Before I delve into deeper subject matter, I have a burning issue that I need the newly formed Metalkort community to address. As IP said: I want people to talk back.
Here's the deal: I was sent a list of impacts that the first half of the health care bill will cause via email by a friend of a coworker. This friend is a lawyer who is reading through the bill themselves and making notes as they go. I have spot checked several of the items and they appear to be accurate. The author is still reading through the second half.
So what? Well, health care and cap & trade are the two issues I am most passionate about right now because I believe they have the potential to do the most damage the most quickly to America. I've seen and read many lengthy essays both for and against socialized medicine and also those that argue this bill will not create government run health care. I think this list could be a valuable tool if it could be fact-checked and spread around for people to use when they call their congressmen or go to a town hall meeting or even when they talk with their friends.
I've noticed that in many of these video clips floating around that people are putting the heat on their reps and people in the crowd are cheering them on, but many of their questions and statements seem largely rhetorical. I think if people had specifics to talk about and could back them up with a referenced page number, even be able to read directly from the bill itself, that would put a lot more heat on the politicians than just being angry. Also, even people who support this bill because they would be willing to pay higher taxes if it means utopian care for all may change their mind if they finally get it through their head that there will still be a lot of people left out in the cold under Obamacare.
What do you all think? Do you agree or disagree? Could it be worthwhile? If so, I would need help both with the fact checking and spreading a final product. On the other hand, is it a waste of time? Is there something I'm missing? Has someone already done something like this? Again, I know there are a wealth of great resources out there that people can read on their own, but this is down & dirty, easy to read fast and easy to reference. If there's interest I will update this with the list as well as a link to the bill. If not, I promise I will never bring this up again and we'll talk of other things. Let me know one way or the other so we can either work together on it or I can finally drop this and put my energies into something more constructive...like working on a post for the Sci-Fi Underground.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
http://www.theospark.net/2009/07/obamacare-reading-of-bill-so-far-just.html
ReplyDeleteThere's a start. Page numbers and all.
Damn!! That's the exact same text that was in my email. Well, this is embarrassing. I guess that was a generic email forward after all. Can't believe I let my guard down on that one, though it at least seems more truthful than most email forwards. Thanks, apoth. Let's drop this post down the memory hole and pretend it never happened.
ReplyDeleteWhy drop it down the memory hole? So someone else already put some references and page numbers together, great. Like I said, that's a start.
ReplyDeleteBut no politicritter or minion is going to read that whole thing, anymore than they're going to read the whole text of the bill they're ramming down our throats. So perhaps choose the pithiest entries and make a short list of critical points. Build questions around them that are brief and to the point.
Actually, you're right. This is even one better than the version I got b/c it references specific sections and lines. I found the supposed author's Twitter page, but if he really posted all of that stuff it would be buried somewhere in his archive; he posts quite often.
ReplyDeleteIf work is as slow tomorrow as it has been the past few days I will try to pick out the best ones. Any suggestions are welcome.
In the meantime, though, any other thoughts? Since someone has already posted this information would it be more worthwhile to refine it or to simply try to spread what's already posted and let others decide what's important to them?
Don't drop the post or the project. Think of it as a lateral pass on the 3rd down. Your notion about the need for specifics is right on. It is a fine thing to say "I oppose the currently proposed legislation of a massive public medical insurance plan because I hate the nanny state with a fire and venom you wouldn't understand"; but if you can demonstrate the vile nasty things free health care will do in specifics cited from the legislation itself then you start to make an argument that will be more than simply "preaching to the choir".
ReplyDeleteI'm interested in delving into this. I have some experience reading and researching statutory legaleese. I also manage to dodge most mass e-mails so I don't know what it is you are working with. I'll start looking into sourcing the actual text of the bill. I'm sure Obama has posted it somewhere in the intertubes for the proles to read, nod and consent to.
http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
ReplyDeleteThe ugly baby in easy to use adobe format.
