Fool Me Once
The ‘Joliet’ Jake Blues Award for Insincere Apologies goes to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid for their attempts to explain the vote on the FISA law.
The Stalin Prize for Government Control is awarded to the “Blue Dog” Democrats who didn’t have a problem giving the Hedgemony the power to invade the privacy of Americans without the inconvenience of a warrant.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
What is it going to take before Congress understands that the Hedgemony lies to get what they want? Why wasn’t their performance in the run up to the Iraq invasion enough? If Congress thinks that the six-month time limit they put in the law they passed over the weekend is binding, they need to read the law they passed. Marty Lederman, a Constitutional scholar writing at Balkinization, read the law and says it lasts 18 months.
As soon as they deign to return to their paid employment in Washington, DC, Congress might want to hold a hearing and find out why that FISA judge objected to what was going on. If the judge ruled that their behavior was a violation of the Constitution, all this law does is give them cover to continue their unconstitutional behavior without fear of discovery.
If you didn’t know what the problem was, how in hell can you say you have passed a law to correct it? The reality is, you don’t actually know that there was a negative ruling because the whole process is classified. Just because John Boehner claims there was such a ruling on Fox News proves nothing, other than Boehner shouldn’t be given classified information if there was such a ruling.
If you start with contempt and throw some people in the DC jail until 2009, you might get a little respect. I would prefer impeachment, but contempt might convince some of these people that you aren’t going to be pushed around. Censure is a total waste of time and energy – these people don’t care what Congress thinks of them.
20 comments
jail time. jail time would be good. whether it’s for high crimes or for misdemeanors, i care not at this juncture.
off topic [though you did mention stalin], which one of them is lying about socialized medicine? not that it matters one whit if either, neither, or both are, since i can point to plenty of other examples of socialized medicine for the blog post i’m considering writing, but i was curious.
Something you need to know about when trying to understand the Soviet System are that it never achieved communism – that was always the goal, not the reality.
What you had was the Party replacing the aristocracy with a minor improvement for peasants in the way of education and health care. The top 5% still controlled everything, and the 95% had no power. The elite enjoyed benefits that were never available to others. Bribery was the way things got done, whether it was the Tsar’s officials or the Party’s. The October Revolution, wasn’t as revolutionary as people assume, or Russians would like to believe.
Fact, Marxism was always a system designed for an industrial economy and it cannot work in an agricultural framework.
You will note that socialism works rather well in industrialized Europe, but extremely poorly in the third world.
To be called socialized medicine, the health care system would have to belong to the government. Doctors would be government employees. This is the system used by the military and the Veterans Administration.
The current discussion is about paying for the services. The private insurance companies were supposed to be providing this feature and they have failed miserably. The only way of doing it effectively and efficiently is a government health insurance system. The insurance companies refuse to provide coverage to all drivers, so the states had to step in. The insurance companies refuse to cover all homeowners, so the states have to step in. The insurance companies are refusing to cover everyone’s health care, so the state will have to step in.
The cheapest way of providing health care coverage is for everyone to be covered. The well are subsidizing the sick. The principles are well known and they were once standard in insurance companies. The companies have decided to maximize profits, by eliminating risk. They are more properly considered investment companies with a minor sideline in health insurance. The insurance companies aren’t interested in health care, they are solely interested in profits.
Even if we get the administration to stop spying, what is to stop AT&T? This is the public-private partnership they have created.
“To be called socialized medicine, the health care system would have to belong to the government.” – Bryan
Your basic point is correct: a single-payer system is not intrinsically a socialized system; one can have a completely consumer-choice-driven system of providers (people choosing their own physicians, etc.) while having the government as the sole payer of healthcare costs.
To pick nits, what you describe is what would have to happen for the system to BE socialized medicine. To be CALLED socialized medicine, it needs only a manifestly dishonest combination of a corporatist government and the healthcare-industrial complex, both of whom make out like bandits by scaring the public into rejecting a single-payer system, which they do by dishonestly proclaiming it “socialized.”
