It’s one I’m totally behind, and I’m irritated at Obama for not pushing it harder. However, it’s not the proposal they’re putting forward, and the fact that many politicians would like it doesn’t mean it’s what they’re working toward. I am certain that many Republicans would prefer it if all parents engaged in high-quality homeschooling, but that doesn’t mean NCLB was an attempt (as I’ve heard more than one teacher claim) to destroy the public school system.
I’m quite clear, thank you. The debate is about Douglass and her wanting to “correct” things that are already correct. The very thing that Kurtz seem puzzled about.
Huh? “Orwellian” in my experiences, means one of two things:
- Using words to mean the opposite of their normally-understood meanings (“War is peace” etc.); or
- Especially in the context of “control,” to refer to censorship or governmental punishment of those who say something critical of the government.
Are you using “Orwellian” in one of these senses? I genuinely can’t tell, since neither seems remotely relevant.
As I understand your version of events, it goes something like this:
- A correct video was put out.
- Douglass said it was misleading, and put out her own video
- ??
- Orwellian!
What am I missing here?
Edit: just saw your latest quote. So if someone disagrees with your interpretation of a video, if they want to correct what they believe is a misinterpretation caused by unfair edits, that’s Orwellian? The reason we’re talking about whether employer coverage is the opposite of single-payer coverage is that this question goes to the heart of your claim that the linked video was “already correct.” If the linked video was misleading, then your strained idea of Orwellian language falls completely flat.
I think the concept is that having health care tied to employment is expensive for businesses and risky for people who are between jobs. Having choices that are not tied to employment is better for both. This does not automatically translate into single payer.
That sentence alone does not indicate anything about what Obama will realistically push for as president. It is an irrelevant distraction to a serious and important discussion being used by the opposition.
I did hear John Cornyn R TX on Fox today spouting his nonsense about a White House enemies list. He also mentioned some real changes that need to be made. Insurance that follows the employee if he changes jobs and fewer exclusions for preexisting conditions. At the very least the discussion has forced some things into public awareness and we have this admin to thank for that.
I can only assume you haven’t read the entire OP and/or watched the videos linked before your need to post was satisfied. But let me help you:
- A correct video was put out.
- Douglass said it was INCORRECT, and, in her role at the White House, put out her own video CORRECTING it
- She characterizes correct information that she doesn’t like as “incorrect”, “misinformation”, and “disinformation”
- THAT is Orwellian!
As far as the defintion of “Orwellian”, it need not imply words redefined to mean their “opposite”.
From Wikipedia:
Try reading it. It’s a good book.
So, you have no opinion on the actions posted in the OP. ::shrugs::
Once again, this is not about health care reform, per se. I am an advocate of substantial HCR. I pay a ton and get squat. My sister is very, very sick and has a pittance. But HCR is NOT the subject of this debate.
I disagree that you made an ass out of me, but thanks anyway. Watched before posting.
And yet you’re unhappy with a discussion of whether the original video was correct or not, aren’t you? I’m suggesting that it was incorrect, through the use of dishonest edits, and that the full quote shows no drive for a SP system.
Do you agree that if your point 1) is untrue, the rest of the argument falls apart, and that therefore discussion of point 1) is valid?
Done, again, but thanks, again! Now all that remains is to show how the government is attempting to “control” information here. Or are you suggesting that the mere participation in the debate by the WH amounts to control of the debate?
There is a big difference between what Obama would like in 2003 and a compromise bill still being written by memebers of both parties in 2009.
Yes, it may be. Now the opposition has to explain in detail why that’s such a horrible alternative without the bs dishonest fear tactics. The fact is it’s not something to be feared and not something we need to even worry about until we deal with the discussion at hand. It may happen if it turns out to be something desirable. There is absolutely nothing wrong with considering it as a viable alternative at some point in the future. There is something wrong with painting it as the boogie man for no logical reason. I’m tired of the politics form either party that use “that’s how the game is played” for their dishonest bullshit that stands in the way of progress and honest informed discussion of the issues. I want to talk to informed intelligent conservatives who can articulate why they hold their positions. My patience wanes quickly when they think dishonest tactics are just good political strategy.
Well it sure would have be nice if Bush had told us up front he planned on creating a war with Iraq when he got elected, or even before. But that doesn’t matter now.