Found it at OpenCongress.org as well, but it was an unwieldy format for perusing. However, if you go to the above mentioned site you can see that of registered users who have voted only 12% support the bill.
As it happens I'm locked in a debate with someone about this right now. Apparently this list has already made its way around b/c opponents are already referring to it as "the 'net talking points", which makes it easy for them to not have to formulate an argument against it.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, the first part of this bill I'd like help decoding: the section in the list that references pg. 29: does that really spell out rationing? The argument against this is that it only talks about cost-sharing, which is the maxiumum that people will have to pay for their medical care. However, part 3-A at the bottom seems to talking about rationing as it describes the benefits package that will be decided on by the Health Advisory Board. I would say that describes rationing, because anything that is not covered by your benefits package (that you will have no choice about) is something that you will have to pay for out of pocket. So in theory you can still get something extra, but you have to be able to afford it, which means that the government will ration how much money they are willing to give you. Also, if your government plan won't pay for whatever it is that you need, I would imagine that you can't be treated by the government doctors and would have to go find a private doctor somewhere, and that would be rationing. Am I wrong?
Also, what does paragraph 3-B on pg 30 mean by "...the essential benefits package if there were no cost-sharing imposed"? Does that mean the essential benefits package for someone who does not contribute to the cost-sharing, presumably because they don't have a job or something?
Thoughts from one who received the same list and has been thinking what to do about it.
ReplyDelete1. It's well and good to compile the list, make it tight, and then share it, but I thought it might be even more compelling if we somehow marked up with tags the actual document. There are sites out there for posting a document for everyone's perusal and adding a layer of comments or markup. I'll look into it if that sounds like something we could pull off.
2. A question: if we dive in, mark up, and share, might the bill not change by the time it hits Congress for the vote? If things change signficantly, then references to sections and pages would have to be updated. I'm asking out of ignorance, so if someone knows the intricacies of how this monster will proceed into law, fill us in.
JSL, your second point is something that I've been wondering, too. However, I don't think the bill will be going through any changes until after the recess, which is the main reason I was anxious about this because once all the bloodsuckers come back from their vacation and the town hall meetings are done, all bets are off. God only knows how many 3 AM, 500 page amendments will appear out of thin air on any given day. That being said, if we narrow the list down and the Dems aren't able to rush a vote through, we should be able to track any changes to the narrow list fairly easily.
ReplyDeleteThis is more difficult than I first anticipated, though. I've never really tried to read through a bill like this before. I have no doubt it's written this way on purpose, because like my page 29 question above, even if you think you understand a section, someone else could have a totally different understanding of it. What counts is how the people in charge interpret it.
Here are my candidates for a cut-down list of most important items:
- Pg. 29 and rationing in general. If 29 does not really admit to rationing by itself, what range of pg. numers is it? I'm starting to think there may not be one specific page or area, but several areas as a whole. The fact that a panel will be deciding what benefits you have, the repeated use of the phrase "allowed expenditures", etc.
- Pg. 50: seems to clearly indicate to me that care will not be denied to someone just b/c they are an illegal alien. Doesn't seem very mystifying.
- Pg. 59: will the gov't really be in your bank account all the time?
- Pg. 124: the part about not being able to challenge price-fixing. That also seems to be pretty clear to me.
- Pgs. 127 & 241: will doctors' pay really be set by the gov't? It seem the logical conclusion of nat'l healthcare, but the language is a little confusing.
- Pg 354: does that really put a restriction on the number of special needs children that can receive care?
- Pgs. 425 - 430: regarding end of life and life continuation treatments, this section seems to clearly indicate that the family will not ultimately play a role in those decisions if those decisions cost money; anything that would occur an addition cost will be out of their hands.
Any thoughts?
How about an alternative: instead of focusing on the interpretation of any single passage or passages, what about a more global observation of the exact imprecision you mention? The very fact that it's written in such a way as to be subject to so many interpretations based on the aims of a particular reader should be addressed, not just in this document but in general.