It’s difficult to believe that insurance in the early 20th century was considered a progressive concept. Kaiser et al certainly put an end to that. Could it be that our Founders were right to mistrust corporations?
Back on topic… the Democratic leadership has much to answer for in the FISA revisions, and I’m not liking the answers they’re giving one bit. (See my blog masthead; I’ve made a modification… I hope a temporary one… to the blog name.)
I read that post on Balkinization this morning, and reported it erroneously on the YDD as allowing the AG to extend surveillance for a total of a year. You are correct; by way of Lederman’s analysis, it is most certainly an extension of a year, not a total of a year. I’m on my way to correct my error on the YDD.
Your point is well taken, Steve, they are going to call it “socialized” whether is it or not.
At some point I, or someone, should write about the “personhood” of corporations, because it wasn’t mentioned in the decision of the case that was decided. I’m not sure how you can have stare decisis when there was no “decisis” to be “stare” about.
Stare decisis of obiter dicta is always fun. There were a lot of things created out of judicial whole cloth to create this modern corporate fiction of democracy.
I suspect we will need to amend or replace the constitution to repair this.
Actually, we just need someone to take a real look at what was said, and interpret it in a reasonable manner, i.e. corporations have standing to appear in court for commercial matters, like any other business form and not as a special class.
There is not need to alter the Constitution because there is no provision made for them in the Constitution.
[ok, i nominate you to write a post on the “personhood” of corporations]
What you had was the Party replacing the aristocracy with a minor improvement for peasants in the way of education and health care. The top 5% still controlled everything, and the 95% had no power. The elite enjoyed benefits that were never available to others. Bribery was the way things got done, whether it was the Tsar’s officials or the Party’s. The October Revolution, wasn’t as revolutionary as people assume, or Russians would like to believe.
ah, thanks. that’s what i was looking for.
not that i ever in my life expect to advocate for it, but why wouldn’t marxism work in agriculture?
You will note that socialism works rather well in industrialized Europe, but extremely poorly in the third world.
industrialized nations have hogged all the resources for themselves, they can make just about any form of governement work. third world nations have zilch resources, nothing much is likely to work for them, socialist or otherwise.
your part of the discussion might be about paying for healthcare. my part of the discussion is about getting healthcare.
there are an awful lot of people out there who are now willing and able to pay for healthcare, and think they are paying for it now, but until they actually try to use that “insurance” they’re paying for, they don’t know that their part of the discussion extends beyond paying for it.
yep. got it. i’ve done some homework, and i’d be happy to have either one, single-payer social insurance or socialized medicine. i spent my [extended] coffee break this morning listening to [and coveting] the litany of excellent care and “excess” services that a friend of mine is getting from the va system.
The first requirement for socialism is a money economy, rather than a barter system. Then you need specialization which is not wide spread in agricultural economies, with most craftsmen not able to support themselves on their craft alone. And so forth. Essentially you needs employees, and large enterprises, not stand alone farms. You already have to have large scale operations with the government replacing the owners under socialism for it to work. History is filled with the famines caused by “communist” agriculture.
Conversely, true communism requires small scale operations like the Kibutz or communes. It doesn’t scale worth a damn because it is a true democracy which tends to be a major mess if you try it beyond a few thousand people.
Third world countries actually have the bulk of the resources, what they lack is the ability to turn them into products rather than raw materials. That is intentional part of the colonial system.
One of the probable benefits I see from a single-payer system is more availability of healthcare in rural areas. If everyone has the same coverage, healthcare providers will receive the same payments, no matter where they locate, and the less expensive rural areas will become more attractive.
i’ll admit to imprecision, equating “have resources” with “have control over and use of resources.” i’ll also admit to having “big agriculture” in mind when i asked that, since agribusiness as i know it doesn’t square with “food production” in my head.
both inner city and rural areas here in the united states are hurting for doctors, and the lucre to be had in some of the specialties is one of the reasons that we don’t have enough general practitioner types. i think the fully socialized model would go further towards alleviating both of situations than would medicare-for-all.
i do think it would be easier to convince americans to go with social insurance, like canada, than to take their chances with socialized medicine.
