Fundamental Right to Anonymous Political Speech
Anonymity is a powerful force. For instance, it is possible to commit crimes and get away with things in a big city that you could never do in a small town where everyone knows you. On the Internet, it is possible for people to express extreme viewpoints that they could never defend face to face, by logging in anonymously or under an alias. In a free society individuals are granted permission by their peers to do as they wish and are accountable for the consequences of their choices; in an anarchic society they do things without permission or accountability. A society where everyone is anonymous would be anarchic.
Anonymous voting is a cornerstone of our way of governing ourselves. An individual can vote in private, without social influence, and without anyone ever knowing how they voted. In that carefully contrived private situation, there is no motive, no incentive for the individual to say something outrageous or extreme, there is no one to shock, you go in and vote for the people and issues that you really hope will win. Anonymity in that context is protection to do what you believe is right.
Petitions are not voting booths. Items on a ballot are carefully worded and presented in a standardized way, you take time to read it carefully and there is no partisan person present to "explain" what the words mean. On the other hand, if somebody comes up to you and says, "Will you sign a petition to keep men out of the ladies room" you might do it, believing whatever the person presenting the petition says, and in the end you will have contributed to discrimination against a weak minority. Should you be accountable? Should others be able to find out that you signed that petition? Or should you be able to contribute to discrimination anonymously?
See what you think about this judge's ruling up in Washington state:
Maybe one of the lawyers who reads this blog can explain in the comments section about "one's fundamental right to anonymous political speech." I've never heard of that. I figure part of a petition is that you can see the names and know who signed it.
The rightwing groups are always complaining about being persecuted. You read about abortion clinic bombers all the time, have you ever heard of anyone blowing up a Family Blah Blah office? I'll bet they get some angry phone calls, that's the way society works, you express an opinion, you try to make changes in a society, and you're going to hear about it. They aren't working in a vacuum and they have no right that I know of to take away people's rights without revealing their own identities.
When I was growing up, they called it "standing up for what you believe in."
I have the feeling this ruling will not stand. Somebody signs a petition as a public statement of their position on a topic, it is not a voting booth where privacy is expected but a statement in a public discussion. Some people want to conduct a political activity but not face its consequences, and I don't see that as something we necessarily want to encourage, a whole society of anonymous trolls.
Anonymous voting is a cornerstone of our way of governing ourselves. An individual can vote in private, without social influence, and without anyone ever knowing how they voted. In that carefully contrived private situation, there is no motive, no incentive for the individual to say something outrageous or extreme, there is no one to shock, you go in and vote for the people and issues that you really hope will win. Anonymity in that context is protection to do what you believe is right.
Petitions are not voting booths. Items on a ballot are carefully worded and presented in a standardized way, you take time to read it carefully and there is no partisan person present to "explain" what the words mean. On the other hand, if somebody comes up to you and says, "Will you sign a petition to keep men out of the ladies room" you might do it, believing whatever the person presenting the petition says, and in the end you will have contributed to discrimination against a weak minority. Should you be accountable? Should others be able to find out that you signed that petition? Or should you be able to contribute to discrimination anonymously?
See what you think about this judge's ruling up in Washington state:
OLYMPIA, Wash. — A federal judge on Thursday ordered the state of Washington to keep shielding the identities of people who signed petitions to force a vote on expanded benefits for gay couples.
U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle in Tacoma granted the preliminary injunction involving petitions for Referendum 71 while a related case moves forward on the constitutionality of the state public records act.
The referendum, sponsored by a group called Protect Marriage Washington, asks voters to approve or reject the "everything but marriage" domestic partnership law that state lawmakers passed earlier this year.
In his ruling, Settle said he was "not persuaded that waiver of one's fundamental right to anonymous political speech is a prerequisite for participation in Washington's referendum process." Judge shields signatures in gay rights referendum
Maybe one of the lawyers who reads this blog can explain in the comments section about "one's fundamental right to anonymous political speech." I've never heard of that. I figure part of a petition is that you can see the names and know who signed it.
