What a field day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly saying, "hooray for our side"

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Subversion of Democracy

Yeah, it's one of those things that turns me into a screechy monkey. So I'll let others do the talking.

Via Jim McDonald on Making Light.

Via Jim Wright on Stonekettle Station.

TPMDC on Press Secretary Gibbs' response.

And Think Progress with a scan (and clean up) of the memo.

My basic take on this is what they seem to be saying is if you can't compete in the marketplace of ideas, don't engage in civil discourse.

9 comments:

Rick said...

You see why I hate having only two political parties? Democrats and Republicans badmouth each other instead of doing productive things. A third party (you can head it) would finally bring a bit of accountability to this stuff. We already have socialized medicine for the elderly, what's wrong with sharing it with the rest of us? (this from a Libertarian).

Steve Buchheit said...

I think what we really need is about 6-8 parties all with an equal measure of support. The third party has been tried various times (and it's worked, we didn't start with Democrats and Republicans).

You did see where one person asked the President to keep government's hands off of his Medicare because the government can't run anything well and he didn't want his Medicare to get messed up? Classic.

I would love it if the free market would have worked. It was the experiment we tried starting in 1994. Since that time premiums have more than doubled (in the past decade they've more than doubled, so with an extra five years it would be worse). When free markets fail to provide a needed service, I do feel it's then devolves to the government to provide.

Now, if there was actually a proposal to force insurance companies to accept all comers (no precondition crap, no dropping people because they got sick) and made them non-profit, I'd be all for that. It's what they do in Germany and Switzerland. Pretty successful over there.

Anonymous said...

Amusingly, much the same has been - almost word for word - was posted on the HCAN site as well - as instructions for how the HCAN people can "control" the town hall meetings themselves.

[sigh] I wrote a response to Jim and deleted it, and just did the same here.

Cassie

Steve Buchheit said...

Cassie, thanks for the heads up.

I believe you're referring to this http://healthcareforamericanow.org/site/fight.

I love how RedState blog is calling this a "counter-attack" when what it is is a memo on how to disarm the people attempting to hijack the meetings.

Steve Buchheit said...

I should mention that I don't consider HCAN a grassroots organization either. Here's a Sourcewatch article on them. Although their funding (mainly from the Tides Foundation and individual gifts) and directive board I find less offensive than the opposition which has most of it's board and funding through Koch Industries.

Also the HCAN's lack of support for a single-payor (which is different than single-insurer) rankles me a little. But I know single-payor would make a few people's heads get all 'splodey.

Jim Wright said...

No need to delete your thoughts, Cassie. You and I don't always agree but I very much respect your opinion - well, unless you suddenly declare for the Birthers, then you and I are going to have to part ways ;)

Thanks for the shout out, Steve.

Anonymous said...

No, not going to be a birther, but... you know... I know several birthers who are asking serious questions, who are not racist, and who think that Joe Biden should be president, because that's how the electoral process works.

I deleted my post because I'm not going to change your mind, and I really don't want to argue. Your blog, your opinion.

Thanks for the peacemaking, Steve.

Cassie

Steve Buchheit said...

Cassie, if you present your argument well, I've got not problems with you doing such.

It's my opinion that the status quo isn't working. Fifteen years ago the groups attempting to derail the current legislation(s) were the ones who won out last time. That solution hasn't worked, nor has it produced most of the goals its proponents promised. Continuing with the status quo, to me, isn't an option. My vote is for a complete re-engineering of the system, but I'm sure that's not what's going to happen.

Rick said...

Actually, Steve, the Canadians do very well with three major parties. In the States, unfortunately both the Democrats and the Republicans have fear-mongered the populace into believing that an additional party is just wasting their votes. It's like healthcare- why are we so country centric that we can't adopt what is working so well for our neighbor?

And, by the way, I don't think we as a country tried free market economics starting around 1994. Our country is so bootstrapped with confusing regulation that free market economics could never operate here. The IRS regs are a functional example of that. No small town could garner enough people to carry the weight of the IRS regulatory dcoumentation. So free market economics hasn't been around for a long time.

Which is why those elements that are socialized in our government need to be defined and embraced as such and streamilined to make them work well. We have never had a free economy and we might as well get used to that, quit blaming capitalists and Republicans, and make the mixed system we have work as well as we can so we can take care of and encourage each other without restricting our independence and will to strive for greater success.

Why does Nationalized Healthcare need to be called "socialist?" Why does a small business person need to be called a "greedy capitalist pig?" We are neither a socialist nor free market economy. But our two party system encourages Democrats to bash the other party as free market and Republicans to bash Democrats as socialist. What a waste of our time and money! It's like mixed martial artists say- "quit debating style purity and get to work improving yourself."