When you can, watch this 6-minute piece (yes, it's from Fox). What you will see is how central Gruber was, how he was cited over and over by "journalists" during this period as if he was objective, and how many times the journalists' work was sent out by the White House as evidence.

So, the cycle is like this:

1. Gruber is employed by the White House.
2. Gruber's work is cited by journalists as objective (no indication of his working for the government as a consultant).
3. The journalists' columns are sent out by the White House as evidence that the ACA is good.
4. So, the White House generates a meme, which is propagated by the media, which is then distributed by the White House.

If that's not the very definition of propaganda, what is?

Now, Gruber is someone the White House used to know, kinda.

I told a liberal politician friend of mine he was in the wrong party. He said, "I'm not a Republican."

I said, "You're not a Democrat either. You're too honest. We need a party that just tells the truth."

Doctor Fate wrote:I said, "You're not a Democrat either. You're too honest. We need a party that just tells the truth."

Right, and are you saying that the Republican party tells the truth? I hope not, because if your friend is too honest for the Democrats, he's sure to be too honest for the Republicans too. They each have big long noses.

What we need are people who tell the truth, regardless of their party and the political consequences.

And in my opinion we need to have good, honest people rejecting the major parties outright because they tolerate corruption among their members.

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:I said, "You're not a Democrat either. You're too honest. We need a party that just tells the truth."

Right, and are you saying that the Republican party tells the truth?

Don't do that. What I wrote was not ambiguous. I could have said many things, but I didn't. I didn't try to change his political affiliation. I wanted him to understand one thing: he's in the ring with rats and he's not a rat. There are no Republicans where he lives. If he switched parties, it would have to be to the Green Party or some other nutcase group.

What we need are people who tell the truth, regardless of their party and the political consequences.

And, that was my point.

He is also in an area that has another problem (beyond one-party rule): they are about to come into a very large bit of property and the moneyed interests are busy buying politicians to make sure their projects get built by the "right" companies. He won't play that game. I told him that could get dangerous. When there's enough money on the line, people do bad things.

And in my opinion we need to have good, honest people rejecting the major parties outright because they tolerate corruption among their members.

Truth. That's why I was against Roberts in KS, Cochran of MS, and many Representatives. Oh, I'd rather they won than their Democratic opponents, but was pulling for the Tea Party types.

Wyden is a decent example of an "honest" Democrat. While I do not agree with him, I don't think he's as cynical and nasty as, for example, Reid. I think Mike Lee is an example on the right.

It is fine to have differing principles. It is a crime against the American people to have NO principles.

Not to get off topic, but I think that depends whether one is immoral, or "amoral". Though I'm pretty sure you meant the former rather than the latter.

Amoral is having no principles. Immoral is having the wrong ones.

Neither are necessarily desirable in politicians, but then again there are factors in play. If the wider society is immoral or amoral then it gets the politicians it deserves. In a democracy it might be better to have an amoral populist who reflects the prevailing opinion than to have a principled idealist whom nobody supports.

When it comes to moneyed interests, there's no real difference between the two main US parties. Wathcing partisans try to attack each other's party doesn't add a great deal of light.

danivon wrote:When it comes to moneyed interests, there's no real difference between the two main US parties. Wathcing partisans try to attack each other's party doesn't add a great deal of light.

This is true. However, the perception is that the GOP is the party of the wealthy. Thus, Reid gets a pass when he attacks the Kochs personally, or even smears Romney, on the Senate floor.

The truth is corporations will get in bed with whatever party has the power to help them.

At the moment, there appears to be no way to balance freedom of speech with the desire to get some of the money out of politics.

fate

The truth is corporations will get in bed with whatever party has the power to help them.

At the moment, there appears to be no way to balance freedom of speech with the desire to get some of the money out of politics.

