The Limits of Free Speech

[Ed Anger]

a cursory search of headlines reveals that people have been arrested for

anti-Bush shirts
anti-Obama shirts
McCain shirts
Niggers with Attitude shirts
Naked Posh Spice shirts
Hemp shirts
US Flag shirts
Blasphemy shirts
Police shirts
toy robot shirts
Peace logo shirts

and so on.

my conclusion: some people really hate t-shirts

CafePress should be banned.

[Valmy]

my conclusion: some people really hate t-shirts

I think it is safer to just not wear a shirt.

[saskganesh]

my conclusion: some people really hate t-shirts

I think it is safer to just not wear a shirt.

think of the children!!!



hey, this gentleman has sideburns just like Yi.

[Malthus]

My eyes!!!! 

[Admiral Yi]

I was a little disgusted with you but other people made my point so I didn't need to follow up on it.

Not even close.  The two people that responded made the argument that what Obama was talking about had zero chance of being enacted so we shouldn't worry about it.

[Razgovory]

I was a little disgusted with you but other people made my point so I didn't need to follow up on it.

Not even close.  The two people that responded made the argument that what Obama was talking about had zero chance of being enacted so we shouldn't worry about it.

Are you telling me that you believe in this conspiracy then?

[Razgovory]

Sask needs to have his post deleted and get a warning.

[DGuller]

Sask needs to have his post deleted and get a warning.

It definitely wasn't SFW.  A little warning would've been courteous.

[Ed Anger]

 

[Admiral Yi]

Are you telling me that you believe in this conspiracy then?

If "this conspiracy" is that Obama's April interview with the New York Times contained a whiff of death panels, then yes.

[Sheilbh]

Are you telling me that you believe in this conspiracy then?

If "this conspiracy" is that Obama's April interview with the New York Times contained a whiff of death panels, then yes.

Do you think it's a serious issue in the bills that are being debated?

The two people that responded made the argument that what Obama was talking about had zero chance of being enacted so we shouldn't worry about it.

What do you mean?  Death panels aren't, so far as I'm aware, in any of the major proposals for healthcare reform.  Maybe they should be, it could deal with pension costs too.

What do you worry will be enacted?

[Admiral Yi]

Do you think it's a serious issue in the bills that are being debated?

No.

What do you mean?  Death panels aren't, so far as I'm aware, in any of the major proposals for healthcare reform.  Maybe they should be, it could deal with pension costs too.

What I meant in the part that you quoted is that Razzberry's assertion that other posters made his point for him is untrue.

In the April interview Obama raised the idea of creating a commission to begin the "difficult democratic conversation" of pulling the plug on grandpa to save money.  This proposal got watered down to the totally innocuous provision of having a doctor discuss options with a terminal patient.  So the town hall screamers have it wrong in that (a) it's not in the current bills, and (b) it was a death commission to look at all seniors as opposed to death panels looking at people on a case by case basis.  But there claim was not created out of whole cloth.  And there's also the issue of knowing whether or not the process has been frozen at this point so that only the provisions contained in one the various House and Senate versions are up for consideration.  Certainly no one that I have heard has made this principle explicit.

What do you worry will be enacted?

Unfunded spending that packs on to the deficit.

Employer mandates that hammer unemployment.

[Valmy]

Unfunded spending that packs on to the deficit.

Employer mandates that hammer unemployment.

I understand those concerns.  The problem is that no matter what the outcome health care will still be an enormous anchor around the neck of the economy.

Which is not to say that the government could not make the situation far worse.

[Sheilbh]

And there's also the issue of knowing whether or not the process has been frozen at this point so that only the provisions contained in one the various House and Senate versions are up for consideration.  Certainly no one that I have heard has made this principle explicit.

I believe Rahm has said that it's all about the Senate Finance Committee now.  From what I understand that bill is still significantly to the left of what Obama had in his plan.  What's interesting is that because of the Congress the argument over policy is significantly to the left of what Obama initially suggested, while because of the media/town halls the argument in the press is significantly to the right of what's actually happening.  It's very odd.

Unfunded spending that packs on to the deficit.

That's a threat.  The deficit's a problem, for sure but I think it's one that should be left until the economy's showing real sustainable signs of recovery.

The problem with the deficit is that everyone talks about how they want to find savings and so on in 'non-defence discretionary spending'.  Now by my back of an envelope sums if you were to try and cut the deficit from 'non-defence discretionary spending' then even if you eliminated all other government spending you would still have a deficit.

There needs to be some sort of deal that allows reform of things like social security and medicare and that allows for a rational debate on the DoD budget.  I don't think a political discourse that sees claims as outlandish as mandatory government 'death panels' is one that can actually deal with that.

Employer mandates that hammer unemployment.

I think there should be a minimum provision offered and a cap on the amount it can cost (I believe it's what they have in the Netherlands for example) and I think the public plan is to some extent a way around this.  It should be said that already the cost of healthcare on companies in the US is roughly equivalent to the cost of holidays, working-hour legislation and something else in Europe.

[The Minsky Moment]

If "this conspiracy" is that Obama's April interview with the New York Times contained a whiff of death panels, then yes.

I call bullshit.  The NYT interview was about paying for a hip replacement for a terminally ill patient, not pulling the plug.  And even then it was clear that the option would be open to pay out-of-pocket.

this is scaremongering pure and simple, and the people peddling it make the "Bush lied, people died" folks look like Aristotle in comparison.