Referendum campaign organizer Larry Stickney said he's already been subjected to threats and harassment for his involvement in the effort. The campaign also said it has heard from supporters who didn't want to sign the petition for fear of reprisals.
However, Assistant Attorney General Jim Pharris told the judge that Protect Marriage hasn't shown significant harm beyond rude comments or phone calls - nothing that would "be appropriate to overturning the state's strong tradition for open government."
The rightwing groups are always complaining about being persecuted. You read about abortion clinic bombers all the time, have you ever heard of anyone blowing up a Family Blah Blah office? I'll bet they get some angry phone calls, that's the way society works, you express an opinion, you try to make changes in a society, and you're going to hear about it. They aren't working in a vacuum and they have no right that I know of to take away people's rights without revealing their own identities.
When I was growing up, they called it "standing up for what you believe in."
I have the feeling this ruling will not stand. Somebody signs a petition as a public statement of their position on a topic, it is not a voting booth where privacy is expected but a statement in a public discussion. Some people want to conduct a political activity but not face its consequences, and I don't see that as something we necessarily want to encourage, a whole society of anonymous trolls.
posted by JimK at 9:18 AM
45 Comments:
Our own experience in Montgomery County has shown why it is important to make such petitions public, so that we can determine whether the signatures are valid. Simply relying on a government bureaucracy to make that determination with no oversight is a recipe for problems.
By Judge Settle's logic, campaign finance laws which require the identification of who makes campaign contributions would be unconstitutional. This public disclosure is a means for lessening corruption. As Judge Brandeis said, "Sunlight is the best disinfectant."
As we have seen throughout our history, if you don't have the right to anonymous speech, you don't have the right to free speech. There are times, perhaps most times, when it's better to take a public stand. Still, to be free to take unpopular stands or for other reasons, the option of anonymity needs to be preserved. It should be up to the individual to decide when it's more appropriate.
Anonymous voting is also meaningless without the right to anonymous speech. If a certain can control what's said, voters won't be able to consider all viewpoints.
"Simply relying on a government bureaucracy to make that determination with no oversight is a recipe for problems."
There can be oversight without public disclosure. We do it for voting. Petitioning should be seen as part of the voting process.
The original government ruling on the trangender petition was correct, btw. It was thrown out on techicalities and the citizens of MC were robbed of their vote by lunatic fringe gay advocates.
The same is happening in D.C. where the citizens who have long yearned for the full voting rights of American citizens are being denied a right to vote by councilmembers who beholden to gay groups for financial support.
It's a gay scandal.
"By Judge Settle's logic, campaign finance laws which require the identification of who makes campaign contributions would be unconstitutional."
You're right, David. Campaign finance laws will be history before Roberts steps down.
They're unconstitutional.
If people sign a petition to put a measure on the ballot, how can they legitimately expect to be anonymous?
Our right to free speech is fundamentally a write to public speech. All people have the opportunity to secret speech, simply by dropping an anonymous note in a mailbox. That is not the freedom we enjoy. If the government feels we our right to free speech is the right to anonymous free speech, I fear that it will limit public free speech.
It's worth noting that gay and lesbian members of the uniformed services do not have an unrestricted right to public free speech.
The haters in Washington are cowardly whiners, as are anonymous bloggers. If a civilian in our country doesn't stand by what they say, don't say it.
I have no sympathy. Freedom requires courage to survive.
here's someone who was standing up to protect the life of the innocent
my God, they killed him:
"OWOSSO, Mich. (Sept. 11) -- A 33-year-old man fatally shot an anti-abortion activist Friday outside a high school as horrified parents and students watched, authorities said."
Here is the latest report on the murder. The alleged gunman apparently killed someone else, and was planning to kill a third.
http://www.detnews.com/article/20090911/METRO/909110400/1409/METRO
We do not yet know if the murderer was ideologically motivated. Whether it was so motivated or not, it was an outrage.
But let's remember: There are no websites targeting anti-abortion activist for assassination.
Why was an anti-abortion activist standing outside a local high school? Do they provide abortions in there?