ReplyDeleteTransparency and precision.
I have to be honest: I am not believing in the usefulness of this as much as I was 24 hours ago. I know there is some potential, but this list is already out there and may even be part of the reason the Health Czar is now asking people to inform them about chain emails and casual conversations (I'm sure you all saw that). And as I mentioned, I used it in a debate I had with someone yesterday, and that illustrated to me how people can see two different things when reading the bill because it is written in such a convoluted fashion. Apoth, I had to do exactly what you say, point out not only that pg. 29 itself may not specifically call for rationing, but the bill as a whole will certainly lead to rationing. I also mention that the final interpreting authority on the matter will be Obama and whomever he appoints to this health advisory committee. We will have no say in the matter aside from the joke of a paragraph about how the health advisory committee will seek public input when making decisions (about as useful as Obama's promise to wait 48 hours before signing any new legislation). I think those two points alone should be enough to disturb any reasonable person, and I think we know that Obamanauts will not be swayed by any argument anyway, no matter how factual or logical it may be.
ReplyDeleteTherefore (and I do feel rather lame saying this since I started the discussion) I think it's time to put this idea to rest. Our time and energy would probably be better spent on other things. Even if we sifted through the legalese of the bill and all agreed on a particular point, the first time we try to use that in an argument someone else could simply say, "No, the bill does not say that." and we would have to fall back to the big picture arguments. In short: this would have been much better to work on a week or two ago, but right now I get that "late to the party" feeling because a lot of people have already seen this list and have already confronted their politicians. If there is any part of this idea to salvage, it would be tracking changes to the bill as mentioned above. Those are my thoughts, anyway.
And apoth, I know this isn't the sci-fi blog, doesn't that post from the Health Czar's office remind you of the Night Watch? I feel like I should get a black armband in the mail if I turn in someone who denounces Obamacare in casual conversation.
Off topic: I've sent my request to metalkort c/o gmail.com.
ReplyDeleteMy captcha for the first draft of this post was "aness." If A is A, it is only because it has the quality of A-ness! And so will my posts.
I know this isn't the sci-fi blog, doesn't that post from the Health Czar's office remind you of the Night Watch?
ReplyDeleteIt's not going unnoticed, either.
"I am not aware of any precedent for a president asking American citizens to report their fellow citizens to the White House for pure political speech that is deemed 'fishy' or otherwise inimical to the White House's political interests," John Cornyn of Texas wrote US President Barack Obama.
"As Congress debates health care reform and other critical policy matters, citizen engagement must not be chilled by fear of government monitoring the exercise of free speech rights," he wrote.
"I can only imagine the level of justifiable outrage had your predecessor asked Americans
to forward emails critical of his policies to the White House," Cornyn wrote, referring to former president George W. Bush.
"I suspect that you would have been leading the charge in condemning such a program -- and I would have been at your side denouncing such heavy-handed government action," he wrote.
This is a wasted, even counterproductive, effort. Arguing the facts of proposed health care reforms, discussing the merits or dangers of socialized medicine (arguing over whether or not this even constitutes "socialized" medicine) - when you do this you are playing a game you can't win.
ReplyDeleteThe comparative merits of the Yankees and the Mets makes a rousing subject for debate. Many facts and figures and comparisons and allusions may be drawn on both sides. When the beers are gone, nobody is convinced. This is because die-hard fans are not fans because they have calculated the statistical probability of the Yankees winning another Series. They are fans because they identify with the team, they enjoy being part of something, they remember going to the stadium with Pops as a kid, they fantasize about having Jeter's babies, pinstripes bring out their inner conformist - in short, for reasons that are not entirely rational.
Many intelligent people are firmly convinced that party politics is somehow different. I don't get it.
Others pick a side because it's trendy. You won't win over these hearts and minds with facts, either.
