The administration goes Orwell.

[magellan01]

I just watched the clip of CNN’s Howard Kurtz interviewing Linda Douglass, the White House Communications Director for the Office of Health Reform. Kurtz is asking her about a video piece she put together. Here is the interview. And here is the full transcript.

She’s on because of a video she created to counter information on the web—Drudge and elsewhere—that is critical of Obama’s health care reform. She says that she wants to get out “correct” information. I say great. I’m sure there is a lot of incorrect or even misleading information out there and it’s helpful that the White House have something in place that can give people accurate information.

But what is “incorrect” about using Obama’s own words on his views on health care. Here is the video Drudge had linked to.

So we have a compilation of Senator and President Obama talking about his views on health care reform. These views support some of the fears people have about what a public option will do down the road, and someone strung them together in a video. Whatever one’s views on health care, this seems to be completely legitimate. This is the way the process is supposed to work. But the White House thinks not. That even using the President’s own words, and those of other elected officials, in describing what they would like to happen and how UHC reform could/will lead to a single payer system is “incorrect” information that they must “correct”.

Saying that this is “misinformation” or “disinformation” is a lie is so brazen as to be Orwellian. Now I would have zero problem with Douglass saying that they’re providing additional information to “counter” the information in the video, or to give it fuller context, but that is not her position. I cannot fathom how the White House 1) thinks that showing what our elected officials have said about healthcare is “incorrect”, how it is “misinformation” or “disinformation” or 2) how they expect to get away with it. Even Kurtz, felt the need to politely inject disbelief.

But here are the parts that strike me as You’ve Got To Be Friggin Kidding Me!

DOUGLASS: Well, you know, one of the things we learned during the campaign was that if you give people all the facts, they become better informed. You know, there were all kinds of myths and smears that were used against then-Senator Obama during the campaign.

And what we discovered is, if we encountered them with the real facts, people really paid attention. They understand what the truth is when they seek it. And in this case, this was a bunch of clips that were taken out of context with a headline that said the president wants to eliminate private insurance. Well, that is the absolute opposite of what he’s talking about doing.

KURTZ: Well, hold on. When you say taken out of context, that video featured clips of Barack Obama before he was president. The dates were given. He was talking about health care. It’s his own words.

How is that illegitimate?

DOUGLASS: Well, as you know, you can take a sound bite here and a sound bite there. They took pieces of sound bites from different periods of time, they put a chyron – that’s the words on a screen – that says “wants to eliminate private insurance” to go along with these sound bites that they cobbled together.

Okay. But the text over the video doesn’t mislead. It mainly supplies dates. If it did, and she straightened out those misleading statements, fine. But her basic gripe is that we shouldn’t look at what the administration and those in favor of UHC have actually said—noooooo—we need to listen only to how the White House would like to frame the debate now.

And then there’s this exchange:

DOUGLASS: And our point is that he is saying exactly the opposite. The health insurance reform that we’re talking about is built upon the current private insurance system. That’s what it is.

(CROSSTALK)

KURTZ: Right. That is not his current plan. So, you can say well, it misrepresented or perhaps suggested that this is his position now.

DOUGLASS: His current plan…

KURTZ: But apparently he did have a different position when he was senator, and that’s legitimate to throw out there.

DOUGLASS: He didn’t have a different position when he was a senator. But the point is…

KURTZ: What do you mean he didn’t have a different position? He talked about – first he talked about single payers, supporting that. It was years ago. And then he talked about making a transition over 10 or 15 years to fully government insurance.

DOUGLASS: What he talked about early on was, look, if we could start over all again, maybe it would be fine to have a single payer system. But we’re not going to start all over again.

So, first she argues that the problem with the video is that it doesn’t reflect the President’s current desires. But when Kurtz tries to help her with that, she claims that Obama didn’t have a different position on health care. Well, that means that his current preference is the same as what he wanted back then. Sorry, you can’t have it both ways.

