989).
Political action committees and moneyed interests are setting the nation’s political agenda. Are we saying that only the rich have brains in this country? Or only people who have influential friends who have money can be in the Senate? Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) (1988).
The day may come when we’ll reject the money of the rich as tainted, but it hadn’t come when I left Tammany Hall at 11:25 today. George Washington Plunkett (1905).
Who are to be the electors of the federal representatives? Not the rich, more than the poor, not the haughty heirs of distinguished names, more than the humble sons of obscure and propitious fortune. James Madison, Federalist 57 (1788).
That’s only half the problem. The other half is that nobody can get elected to high office without owing debts to the megacorps.
“We don’t buy votes. What we do is we buy a candidate’s stance on an issue.” Allen Pross, executive director, California Medical Association’s PAC (1989).