Politics is not a science. (Neither is a lot of science these days, but oh well.) Politics is a religion. So what if you can line up a bunch of "facts" and "evidence" to support your argument. I don't believe you. It will be different this time. You're misinformed. You're too egotistical to listen to the truth. You're evil.
There are two ways to convert someone: through violence, or through immersing them in the truth to the extent that they realize it for themselves. (We'll assume you, of course, know the truth.)
Progressives politicians love factual debates. It is bread and butter to them. You've got facts? They've got facts. Your facts are misconstrued. Their facts have the imprimatur of Harvard professors - also, they're popular. You're misrepresenting the facts. You're just afraid because what the facts really say is that you've been screwing the little guy, and when this bill is passed you'll have to pay your fair share to give proper care to people who need it.
See how easy that is? I could be a Clinton speechwriter. Factual debate may even be counterproductive, because in debating you imply that you believe their facts are worth debating. If you are publicly seen to buy into their bullshit, well then, it must be true, right?
As an alternative to useless debate, I suggest attacking the socialist health care belief at it's ideological core. I don't want to condone violence, so instead I'll condone irony. Try chanting progressive slogans in foreign languages. Progressives like progressive slogans, and they also like foreigners. So they should like this one.
When you hear someone trumpeting the merits of it's-not-really-socialized healthcare, begin chanting "Lebensunwertes Leben". I prefer a rhythm of "DA-dum-dum-DA-dum-DA-dum" but you can experiment.
Continue until they shut the hell up. After all, there WAS a 20th century Western government which succeeded in providing basically decent healthcare to deserving citizens AND in keeping medical costs basically under control.
Kinda sucked for the Jews though.
Damn good post, DRV, and you've helped change *my* mind...
ReplyDeleteI was away on vacation this week, visiting my family for my brother's 30th birthday. My parents, after being relatively apolitical throughout my life, 'woke up' during 9/11. Unfortunately, they tripped down the anti-Bush side when the war in Iraq started, and they were major Obama supporters -- door to door, bumper stickers, all that.
I've consistently offered my opposing views at the four or five family functions each year, but the 'debates' we have are fruitless and generally ruin evenings.
With the healthcare thing waxing, I spent a long drive to the vacation place with my decisive, damning points, straight from the text, on the proposed Bill. Later, on the beach and out of earshot from the rest, I brought it up with my mom as we stood in the waves. A few short minutes, it dawned on me, and I had the revelation that you had, DRV -- this was NEVER going to go anywhere. No matter how good my powers of persuasion could ever be, no matter what ends up happening in the country, it seems like it'll be a lost cause unless Obama himself comes up and punches her in the stomach. And even then...
I chalk it up to the Way of Harry, the way of non-thinking. The standard that I try to hold myself to, of critically evaluating my own thoughts and trying to consistently seek the bigger truth, is just not happening with most people I know, including the family that I love.
So I'm reeling a bit, trying to figure out a different strategy. I suppose any person in a postion of power eventually hits this point, when they realize that they have to go Machiavellian or be ineffective. Sad, that.
DRV & HA: you are both right. I probably let my emotions and desire to do “something” get the best of me, which is why I was asking for feedback. In the end I reached a similar conclusion about my idea.
ReplyDeleteHOWEVER…
I’m channeling a little bit of Dagny Taggart and Eddie Willers right now. I keep getting suckered into this notion that if I make my argument logical enough, or point out one more example from history, or show one more lie that Obama has made, there will be this epiphany on the other side and they will say, “Well…I never actually thought about it like that before.” I keep thinking it’s not quite over yet and it’s not quite pointless. Maybe, even if the person I’m talking to doesn’t get it, someone else that’s listening will. So far it hasn’t worked, not once, but I keep thinking that next time will be the one that finally does it. When it does, DRV, you’ll be the first to know (but don’t hold your breath). I don’t go around poking my finger in people’s eyes, but if they want to start an argument I will do my best to finish it, no matter how unhinged the other person may be.