Very true. But wasn't the SCOTUS decision on Citizens United really the death blow for attempts to limit the effect of money. When corporations have the same rights as citizens, but are still provided protection in terms of limiting liability to corporate owners from the effects of bankruptcy and other legal liabilities that ordinary citizens don't have, you've empowered corporations immeasurably more than the populace.

danivon

When it comes to moneyed interests, there's no real difference between the two main US parties

On the whole. But on the left wing of the Democrats (Elizabeth Warren for instance) you see a growing desire to limit influence of corporations.
And there is actually some sympathy for the idea of limiting corporate influence among some Republicans, that has come from the Tea Party members.

rickyp wrote:fate

The truth is corporations will get in bed with whatever party has the power to help them.

At the moment, there appears to be no way to balance freedom of speech with the desire to get some of the money out of politics.

Very true. But wasn't the SCOTUS decision on Citizens United really the death blow for attempts to limit the effect of money. When corporations have the same rights as citizens, but are still provided protection in terms of limiting liability to corporate owners from the effects of bankruptcy and other legal liabilities that ordinary citizens don't have, you've empowered corporations immeasurably more than the populace.

Yet, as the law reads, SCOTUS did the right thing.

There's no easy solution, unless SCOTUS makes up law--like Roberts did while sustaining the ACA, or the USSC did when creating Roe. I'd rather we either amend the Constitution or at least try to address this legislatively.

I'm not comfortable with either extreme. Corporations don't give up all their rights when they incorporate. But, something needs to be done about the system--since Obama exploited it (Yeah, I know, "Obama again???" Look it up. He was the one who ditched the system in order to whup McCain).

Doctor Fate wrote:The truth is corporations will get in bed with whatever party has the power to help them.

Well, duh. If the party lets them, anyway. And both will, because they need money to run perma-campaigns.

At the moment, there appears to be no way to balance freedom of speech with the desire to get some of the money out of politics.

The bizarre definition of corporations as people (which I see nowhere in the Constitution) does not help.

There are ways, but I suspect all would in the current climate need constitutional change, or some very clever legislation. Either way, the moneyed interests will fight that tooth and nail with the power they currently have.

Two things:

Firstly: Danivon, I do not mean to get off topic or pedantic or anything, but amoral doesn't mean you do not have principles. Amoral (for example) is considering something without a "moral imperative" of some sort. You have morals, but you're putting them aside. It is not unlike the "realism" ascribed to Niccolo Machiavelli: if you want your country to survive you must make political decisions based on their results. It's not as crude as "the ends justify the means", etc. (though I know you didn't say that however). I have heard it said that America needs to have a more "pragmatic" or "realist" foreign policy, for example. You can still end up with good results, even more results, if you made certain decisions from an amoral perspective.

I believe you to be at least in the ballpark when you say that immoral people have the "wrong" principles. But you are not entirely correct: the "wrong" principles kind of depends on your point of view, when all is said and done, you think? We all seem to have different ideas about what are the "wrong" principles to have, certainly here on Redscape. However, where is the absolute by which to determine which are the "right" principles to have? No, I cannot agree with your definition of amoral vs. immoral. I will look it up though and report back.

Second: what does the international media report about the ACA, the Republicans and President Obama? I'm just curious. Is it possible that a lot of people around the world who follow events in the United States are a little misled? Perhaps that is the reason some of you don't believe (or refuse to believe no matter what facts people who actually live here tell you) that the ACA is as unpopular in the US as it really is? Or at least, that many of us Americans are trying to tell you? I've found that, at the end of the day, people will really believe what they want to believe (part of human nature I think).

Is it not possible, our friends from across the Pond or North of the 48th parallel, you have been misled? Do you really suppose that Americans are the only people on the planet susceptible to the vagaries of human nature?

Just a thought....I don't offer any proof on the issue one way or another. It's a done deal, the ACA. We shall have to live with it, however shitty it may get. Or not.