OK David.
So how to do you feel about TTF members behavior, where they threatened and intimated petition signers saying "your name is going to be on the internet for everyone to see"....
Fair game ?
Or how about charging into Giant and telling the manager "hey, the county council is not going to be happy with you for running this petition drive...". Wow does that smack of Nazi behavior... but was it the right wing that did that... No, it was good old TTF liberal folks who are supposed to be in favor of folks right to free speech.
And by the way, since we talking about signatures, fully 1/2 the signatures were thrown out because people didn't sign their middle name or initial. It was absolutely a technicality. The petition up in Howard County which also had 1/2 their signatures discarded proves it.
And on the inactive voter list for MC, there are 8 108 years old, 7 of which had been dead since the mid 1990's. So fair to include the inactive voters ? You can definitely argue that there are tons of dead voters on the inactive voter roles and the active roles for that matter.
Fair to change the number of signatures required AFTER THE FACT ? Completely unreal.
And I personally called every single one of the 80 people you challenged us for fraud on, got a hold of about 1/2 of them, and found out that they all did sign.
You challenged me for fraud as well. Why ? because I let the 40 something daughter fill out the address and bdate information for the 91 year old mom on a walker ... but I made the 91 year old sign for herself - as she balanced on her walker. The petition form says the name can be typed for pete's sake, so clearly what I did was not fraud.
the referendum being kicked off the ballot at the eleventh hour was an OUTRAGEOUS miscarriage of justice and every single judge on the MD court of appeals should be ashamed of themselves.
Theresa
Oh yes Robert.
You have a right to free speech identified.
So let's identify what you did, shall we ?
Walked up to a petition gatherer and yelled "BURN BABY BURN" at the top of your lungs in her face and verbally accosted her.
She was by herself at the time and a little disturbed and frightened by your behavior.
So yes, YOU DO NEED COURAGE to take on the left. LOTS AND LOTS OF IT.
THeresa
is that true, Robert?
Apparently now in America it is considered incivil to call the President a liar, regardless of what he says.
But, can we consider the things he said in his speech the other night that might not be, well, true?
He started by saying Medicare is threatening to explode our deficit.
Well, that's true.
Then, he says the way to fix it is to create a similar entitlement for everyone under 65.
Huh?
In the words of Groucho Marx, "this soup is terrible and the portions are too small".
I knew Barry was a Marxist all along.
Ah, but he says he'll pay for it with cuts to Medicare.
What kind?
Hundreds of billions will be cut from Medicare Advantage, the program that provides for elderly people the kind of benefits that Barry says he wants to provide to everyone.
So, by cutting the program that provides universal health care to the elderly, he'll be able to save enough to give that care to everyone.
C'mon, Barry.
You're testing us, right?
You want to see just how stupid we are, right?
You're not lying, you're just joking, right?
Theresa...you are incredibly and horrifyingly obsessed with your failed petition efforts. You have no one to blame for your failure to check the language of the laws and procedures that guide petition processes but yourself. ("And by the way, since we talking about signatures, fully 1/2 the signatures were thrown out because people didn't sign their middle name or initial. It was absolutely a technicality.")
It is the "technicalities" that you constantly bemoan that are placed in the laws and procedures to prevent fraudulent petitions, such as CRG's efforts, from being foisted upon an unsuspecting public.
Your belittlement of and scurilous attack on the judges who serve on the Court of Appeals ("the referendum being kicked off the ballot at the eleventh hour was an OUTRAGEOUS miscarriage of justice and every single judge on the MD court of appeals should be ashamed of themselves.")is, itself, OUTRAGEOUS and beneath contempt...and simply reinforces the feeling that you and your cohorts are a bunch of noisy, ignorant crybabies and losers, much like the loonies who shout down people whom them do not like at Town Meetings and on the floor of the House of Representatives. (Am I not correct in remembering that it was a member or supporter of your group who shouted "Heil Hitler" at members of our County Council?)