What I usually end up doing is trying to let like-minded people know that there are others of us out there, b/c when you hear nothing but the other side day after day on your TV, in your movies, in your books, and your music, it can get pretty lonely. In the same way I am glad I happened to find Instapunk.com, because I had grown pretty tired of the usual suspects on the blogosphere, but you all have gotten me excited again and I also discovered TBB, which I just started reading on Tuesday and am enjoying a lot. Somebody’s got to stand up to Harry.
And HA, I know exactly what you mean. My favorite familial moment like that involved a discussion about the greatest evil known to mankind: waterboarding. Yeah, I’ve got a cousin who loses sleep at night over that. He had the question posed to him: would you be willing to waterboard someone if it meant saving the life of someone you love? Without missing a beat he said, “Yes, of course, but we cannot create policy that way.” For someone that thinks like that, I don’t even know if Obama punching them in the stomach would make a difference because I’m pretty sure the first thing out of their mouth would be, “What did I do to upset you? How can I make amends?”
Agree with your last paragraph, too.
"Without missing a beat he said, "Yes, of course, but we cannot create policy that way."
ReplyDeleteI sincerely hope you replied with something along the lines of "You just did. So do you consider yourself above the law, or beneath it?"
I was an observer in this particular discussion, but he did have something similar asked as a follow up question. His response was basically that he would be too weak to resist the temptation of doing physical violence to someone to save his own family, which is why cooler heads must prevail when policy is being decided. It would be nice to give into our emotions, but this is America. We are held to a higher standard, and "everybody knows" that waterboarding does nothing except create more terrorists.
ReplyDeleteThe post about Spider-Man II back at Instapunk is a very enlightening description of this way of thinking. With great power comes great responsibility. Not that you have a responsibility so much to use that power for good, but more a responsibility to restrain it as much as possible and even not use it sometimes even though it would be really helpful, just to lose on purpose so everybody knows we are fair. We have the power to waterboard people, but we have the responsibility not to do it. America needs to be held to a higher standard and if we waterboard, then in truth we are no different than the bad guys.
Just keep repeating those types of lines and you'll have the general idea of how the rest of the conversation went.
I made a small observation today. My wife has zero interest in politics. I told her I was reading parts of the Obamacare bill and she gave me a very puzzled look, as if I'd held up some sewing scissors and announced that I was going out to cut the lawn. (One of those "Well sure, it can be done, but...why?" kind of looks.) She doesn’t have an opinion about health care one way or the other. This observation merged with the posts here and led me to think about the health care debate a little differently. I think I’m in agreement with all of you now; developing an argument against Obamacare based on an analysis of the language of the bill itself is futile. Those on the other side will not be swayed by facts, figures or precedent. I’d like to say I am different from them, but something tells me that I’d just ignore their “facts” like they would ignore mine. We see the state through diametrically opposed lenses and no amount of theoretical argument is going to change either of us.
ReplyDeleteBut this is where my earlier observation comes in to play. Right now, those who have an opinion or belief regarding Obamacare do so because it is something they are predisposed to care about. They are political junkies, and in the current climate, political junkies only come in two models. Us and Them. But not all Americans are political junkies (I blame the public school system) and like my wife I don’t think they’ve taken a stance on the virtue or vice of Obamacare. I’d venture a guess that the number of us versus the number of them is not as important as whether the uninterested will be persuaded by us, or persuaded by them. How to persuade them is the question of the hour. Here’s one possibility
So my wife isn’t interested in Republicans or Democrats. She doesn’t want to think about global warming, so the idea of Cap and Trade is a deceptively easy escape. She’s not a doctor and we don’t go to one on a regular basis at all, so she has no opinion on whether the system is broken or what might be done in the name of fixing it. These are things she has little connection to and no opinion about; however, she does have an opinion about “America”. She comes from small-town USA. She gets excited to put our flag out on holidays. She loves the Olympics, not because she’s a great fan of gymnastics or swimming or any other Olympic sport, but because she is a great fan of America and gol’durn’it there are Americans out there backstroking or cartwheeling. She loves football (and not the sissy kind), baseball, hotdogs and horseback riding. There is a whole mess of American Idol watching, Coors drinking, Wrangler wearing, flag waving folks out there. I’m not sure that a factual argument is going to sway them. I’m not sure they know enough to care. But they do know the “American” brand and that is what we’ve got to develop.