My only question to some of you would be, if Obamacare/ACA is so popular and wonderful for the United States, how come the President's approval rating is so low, and the Republicans have not only recaptured the Senate but booted a few more Democrats out of the House? It seems that most of the Americans here are against the ACA or have at least soured on it whilst the Redscapers from outside the US wonder why we feel this way. Could this be your media outlets that have it wrong this time?

JimHackerMP wrote:Two things:

Firstly: Danivon, I do not mean to get off topic or pedantic or anything, but amoral doesn't mean you do not have principles. Amoral (for example) is considering something without a "moral imperative" of some sort. You have morals, but you're putting them aside. It is not unlike the "realism" ascribed to Niccolo Machiavelli: if you want your country to survive you must make political decisions based on their results. It's not as crude as "the ends justify the means", etc. (though I know you didn't say that however). I have heard it said that America needs to have a more "pragmatic" or "realist" foreign policy, for example. You can still end up with good results, even more results, if you made certain decisions from an amoral perspective.

if a person is 'amoral', then they have no principles. As you say, a moral person can act in an 'amoral' manner.

I believe you to be at least in the ballpark when you say that immoral people have the "wrong" principles. But you are not entirely correct: the "wrong" principles kind of depends on your point of view, when all is said and done, you think? We all seem to have different ideas about what are the "wrong" principles to have, certainly here on Redscape. However, where is the absolute by which to determine which are the "right" principles to have? No, I cannot agree with your definition of amoral vs. immoral. I will look it up though and report back.

that was kind of my point, although I did not make that plain. Yes, one person's morality is another's immorality (as the debate on whether we should accord recognition and equality to homosexuals shows).

Second: what does the international media report about the ACA, the Republicans and President Obama? I'm just curious. Is it possible that a lot of people around the world who follow events in the United States are a little misled? Perhaps that is the reason some of you don't believe (or refuse to believe no matter what facts people who actually live here tell you) that the ACA is as unpopular in the US as it really is? Or at least, that many of us Americans are trying to tell you? I've found that, at the end of the day, people will really believe what they want to believe (part of human nature I think).

Frankly, not a lot appears in the media, but we are indeed told that the ACA is not universally popular. Most of my information about US politics I get from US-based sites, perhaps with a referral via a UK-based media outlet first.

Which kind of renders your long question a bit moot

Which kind of renders your long question a bit moot

Indeed, I must admit. I was really kinda curious though how it was presented. See, there were Americans who, themselves, were convinced Obama was giving them free health care (on the Scandinavian/rest of E.U./Canadian model). They were bitterly disappointed. I had simply wondered exactly how the whole thing was being portrayed, especially in countries (such as yours) where you have free health care grace a H.M. Government.

Second: what does the international media report about the ACA, the Republicans and President Obama? I'm just curious. Is it possible that a lot of people around the world who follow events in the United States are a little misled? Perhaps that is the reason some of you don't believe (or refuse to believe no matter what facts people who actually live here tell you) that the ACA is as unpopular in the US as it really is? Or at least, that many of us Americans are trying to tell you? I've found that, at the end of the day, people will really believe what they want to believe (part of human nature I think).

danivon

Frankly, not a lot appears in the media, but we are indeed told that the ACA is not universally popular. Most of my information about US politics I get from US-based sites, perhaps with a referral via a UK-based media outlet first.

Which kind of renders your long question a bit moot

On this site, most of the time someone is making a point about the ACA, there is a link with supporting information. Sources. They are almost always US sources. So i don't know why you harp on about having a foreigners misconception...

We probably get more coverage of the ACA in Canada, usually comparing it to the Canadian system. And what the Canadian media tends to focus on, are misperceptions by the US about the Canadian system... And usually not even handed.
But if you are interested, the following is....by an American scholar.

http://healthjournalism.org/blog/2014/0 ... e-systems/
http://healthjournalism.org/blog/2014/0 ... more-21431

So i don't know why you harp on about having a foreigners misconception...

We probably get more coverage of the ACA in Canada, usually comparing it to the Canadian system. And what the Canadian media tends to focus on, are misperceptions by the US about the Canadian system... And usually not even handed.
But if you are interested, the following is....by an American scholar.