I really find this Orwellian. We have video of Obama and others clearly stating what they want as far as health care reform. then we have the White House Communications director for Health Care Reform telling us, "Noooo, those words don’t mean what they plainly appear to mean to sentient beings, they mean something else. And that something else is what we’re going to tell you they mean. And if you disagree you are guilty of spreading “misinformation” or “disinformation”. And we will use the power of our office to “correct” you. Come to think of it, I don’t know if it more reminiscent of Orwelll or Lewis Carroll.

So, is Ms. Douglass out of line? Way out of line? Or do you think it all fine and well. If so, please provide the rationale.

It seems to me that this is bullying, by the biggest kid on the block. I don’t think this has a place in any administration. I guess this is just some of the change Obama promised.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@magellan01

I just watched the clip of CNN’s Howard Kurtz interviewing Linda Douglass, the White House Communications Director for the Office of Health Reform. Kurtz is asking her about a video piece she put together.
…
there is a lot of incorrect or even misleading information out there and it’s helpful that the White House have something in place that can give people accurate information.
…
Here is the video Drudge had linked to.
…
this was a bunch of clips that were taken out of context
…
she straightened out those misleading statements
…
Obama didn’t have a different position on health care.
…
if you disagree you are guilty of spreading “misinformation” or “disinformation”.

It’s possible to quote someone’s exact words yet leave the audience with the impression they’re saying something they’re not saying. It’s even possible to do it dishonestly.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Note a few things about the video:

1. At 0:50, Obama says, “But I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately.” Notice that conjunction at the beginning of the clip? It strongly implies that he said something else before it. I wonder what he said before it?
2. The clip goes on to have him say, “I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out–” and then the clip cuts off. Envision what exactly? Sure, maybe he went on to say, “A United States where all doctors have to approve any treatment with the United Nations and where people over the age of 60 are turned into soylent green,” but it’s also possible that he said, “a country in which a majority of people purchase insurance individually, and in which employer-provided health care is no longer the default.”
3. The clip that follows is from 2003, long before he was explaining what he’d do in office.
4. This is wacky conspiracy theory stuff.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Note a few things about the video:

1. At 0:50, Obama says, “But I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately.” Notice that conjunction at the beginning of the clip? It strongly implies that he said something else before it. I wonder what he said before it?
2. The clip goes on to have him say, “I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out–” and then the clip cuts off. Envision what exactly? Sure, maybe he went on to say, “A United States where all doctors have to approve any treatment with the United Nations and where people over the age of 60 are turned into soylent green,” but it’s also possible that he said, “a country in which a majority of people purchase insurance individually, and in which employer-provided health care is no longer the default.”

The fuller quote is:

As I indicated before, I think that we’re going to have to have some system where people can buy into a larger pool. Right now their pool typically is the employer, but there are other ways of doing it. I would like to – I would hope that we could set up a system that allows those who can go through their employer to access a federal system or a state pool of some sort. But I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out where we’ve got a much more portable system. Employers still have the option of providing coverage, but many people may find that they get better coverage, or at least coverage that gives them more for health care dollars than they spend outside of their employer. And I think we’ve got to facilitate that and let individuals make that choice to transition out of employer coverage.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Captain_Amazing

The fuller quote is:

Excellent. I think the most telling part of the quote is this: “Employers still have the option of providing coverage, but many people may find that they get better coverage, or at least coverage that gives them more for health care dollars than they spend outside of their employer. And I think we’ve got to facilitate that and let individuals make that choice to transition out of employer coverage.”

magellan, do you agree that this quote is pretty much the opposite of calling for a single-payer plan? A plan in which employers can provide coverage, but people may choose not to take it, seems incompatible with SP to me. (Note that I’d very much like UHC, so I dislike the fact that Obama’s not working for it).