The problem of socialized medicine is one of management – it would add several layers to the process that are not necessary. The move into specialties is part and parcel of the funding problems of the current system. Specialists tend to get paid, because only people with resources get referrals. If you level out the funding, the incentives to move into a specialty disappear.
People and med schools tend to over look the fact that most doctors have to become small business owners and they aren’t trained for it. This results in a lot of waste in the system.
I think it’s best not to call it socialism and understand that social economics can obtain elements of both competition and cooperation.
Higher skilled professions may deserve higher compensation to encourage continued investment in one’s education beyond some minimum.
We are not for equality of outcome but equality of opportunity, I think. The fact is we don’t have equality of opportunity now. This applies both to those seeking a way to produce social values and those needing access to them. The idea of social competition is based in social currency of some kind, a way of increasing one’s respect by providing socially desirable services. Perhaps we cannot enumerate it yet but some sense of karma exists throughout blogtopia.
ysctp.
Presently the social competition is between left and right, but there can even be cooperation between them as when we agree the NY Times ought to tear down its pay wall. There are some things that are so vital to our mutual good and the good of the world that we cannot seriously disagree.
We are forcing them and ourselves into a social economy, whether we recognize it or not. We must have a social economy, because we recognize that the survival of our species depends upon it.
I think it’s best not to call it socialism and understand that social economics can obtain elements of both competition and cooperation.
i don’t mind coming up with something new to call it, but i don’t want to mislead people either, so i tend to stick with the already-in-use labels. i’m not wedded to this viewpoint though.
agree absolutely on the co-existence of cooperation and competition. in fact, i’d argue that both are necessary, as well as good.
Higher skilled professions may deserve higher compensation to encourage continued investment in one’s education beyond some minimum.
socialized medicine does not necessarily mean every doctor would be paid exactly the same. it just means that the doctors would be employees of the government. the government would be free to value some specialties more than others [it already does now]. also, many government-employed physicians can get either their medical school training, or specialist training paid for by their employer.
We are not for equality of outcome but equality of opportunity, I think. The fact is we don’t have equality of opportunity now. This applies both to those seeking a way to produce social values and those needing access to them.
i don’t feel like we even need to guarantee equality of opportunity. we can easily [and relativelyinexpensively] redress the current monstously unfair inequality we’re supporting now. we’re a rich enough people to provide excellent health care to every single person living in this country, whether they’re here legally or illegally, and we can do so without even raising taxes, if we ditch the for-profit insurance industry.
The idea of social competition is based in social currency of some kind, a way of increasing one’s respect by providing socially desirable services.
agree. wholeheatedly. 100%.
Perhaps we cannot enumerate it yet but some sense of karma exists throughout blogtopia.
i’m content to just enumerate the bad karma of our present system.
The move into specialties is part and parcel of the funding problems of the current system. Specialists tend to get paid, because only people with resources get referrals. If you level out the funding, the incentives to move into a specialty disappear.
it works well in france. and germany. and canada. and ….
a socilaized system would fix that problem too. it would basically hire only about as many specialists as were needed [or wanted].
The problem of socialized medicine is one of management – it would add several layers to the process that are not necessary. …. People and med schools tend to over look the fact that most doctors have to become small business owners and they aren’t trained for it. This results in a lot of waste in the system.
doctors who have an aptitude for running a business could well decide at some point to just go run businesses instead of doctoring.
if it frees up doctors from the worries and hassles of running a business and allows them to spend more time with me-the-patient, i’d gladly accept, and pay for, another layer or two. very likely i’m going to anyway, since doctors often hire office managers and staff, or office managment consultants, already.