I'm not automatically assuming that anyone outside the United States will have misconceptions about what's going on in here, ACA/Obamacare for example, simply because they're not Americans (nobody's perfect ). But all journalists, political scientists, and so forth, have opinions and biases. Not because they're "bad" or "closed-minded" but because they are only human. I'm simply allowing reporters, from the United States or from another country, the latitude to be human beings. (Which is more latitude than you seem to allow me.)

I will gladly read the information you have linked herein, and keep an open mind. But I must ask you a question which you sort of dodged in our epic, 31-page "democracy" thread: do you ever try to look for sources that support an opinion opposite the stance you have already taken? I am not asking you to watch Fox News. Or to visit http://www.teapartyforever.org or some such website. But do you gather information on both sides of the argument and read them before telling us poor sods the Truth? Or take an irrevocable stance on that argument, and find anything you can to support what you already believe?

Why do I ask this question? There's a lot of bullshit on the internet cleverly masquerading as legitimate sources. It's not that hard to make a website that will enhance peoples' perception that it is accurate. I'm not stupid because I had not heard of the McKinsey Center, for example, but I have to remain just as skeptical until I find there's a good reason to believe them. Hence the reason for asking, are they legit, or are they an Obama Cheerleader. Forgive me if I put that in terms which got your dander up. However, Danivon made a good point a few posts after that one which shed light on their legitimacy, and I stated flatly that "that's good enough for me," and accepted it as a legit source despite my initial skepticism. [See Above]

Also, I tend to prefer raw data to sources somebody Googled five minutes ago. For example, if you put "Affordable Care Act" into Google you come up with 16,700,000 hits. That's why raw data bears more fruits, truthwise, than Googling something and taking the first two or three that agree with you. You may remember when Sassenach argued on our Epic Democracy Thread that putting House elections in sync with those for the Presidency would probably solve gridlock, I was skeptical. But then I checked the raw data and admitted to him I was wrong about his position there, or at least that part of his argument. I even made a spreadsheet to show how wrong, or at least partially wrong, I was on that part of the argument we were having. (However, your position that twice the length of term would equal half the amount of PAC/corporate money raised is an argument I still find fallacious, but please, let's not allow that one to spill over into this thread!) Interestingly enough nobody asked to see it. I was kinda P.O.'d tho, when Redscape wouldn't let me upload it. I spent time getting raw data from several sources.

All I have to say about my skepticism, Ricky, is that out of the several doctors I see (I had to see a couple of specialists within the last couple of years including a neurologist) including my normal physician, they're all dead set against the ACA. That is the source of my skepticism. But I will admit, hell, the four of us could be totally wrong. I do not believe we are wrong, but I'm open to the possibility that I am. And also the possibility that you are. The difference of course, is that if you are wrong about ACA, you don't have to live with the results of voting for the wrong person in the U.S.

Fair enough?

P.S., while I can see her side of the argument, it's mostly about US misconceptions of Canadian Health Care system...there isn't too much about Obamacare/ACA. However, there is one rather interesting paragraph:

Although the Affordable Care Act calls for more people to have health insurance by offering subsidies and mandating all Americans have it or face penalties, the concept of universality is still a far distant goal. The Canada Health Act, on the other hand, calls for universality – all residents must be covered by the public insurance plan run by their province on uniform terms and conditions. They have coverage wherever they are treated in the country, and there’s none of this stuff about limiting the doctors and hospitals that patients can use as a condition of getting full benefits. In Canada there are no financial barriers to care at the point of service as there are and will continue to be in the U.S.

Ricky, mull over that last paragraph, especially the last two sentences.

As for the legitimacy of the source, the only thing I can tell is that they sure as hell charge a lot of money to join.

And for the record, I do not care if they are from the U.S. or the Upper Volta, Ricky. That wasn't my point in asking about the opinion of ACA, etc., abroad.