Damitol. I meant the SEC, not FEC. PPMFU. dj
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Don Johnson<[email protected]> wrote: > To paraphrase the saying in the old days: "We must all hang together, > because if we don't we shall surely hang separately" > > I remember it as "United We Stand, Divided We Fall." Classic fight > song. I'm more of a state's rights and Strict Constructionist kind of > guy myself. Go T. Jefferson and J. Madison. Rah. Rah. > > I am concerned with what seems to be a prevailing attitude against a > free press in this forum. I hope I've gotten the wrong impression > here. I get concerned when smart people think it's time the > government 'regulates' the information the public is getting. I see a > common tactic on the left is to ridicule rather then engage. Not here > on ME(we are more civilized and adult)) but on blogs and networks with > pundits sneering into the camera. This tactic will have the opposite > effect from what is desired I think and that is reflected in the > extremely high number of defections to the FNC(a fair and balanced > network offering opposing views). I hear mumblings of the 'Fairness > Doctrine' and I get shivers. Although if it is applied to television > as well as radio it might get the conservative message out even more. > It would certainly improve Obama cheerleading networks like MSNBC(a > disgrace to journalism). I would really not like to end up like > Russia or Cuba or Venezuela with a state controlled media. I'm fairly > certain none of you do either. > > It is right to question your government. When the answers to direct > concerned questions are a chuckle, a sneer and a "there is no health > care bill what are you talking about?" Or repeatedly denying > something(death panels in this case) that no one except a failed > former Governor from some podunk state with like 3 people living there > has ever said. We have the luxury of getting our information from > multiple sources. Let's all hope this continues. > > We need some regulation to curb monopolies and force some semblance of > ethics on investing and business tactics. We agree on this much. > What we apparently disagree on is the major cause for the crash. I > was paying attention. The FEC failed in it's watch-dog role letting > derivatives get ridiculous. I feel it was government involvement and > in particular the GSE's in the mortgage industry that caused what > should have been a cyclical bear to be a financial meltdown of cosmic > proportions the like of which we still have not seen the full effects. > The fact that the people most responsible for this are still in > power(even more powerful) and we are bailing out criminal insurance > companies infuriates me. My taxes are going up, I'm getting what > amounts to a pay cut(I'm just happy to be employed) and I see > government tripling the deficit. It makes me want to spew. > > Are you actually telling me we should relax and trust Obama and co. > and let the 'smart people' take care of us? Obama knows best, sit > down and shut up. Their 'whiff of brilliance' will save us. Nah, I > know that's not what your saying. > > I'd rather take the red pill. > > dj > > > > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 4:45 AM, Justintruth<[email protected]> wrote: >> >> It is an interesting article but if one were to try to draw an analogy >> between it and the current health care financing debate, and in >> particular if one attempts to draw and an analogy between it and the >> Obama administration's attempts to orchestrate a change in the US >> medical care financing, it would be a false one. >> >> The implication that rationing might be applied in the future, under >> an Obama heath plan, and is not applied now, without it, is the >> problem with the analogy. The implication that the Hypocratic oath is >> not routinely violated *now* in the medical community for profit, and >> that, if we are not careful under an Obama plan it *might* be, is the >> problem with the analogy. You see, right now we are seeing a kind of >> game theoretical, "milking" of the medical consumer and a failure of >> the ethics upon which the oath is based. We are paying too much *now* >> for the care we receive and the effect on the distribution of care has >> serious detrimental consequences relative to the purpose of the system >> and what's worse, reduces the effectiveness of medical intervention >> itself. People have even died from it. >> >> To be fair, we must not characterize the medical community completely >> as totally profit oriented. In fact, I believe that many, and even >> most, doctors' commitment to the Hypocratic oath is more than >> superficial. But they are often put into untenable positions in the >> game theoretical world of modern economics. And, again to be fair, we >> must realize that they (the medical community in aggregate including >> its managers) have failed to supply the US with modern medical care >> value in accordance with demonstrated international standards with >> respect to the developed world. Our medical care, when looked at from >> a value point of view, is simply substandard. We have to be honest >> with each other. The world is watching. >> >> It is that way because of the success of the economic power elite's >> use of an ideologically motivated and very destructive conservative >> political movement, which promolgated an irrational belief in market >> mechanism as the *only* answer, and fostered an irrational fear of >> regulation. They used this political movement, fostered it and >> invested in it, in order to remove constraints on their power. They >> have attacked the press, the legal system, government regulation, and >> even education. Why? Because they attack any check on their unbridled >> power. This has produced unintended consequences and has had >> disastrous consequences for American competitiveness in a host of >> areas (not the least of which is manufacturing, and as we have seen >> corporate financing), but also in medical care and may soon even >> extend to education if the conservatives ideologues end up having >> their way. In the end, like the famed hindu proverb, the scorpian >> stings the frog and may also die from it unless we can save them. >> Business is coming around to the democratic view because they know >> that their game is at stake. >> >> The mechanism of the destructive effect is to deligititimize strict >> ethical standards in favor of a wink and the nod that acknowledges >> "the way the game is played" - a kind of Machevelian or Kissingerian >> realpolitic mapped onto business ethics and a kind of hail Mary hope >> that the "market mechanism" will result in the "right things done for >> the wrong reason". Those left trying to hold the line have a choice >> between ethical behavior and economic suicide or "bending the rules" >> and surviving economically. You saw it in finance, you see it in >> manufacturing, and it is the same in health care. >> >> This program has failed and is destroying the United States in many >> areas - one of them being health care. Ultimately behind all of these >> is the ethical crisis that Obama has described and that is being >> currently modeled in modern economic theory. If you look at the >> current meltdown in