As such, it seems very clear to me that the Orwellian operatives here are the ones who are cutting and editing Obama’s words to make it seem like he’s advocating a position incompatible with the one he’s really advocating.

[magellan01]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Note a few things about the video:

1. At 0:50, Obama says, “But I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately.” Notice that conjunction at the beginning of the clip? It strongly implies that he said something else before it. I wonder what he said before it?
2. The clip goes on to have him say, “I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out–” and then the clip cuts off. Envision what exactly? Sure, maybe he went on to say, “A United States where all doctors have to approve any treatment with the United Nations and where people over the age of 60 are turned into soylent green,” but it’s also possible that he said, “a country in which a majority of people purchase insurance individually, and in which employer-provided health care is no longer the default.”
3. The clip that follows is from 2003, long before he was explaining what he’d do in office.
4. This is wacky conspiracy theory stuff.

The video is obviously a compilation. It has to be cut off somewhere. I think if the “correction” Douglass wanted to offer was to show more context, proving that the video is, in fact, incorrect and possibly intentionally so, good for her. But that’s not what she’s doing. It would be very easy for her to do a video that showed the clipped version and the one with more context. but based on what I’ve seen, I don’t think that would help her. The point is that right now there is legitimate debate as to whether a public option—either intentionally or unintentionally—lead to a single payer system. Now, whether or not you think that is a good thing is beside the point. The administration and others are claiming that is not the case. Showing what their true desires are is important information for the debate.

#3) It goes to what he would like to see. It’s completely valid. If his opinion has changed, he can explain that, too.

#4) if you mean the denial that this is an issue, I agree.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@magellan01

Showing what their true desires are is important information for the debate.

Are you defining “true desires” as in “what they’d like to see in an idea world,” or as in, “what they’re working for as politically feasible”? I’m assuming you mean the latter, because the former is too foolish to pursue. Presumably Obama would like to see a world with no disease, no anger, and no sadness, and rainbow ponies for everyone who wants one. But he’s not working toward that because it’s not possible; his views on such matters are irrelevant. All we should care about is what he’s working toward as politically feasible.

Knowing his true political aims is important information. Lying about them, not so much.

#3) It goes to what he would like to see. It’s completely valid. If his opinion has changed, he can explain that, too.

No, it’s not valid, because what he said he’d like to see isn’t what he’s working toward politically. If you have evidence to the contrary, offer that.

#4) if you mean the denial that this is an issue, I agree.

This is basically “I’m rubber and you’re glue.” It’s idiotic. What you posted is wacky conspiracy stuff because it claims to see the secret intentions behind the cabal in power, claims to show that they’re lying about their true aims. Nobody denies that it’s an issue: the wacky conspiracy theorists are hijacking the public debate, which should be about economic liberty, efficiency of health care, and morality of different methods of apportioning the limited resource of health care, not about the secret cabal trying to turn us into a communist nation and how they’ve let the lizard-people plan slip through ill-chosen words on occasion.

[Captain_Amazing]

It’s certainly not a single payer plan, but it does seem to be that his eventual goal is to reduce employer coverage; to change the system such that employed individuals can leave their employer plan and get the government insurance.

I guess what I’m wondering is, won’t this lead to single payer? Lets say some government health insurance gets set up, with universal eligibility, and I’m an employer. Now, insurance can be expensive for employers to provide, so it seems like the smart thing for me to do would be to say, “Hey, employees, from now on I’m not paying for your health insurance anymore, you should get on the government plan.”

And then, of course, with the employers doing this, the private insurance companies, which rely on employer insurance for most of their business, are in trouble, can’t make money and fold. So I guess what I’m wondering is, won’t a government plan that is eligible for everyone drive the private insurers out?