The "forget the rules of civility and plain human decency...anything goes when I want what I want and to hell with decent standards of behavior" attitude, in a society that depends on those standards, is wearing thin and there will inevitably be a backlash against this kind of rudeness and boorish behavior.
Your lament also shows your complete lack of appreciation and knowledge of the legal system in this country and how it works. The founders of this country created a justice system embodied in the Constitution that is not subject to the whims and desires of an uneducated citizenry. Perhaps a degree in Law would change your opinion about the "shame" you sling at the Judges who ruled in your weak case.
You lost in a court of law...get over it and move on!
Citizen
Anonymous
Theresa is mistaken. I believe I did not even set foot in MoCo during the time of the petition effort.
In my comment here, I wasn't really talking about petitions. I was expressing my cynical concern that if governments think I have a right to secret free speech, they may begin to think I have a right only to secret free speech. I value the privilege we have as Americans to express our thoughts publicly under our own names. Most governments and societies in recorded history have not accorded their members that privilege.
In my opinion, it is the fundamental notion that keeps America free.
The Marxist pun was funny, BTW. Good for you.
rrjr
He started by saying Medicare is threatening to explode our deficit.
No he didn't. It's easy enough to find and read the full text of the President's speech on the Internet and get something right for a change.
What President Obama actually said was:
...there's the problem of rising costs. We spend one-and-a-half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren't any healthier for it. This is one of the reasons that insurance premiums have gone up three times faster than wages. It's why so many employers – especially small businesses – are forcing their employees to pay more for insurance, or are dropping their coverage entirely. It's why so many aspiring entrepreneurs cannot afford to open a business in the first place, and why American businesses that compete internationally – like our automakers – are at a huge disadvantage. And it's why those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it – about $1000 per year that pays for somebody else's emergency room and charitable care.
Finally, our health care system is placing an unsustainable burden on taxpayers. When health care costs grow at the rate they have, it puts greater pressure on programs like Medicare and Medicaid. If we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other government program combined. Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close.
He did not say "Medicare is threatening to explode our deficit." He said "our health care problem IS our deficit problem" and he's absolutely right about that. The costs of health care, from insurance premiums to prescription drugs to surgery, are all rising faster than any other industry.
Hundreds of billions will be cut from Medicare Advantage, the program that provides for elderly people the kind of benefits that Barry says he wants to provide to everyone.
Here's what President Obama said about that:
...most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system – a system that is currently full of waste and abuse. Right now, too much of the hard-earned savings and tax dollars we spend on health care doesn't make us healthier. That's not my judgment – it's the judgment of medical professionals across this country. And this is also true when it comes to Medicare and Medicaid.
In fact, I want to speak directly to America's seniors for a moment, because Medicare is another issue that's been subjected to demagoguery and distortion during the course of this debate.
More than four decades ago, this nation stood up for the principle that after a lifetime of hard work, our seniors should not be left to struggle with a pile of medical bills in their later years. That is how Medicare was born. And it remains a sacred trust that must be passed down from one generation to the next. That is why not a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for this plan.
The only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud, as well as unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies – subsidies that do everything to pad their profits and nothing to improve your care.
The cuts to Medicare Advantage will not be made to benefits; the cuts to Medicare Advantage will be made to "unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies". The cuts in Medicare Advantage will be those that go to private insurance companies, companies who currently are allowed to bill for the benefit services they provide AND administrative fees on top of that. With the obscene profits paid to their own CEO's, these private insurance companies can afford to pay for their own adminstrative fees. If private insurance companies can pass increased costs onto their policy holders, they should have to pass their sinful profits onto their policy holders too!
You want to see just how stupid we are, right?
Well if he did, look who proved President Obama right. Read the actual text next time, not the FOX News spin.
"...in 2003, Wilson voted to provide federal funds for illegal immigrants’ healthcare. The vote came on the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, which contained Sec. 1011 authorizing $250,000 annually between 2003 and 2008 for government reimbursements to hospitals who provide treatment for uninsured illegal immigrants. The program has been extended through 2009 and there is currently a bipartisan bill in Congress to make it permanent.