Obviously health care* reform * will lead us to some new model and most people agree we need reform. I think some speculation is expected but to much is just a useless distraction. We cannot realistically anticipate everything. We know that the single payer model works relatively well in other civilized democracies. That doesn’t automatically mean it’s the answer for the US but this whole OH NO! Look where they’re trying to steer us, is crap of the first order.
I don’t think she’s trying to impose undue control over the debate to try and point out that a few sentences taken out of context are not an accurate representation of what the President is trying to accomplish. I do think it might help erase the boogie man factor to acknowledge that Single payer may be a viable alternative down the road but not within this Presidents term and currently nobody is working to accomplish that.
Speculation is part of a legitimate debate in a very limited sense. When it becomes a toll for misdirection it’s time to put it to rest. The question , is Obama and/or other Dems working toward single payer?, is a valid question but it has a simple uncomplicated answer. “No, that’s not what the current proposal’s are about” Lets focus our energies on that.
fair enough, let me be more specific about the OP.
the video splices together his comments about employer based health care in 2007 and few words from 2003 where he advocates single payer.
Obama was not a senator in 2003 when he advocated single payer and when he comments in 2007 that it might take 10 to 20 years to eliminate employer based insurance he is not advocating fully government insurance as Kurtz states. Is Kurtz just mistaken, intentionally misleading, or has the video done it’s job of creating a false impression? I don’t see Douglas as trying to assert undue control over the debate but rather attempting to clarify.
As I said before. It may well be that Obama and other Dems do support a single payer system. They may even hope that the current proposals will make single payer more understood and appealing. The fact is Canada still has private health insurance so the bullshit of Obama’s ultimate goal to eliminate private insurance should be called for what it is. That’s what Douglas seemed to be doing in more polite terms than I would use.
I repeat. I would like to see them show some courage and tell people that single payer is nothing we have to be afraid of. It’s one alternative that may not be right for the US but it’s not the boogie man and it’s not what they’re proposing.
But it is perfectly fair to talk about what Obama intends to bring about. And it does seem, especially from the fuller quote posted by Captain Amazing, that Obama “envisions” moving from an employer pool to a state or federal one. Obama sees this happening over as long a period as ten or fifteen years. But that is what he intends, ideally or eventually.
Naturally his press people want to spin this away. But that is what he said. It would be perfectly legitimate for Obama to say that he changed his mind, and no longer envisions everyone moving away from employer insurance to state or federal insurance. But changing your mind is different from denying that you said it at all.
Regards,
Shodan
Where did he deny he even said it? Saying it’s taken out of context is not denial he said it.
What he intends to bring about is an improved health care system and the debate on what form that takes is still going on.
I grant you it is his communications director, but that is pretty much the same thing.
Regards,
Shodan
Speaking of Orwell, I’m concerned about this scheme set up where people can report strange email or spam about the healthcare debate to the White House itself. A White House email address was provided just for this operation.
Besides the pretty clear violation of the Privacy Act, just the notion of turning ordinary people into junior informers over something that isn’t even a crime is just stomach turning to me.
As I understand the full quote, it’s about giving people more control over who their insurer is, not leaving that decision in the hands of their employer. I believe his communication director is correct.
Mr. Moto, I think you’re vastly misunderstanding that initiative, but that’d be better brought up in a new thread.
Except that making a comment about the possibility of eliminating employer based insurance is not the same thing as eliminating private insurance. So, in that case his communications director is right
My question was did Obama , or his communication director deny that he said what was in those clips, or did she merely claim that the meaning was distorted by being taken out of context. Two different things.
Watched Fox today didn’t ya?
Hello, is this ACORN? Yes, I want to turn in Mr. Moto for re-grooving? That’s M-O-T-O. Oh, right, forgot about that, put me down for the toaster oven…
I want one of the Xpress cookers as seen on TV. I can hardly wait to make cake with candy inside.
:shrugs:
Obama said he believed the transition away from employer- to federal and/or state insurance would not happen immediately, but might take as much as ten or fifteen years. If you want to interpret 'it might take a while" as 'it will never happen", well, have at it. Be aware that this kind of manipulation of language is a subject much addressed by the author in the OP’s title.
Regards,
Shodan