[magellan01]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Excellent. I think the most telling part of the quote is this: “Employers still have the option of providing coverage, but many people may find that they get better coverage, or at least coverage that gives them more for health care dollars than they spend outside of their employer. And I think we’ve got to facilitate that and let individuals make that choice to transition out of employer coverage.”

magellan, do you agree that this quote is pretty much the opposite of calling for a single-payer plan? A plan in which employers can provide coverage, but people may choose not to take it, seems incompatible with SP to me. (Note that I’d very much like UHC, so I dislike the fact that Obama’s not working for it).

As such, it seems very clear to me that the Orwellian operatives here are the ones who are cutting and editing Obama’s words to make it seem like he’s advocating a position incompatible with the one he’s really advocating.

I don’t see how that changes things. We know the argument about UHC and the public option in the short term. The fear is the long term. The question is whether Obama ids philosophically invested in having a single payer system (eventually) or in having having a public option AND the private insurance option people have today. The part of the quote that sheds light on that is:

But I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be potentially some transition process.

That seems pretty clear to me as to where he’d like to head. and that’s valuable information to the debate. Granted it is just one quote, but let them counter it with an explanation. I don’t see in this case how the fuller quote dispenses with the concerns of the part that was quoted. And why it was quoted.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@magellan01

The question is whether Obama ids philosophically invested in having a single payer system (eventually) or in having having a public option AND the private insurance option people have today. The part of the quote that sheds light on that is:

That seems pretty clear to me as to where he’d like to head.

Except you’re incorrect, because he explains exactly where he’d like to head. Lemme quote it for you again:

@Obama

I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out where we’ve got a much more portable system. Employers still have the option of providing coverage, but many people may find that they get better coverage, or at least coverage that gives them more for health care dollars than they spend outside of their employer. And I think we’ve got to facilitate that and let individuals make that choice to transition out of employer coverage.

The opposite of employer coverage isn’t Single-Payer. For example, if all you did was to eliminate the tax benefits of employer coverage, that’d go a very long way toward eliminating employer coverage without doing anything to encourage single-payer. In fact, it’d be a much more competitive system, since you wouldn’t be effectively locked into whatever shitty plan your employer chose for you. (For example, right now, about 15-20% of my monthly pay takes the form of health insurance premiums. It’s a great deal for me, since that part of my pay isn’t taxed; but if I just received that money directly, then I could choose a much better plan, one that suited my family and my situation better).

In the quote, he talks about employer options, individual choice. Those are not things you talk about if you’re talking about a single-payer system.

[magellan01]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Are you defining “true desires” as in “what they’d like to see in an idea world,” or as in, “what they’re working for as politically feasible”? I’m assuming you mean the latter, because the former is too foolish to pursue. Presumably Obama would like to see a world with no disease, no anger, and no sadness, and rainbow ponies for everyone who wants one. But he’s not working toward that because it’s not possible; his views on such matters are irrelevant. All we should care about is what he’s working toward as politically feasible.

Knowing his true political aims is important information. Lying about them, not so much.

No, it’s not valid, because what he said he’d like to see isn’t what he’s working toward politically. If you have evidence to the contrary, offer that.

This is basically “I’m rubber and you’re glue.” It’s idiotic. What you posted is wacky conspiracy stuff because it claims to see the secret intentions behind the cabal in power, claims to show that they’re lying about their true aims. Nobody denies that it’s an issue: the wacky conspiracy theorists are hijacking the public debate, which should be about economic liberty, efficiency of health care, and morality of different methods of apportioning the limited resource of health care, not about the secret cabal trying to turn us into a communist nation and how they’ve let the lizard-people plan slip through ill-chosen words on occasion.

You’re being really disingenuous here. A single payer system is not as pie-in-the-sky as you intimate. In fact, some politicians in the video favor it and see UHC as a way there. Many others think it will inevitably lead to a single payer system—intended or not.

Right now there is a debate over UHC. MANY people fear that it might lead to a single payer system. There would be much more comfort with the populace of Obama truly did NOT want that. Meaning, that he would then take steps to help ensure that private insurers wouldn’t be crowded out. On the other hand, the concern rises if Obama would actually prefer a single payer system that would, by definition, crowd out the private insurance we have now.