Just wanted to share another note on this subject. As I write this there are at least five, count 'em, five posts at HuffPo accusing health care opponents at town halls & tea party (or tea bagger, HAHAHAHA!!) protesters of being manufactured by corporations and the GOP.
ReplyDeleteNot ONE SHRED of evidence. Most don't even link to anything pretending to be evidence. The closest thing they have is that some lady in Wisconsin (I think) said she was not affiliated with any political party, but some reporter investigated her and found out she is affiliated with a local GOP politician. She wasn't bribed by, bussed in by, or coached by anybody, but just lied about not being a Republican. The conclusion is that there must be greater, shadowy forces at work.
Another post links to a painful, 10 minute Rachel Maddow interview with Tim Phillips that I thought made her look like a fool. She doesn't go anywhere with her questions other than to insinuate that Big Oil and Enron (ENRON!) are involved in these protests. Phillips even says that most of their funding doesn't come from corporations, but he would love it if more corporations would give them funding. As she's about to dismiss him, he invites her to come with him to one of the protests so she can meet the people there and see for herself they aren't fake, to which she mumbles something about a conflict of interest and Phillips laughs at her. And yet it's "evidence"! Can't you see? Isn't it obvious?
Who would watch that and come away with the conclusion that any accusations Maddow makes are convincing? Ehhh...it's a rhetorical question.
I know, I know: Liberals think all of these conservatives are up to stuff because that is how they operate. I wasted my time, what did I expect, etc. Honestly, I really expected something more. Stupid me. Now on to something worthwhile...
I don't know why this comment window won't respond to arrow keys, won't let me copy or paste, but I've just about had about my fill of trying.
ReplyDeleteToo many long responses lost to the ether.
Interesting...if you preview, then go back and edit, it no longer locks out the keys or copy/paste functions.
ReplyDeleteAnyone else noticing this? I'm on Firefox 3.0.13.
I've noticed on both FF and IE that it will give me some sort of error message the first time I hit the post button, but then if I hit the post button again it posts.
ReplyDeleteI haven't had any trouble ever with copying & pasting, though.
No FF 3.5 for Apotheosis?
ReplyDeleteI'm a traditionalist.
ReplyDeleteA related "heh" from over here:
I found and downloaded the entire text of HR 3200 here.
At least, I downloaded one version of it; I understand that there are different versions with different amendments. Mine runs 1017 pages and I haven't had time to read it. It's not an easy read; especially because it's loaded with language like this (from my page 424):
SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION.
6 (a) MEDICARE.--
7 (1) IN GENERAL.--Section 1861 of the Social
8 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended--
9 (A) in subsection (s)(2)--
10 (i) by striking ''and'' at the end of
11 subparagraph (DD);
12 (ii) by adding ''and'' at the end of
13 subparagraph (EE); and
14 (iii) by adding at the end the fol15
lowing new subparagraph:
16 ''(FF) advance care planning consultation (as
17 defined in subsection (hhh)(1));''; and
18 (B) by adding at the end the following new
19 subsection:
20 ''Advance Care Planning Consultation
21 ''(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the
22 term 'advance care planning consultation' means a con
23 sultation between the individual and a practitioner de
24 scribed in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning,
25 if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years.
What a f'n mess. That can't be anything but deliberately opaque.
I agree completely.
ReplyDelete