the financial system and the problems with totally >> privatized medical care the parallels are stunning. >> >> Check out a recent article in the July-August Harvard Business Review >> titled "The End of Rational Economics" (It is not even about medical >> care) It says in part: >> >> "We are now paying a terrible price for our unblinking faith in the >> power of the invisible hand. We're painfully blinking awake to the >> falsity of standard economic theory - that human beings are capable of >> always making rational decisions and that markets and institutions in >> the aggregate are healthy self regulating. If assumptions about the >> way things are supposed to work have failed us in the hyper-rational >> world of Wall Street what damage have they done in other institutions >> and organizations that are also made up of fallible less-than logical >> people." >> >> The "invisible hand" refers to market forces. Remember, this is the >> Harvard Business Review, not some socialist diatribe. >> >> Another quote from the article: "A few years ago, my colleagues and I >> found that most individuals, operating on their own and given the >> opportunity, will cheat - but just a little bit, all the while >> indulging in rationalization that allow them to live with themselves." >> >> From another article in the same issue: "Government's role in business >> is still emerging, but it's clear that companies worldwide can no >> longer operate independent of regulatory concerns." >> >> And from still another: >> >> "As the United States strives to recover form the current economic >> crisis, its going to discover an unpleasant fact: The competitiveness >> problem of the 1980s and the early 1990s didn't really go away. It was >> hidden during the bubble years behind a mirage of prosperity and all >> the while the country's industrial base continued to erode. Now, the >> U.S. will finally have to take the problem seriously. Rebuilding its >> wealth-generating machine - that is, restoring the ability of >> enterprises to develop and manufacture high-technology products in >> America - is the only way the country can hope to pay down its >> enormous deficits and maintain, let alone raise, its citizens' >> standard of living." >> >> All of these problems are interlinked and one cannot be solved without >> the other. We need a reworking of our understanding of the "commons". >> Bill Moyers had it right in the end: "I'm going out telling the story >> that I think is the biggest story of our time: how the right-wing >> media has become a partisan propaganda arm of the Republican National >> Committee. We have an ideological press that's interested in the >> election of Republicans, and a mainstream press that's interested in >> the bottom line. Therefore, we don't have a vigilant, independent >> press whose interest is the American people." >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Moyers. >> >> In order to regain our competitiveness, one thing among many we need >> is government intervention in the medical system. We need it and we >> need to get moving on it. In general, we need to rebuild the American >> commons. Don't take my word for it - read the Harvard Business Reveiw: >> "Governments are often uniquely positioned to mobilize and coordinate >> the efforts of the numerous organizations needed to confront these >> huge challenges." >> >> What is being advocated is not Socialism. That is just another example >> of the Republican ideologues setting fire to the "commons". No one is >> advocating socialism. What is being advocated is intervention in the >> market mechanism with regulation and where necessary the challenging >> of the assumption that business, if it diverges from public interest, >> will remain unmolested by government. Make a game without rules and >> referees and you get just that. What is being advocated, in fact - >> instead of the lies - is a cooperative relationship between government >> and business with a real - and an improved *ethical* standard being >> put in place to underpin the alliance. >> >> Contrary to the implication in the article, it is the Obama agenda >> that is trying to *restore* the functioning of the Hypocratic oath and >> ethics in general and deliver, with all its complexity, modern medical >> care service in a way that is characterized by excellence. It is in >> fact, a whiff of brilliance the likes of which we rarely see in >> America. From the looks of the lunatics on TV worried about Obama >> "indoctrinating" their children (I mean it is ridiculous) the plan is >> at risk and in fact may go down. The real effect, if the goals of the >> opponents to this agenda are totally realized, will be a return to >> the mask of unbridled individualism behind which lies the corporate >> profit behemoth unfettered and unembarrassed and frankly, just playing >> by the rules that our abdication has left them with. >> >> In fact, the problem is our irrational behavior and we must act >> rationally now in our own interests. Eliminating the threat of >> government control is like removing the major competitor from the >> arena. Modern economics, which is founded in part on game theory, and >> has transcended the simple models that are rampant in ideological >> approaches, have concluded the the real economic picture is much more >> complicated and that a smart and changing mix of government >> intervention and market mechanisms are needed. We must not let our >> government representatives abandon the field. >> >> A transparent, government supervised, financing option for medical >> care can be a *very* effective check and signal the end of "business >> as usual" and in fact the competitive force that it can bring will be >> staggering. The likely effect, if it is carried out carefully, is the >> reemergence of successful managerial decisions in the private sector >> (as the rules will have changed: Why foul if your are going to get >> penalized?) and, due to the efficiencies of market driven >> organizations, the eventual victory of those organization over their >> government counterparts with the eventual elimination of the need, in >> fact, for a "government option". >> >> What is needed is not only successful regulation. What is needed in >> addition is the political awareness of the liberal component of >> American polity that, as in foreign policy, if we retire from the >> field, disaster for all will surely follow for all. >> >> To paraphrase the saying in the old days: "We must all hang together, >> because if we don't we shall surely hang separately" >> >> >> On Sep 4, 2:38 am, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: >>> This is a very interesting article. I'm not suggesting we'll end up >>> with something like this but it certainly makes for chilling reading. >>> One major problem with current doctors(according to Dr. Emanuel) is >>> the Hippocratic Oath. It's all very coldly logical and would be very >>> effective in reducing costs I believe. If I got to keep the >>> sweetheart health care our law makers get I'd probably vote for it >>> myself. >>> >>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020370660457437446328009... >>> >>> How 'bout you? >>> >>> dj >> >> >> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