On review, I see that Captain Amazing has put forth the concern very well. For you to attempt to pooh-pooh this is really beneath the level of debate that you are often capable of.

One final question, are you Linda Douglass?

[magellan01]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Except you’re incorrect, because he explains exactly where he’d like to head. Lemme quote it for you again:

The part you requote is what he can “see” happening in the timeframe mentioned. It does NOT say that is where he’d like to head. THis, on the other hand, does:

But I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be potentially some transition process.

I don’t see how you can explain that way. Except to make believe it’s not there, which is what you seem to want to do.

And this has nothing to do with what type of reform one would like to see. It simply goes to holding a politician accountable for his words and his beliefs.

[Half_Man_Half_Wit]

DOUGLASS: Well, you know, one of the things we learned during the campaign was that if you give people all the facts, they become better informed.

Well, there’s a stroke of insight if I ever saw one!

As for the rest, it seems fine to me, as long as nobody starts claiming ridiculous things like we’re at war with Eurasia, or something like that.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@magellan01

I don’t see how you can explain that way. Except to make believe it’s not there, which is what you seem to want to do.

Maybe big fonts will help?

@me

The opposite of employer coverage isn’t Single-Payer. For example, if all you did was to eliminate the tax benefits of employer coverage, that’d go a very long way toward eliminating employer coverage without doing anything to encourage single-payer.

Unless you want to make believe it’s not there…

Also, this isn’t the Pit, so I’m not calling you disingenuous. If you want to play that game, open it in the Pit instead and believe me, I’ll play along.

[cosmosdan]

IMO the big lie is implying that what’s going on now is all part of a larger plan to force a horrible single payer system on us down the road.

We’re still a democracy and **if **we eventually get a single payer system it will not be forced on us behind our backs. It will be a gradual transition over a period of time, if we choose to go that way. Making single payer out to be the boogie man is in itself a ludicrous lie we should reject.

One thing that has been bothering me is how the political mindset seems to assume that honesty will not work. Stop allowing them to paint single payer as the boogie man by being so defensive. Main point, Obama is not proposing a single payer system period, and his personal opinions about it are not all that relevant to the current debate. Let’s discuss and explain the proposals at hand.
or, since you brought it up, should we as a society be afraid of a single payer system considering that many of our allies seem to do it fairly successfully? It won’t happen this year or in the next few but certainly we don’t need to be afraid of it as if it’s some horrible disaster that might be inflicted upon us.
Rather than worry about what may or may not happen 10 to 15 years down the road let’s have an honest discussion about what’s being proposed right now. We have enough on our plate to understand and digest without allowing bullshit distractions and speculation.
Watching Fox this morning they were discussing the White House plan to open a health care web site to explain the proposal in detail and answer emailed questions and concerns. Of course Fox had to ask “could this be the way to ask citizens to inform on others and compile an enemies list”?
Holy fucking crap. We need to stop accepting that type of over the top dishonest bullshit and denounce it as standing in the way of honest discussion and progress.

[cosmosdan]

@Captain_Amazing

It’s certainly not a single payer plan, but it does seem to be that his eventual goal is to reduce employer coverage; to change the system such that employed individuals can leave their employer plan and get the government insurance.

I guess what I’m wondering is, won’t this lead to single payer? Lets say some government health insurance gets set up, with universal eligibility, and I’m an employer. Now, insurance can be expensive for employers to provide, so it seems like the smart thing for me to do would be to say, “Hey, employees, from now on I’m not paying for your health insurance anymore, you should get on the government plan.”

And then, of course, with the employers doing this, the private insurance companies, which rely on employer insurance for most of their business, are in trouble, can’t make money and fold. So I guess what I’m wondering is, won’t a government plan that is eligible for everyone drive the private insurers out?

I think it’s safe to say it would reduce the number of companies. Canada still has private insurers.

If it eventually leads to a single payer with a few surviving private insurers why is that a bad thing. I think the general concept is that health care should be more focused on providing care than increasing profit. Is that a bad philosophy?

[magellan01]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Maybe big fonts will help?

Unless you want to make believe it’s not there…

Maybe you’d like to focus on what the debate is and isn’t. Just a thought. and no one said that the opposite of UHC is single payer. So, sorry you’ve wasted all that time typing in such a big heavy font.

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Also, this isn’t the Pit, so I’m not calling you disingenuous. If you want to play that game, open it in the Pit instead and believe me, I’ll play along.

Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, Oh, relax. And 'disingenuous" is perfectly fine in GD. Maybe look up the word.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Captain_Amazing

It’s certainly not a single payer plan, but it does seem to be that his eventual goal is to reduce employer coverage; to change the system such that employed individuals can leave their employer plan and get the government insurance.

I guess what I’m wondering is, won’t this lead to single payer? Lets say some government health insurance gets set up, with universal eligibility, and I’m an employer. Now, insurance can be expensive for employers to provide, so it seems like the smart thing for me to do would be to say, “Hey, employees, from now on I’m not paying for your health insurance anymore, you should get on the government plan.”

And then, of course, with the employers doing this, the private insurance companies, which rely on employer insurance for most of their business, are in trouble, can’t make money and fold. So I guess what I’m wondering is, won’t a government plan that is eligible for everyone drive the private insurers out?

It does appear that his goal is to reduce employer coverage. I think this is an unambiguously great goal: why should one’s health care be decided by a contract between two different companies? Isn’t it better to allow the individual to choose a health care provider, rather than letting one’s employer choose it?

I don’t see why it’d lead for single-payer. First, employers can already refuse to supply health insurance to employees, requiring them to get individual coverage (or go without). Such employers have a harder time attracting employees, just like employers who fail to offer another benefit would.

Second, insurance companies who current profit off employer-insurance could certainly switch their business model to offering it to individuals. Why would this be hard?

Third, if the public plan is comparable in price and benefits to private plans, why would it attract so many more participants?

For single-payer to work, that’s what you have to set up. You have to have everyone pay what amounts to premiums through non-optional taxes, and then people may go to the doctor as needed, with doctors seeking reimbursement from the insurer (i.e., the gummint). It’s how Medicare works, which is a wildly popular program; it’s how it works in most SP countries, IIRC. Until we have everyone paying the whole premium through non-optional taxes, we won’t have single-payer. There’s no way the current plan will get us there.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@magellan01

Maybe you’d like to focus on what the debate is and isn’t. Just a thought. and no one said that the opposite of UHC is single payer. So, sorry you’ve wasted all that time typing in such a big heavy font.

There’s some serious irony here: you’re still not sure what the debate is about yourself, are you? Hint: the question is whether the opposite of employer coverage is single payer, not whether the opposite of UHC is single payer.

If that’s not what you’re wanting to debate, then what are you on about?

[magellan01]

@cosmosdan

IMO the big lie is implying that what’s going on now is all part of a larger plan to force a horrible single payer system on us down the road.

It may be part of some big evil plan. But it may also be something that happens if we start to go down that road—intentioned or not.

@cosmosdan

We’re still a democracy and **if **we eventually get a single payer system it will not be forced on us behind our backs. It will be a gradual transition over a period of time, if we choose to go that way. Making single payer out to be the boogie man is in itself a ludicrous lie we should reject.

Maybe not forced upon us, but maybe we end up there because that is where the road inevitably leads. The fact is that there are politicians who believe we should be moving to a single payer plan. I think it pertinent that we know the desires of those at the helm. And again, this debate has NOTHING TO DO with the merits or failings of a single payer plan, or any flavor of health care reform. It has to do with the Orwellian control Douglass wishes to impose on legitimate debate.