Hospitals have a legal obligation to treat everyone who comes in seeking care, regardless of citizenship status, insurance or other characteristics. This means that hospitals treat millions of people every year who don’t have the means to pay. Obviously, this drives up the nation’s healthcare costs overall. Section 1011 helps cushion the costs for hospitals, but it’s not nearly enough to cover the actual costs in most areas."
"..Medicare.. remains a sacred trust that must be passed down from one generation to the next. That is why not a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for this plan. The only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud, as well as unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies - subsidies that do everything to pad their profits and nothing to improve your care. And we will also create an independent commission of doctors and medical experts charged with identifying more waste in the years ahead." that's what obama said, correct ?
So the key question here is, who defines waste ? Is waste giving advanced treatment to the elderly ? Apparently, because
as early as next year, 1.2 billion will be cut from Medicare for cardiac and cancer care. The House bill cuts 500 billion from Medicare by drastically cutting the reimbursement rates to doctors and hospitals. The bill eliminates some Medicare "add-on" insurance programs (such as Medicare Advantage, with it's 22 million members). What happens when you stop reimbursing the doctors for their services ? They stop accepting patients.
Also troubling is that Obama said that Medicare remains a sacred trust to be passed from one generation to the next. But the bill specifically gives the government the power to raid the Medicare Trust fund for another trust fund (Sec. 1442, Pg. 622, Lines 2-9) as well as the power to disallow Medicare Advantage plans (Sec. 1162, Pg. 341, Lines 3-9). The bill also establishes the Comparative Effectiveness Trust Fund (Sec. 1411, Pg. 524, Lines 18-22). Translation : they are raiding Medicare to pay for rationing research. And its worse, read Sec. 1233, Pg. 430, Lines 11-15 - The government will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life, according to preset methods (not individually decided).
President Obama said this about his grandmother's hip replacement
"I don't know how much that hip replacement cost. I would have paid out of pocket for that hip replacement just because she's my grandmother. Whether, sort of in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else's aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they're terminally ill is a sustainable model, is a very difficult question."
However, for those you who don't know, Obama's grandmother lived in Hawaii and worked her entire life, presumably contributing to Medicare (as a bank vice-president). She already paid for that hip replacement. The current system left the decision up to her and her doctor. That's the way it should be.
But that is not the way it will be. Only of the the three House bills has an amendment to specifically prohibit the comparative effectiveness data setup in the bill to be used for rationing. Even if rationing now spelled out in the bill (Sec. 122, Pg. 29, Lines 4-16) is specifically prohibited under an amendment in the final bill, the drastic cuts to Medicare virtually ensure that our seniors may face the Draconian policies we have already seen in Oregon. Oregon already has state health care. Oregon, while denying life-saving cancer medications for one of their seniors, told her they would pay for her euthanasia poison pills.
I can't believe you are still supporting a bill that will hurt you so badly Bea. I had the impression you were close to retirement age. was this incorrect ?
gives the government the power to raid the Medicare Trust fund for another trust fund (Sec. 1442, Pg. 622, Lines 2-9)
Bull-oney! I do not believe you checked the source, HR 3200, when you came up with these BS claims. Where do these lines say that?
‘‘2 (a) AGREEMENTS WITH QUALIFIED ENTITIES.—
3 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall enter
4 into agreements with qualified entities to develop
5 quality measures for the delivery of health care serv-
6 ices in the United States.
7 ‘‘(2) FORM OF AGREEMENTS.—The Secretary
8 may carry out paragraph (1) by contract, grant, or
9 otherwise.
Well, surprise surprise! They don't say what Anon said they say!
as well as the power to disallow Medicare Advantage plans (Sec. 1162, Pg. 341, Lines 3-9).
Ob brother, Anon. Those lines say:
‘‘3 (iv) AUTHORITY TO DISQUALIFY
4 CERTAIN PLANS.—In applying clauses (ii)
5 and (iii), the Secretary may determine not
6 to identify a Medicare Advantage plan if
7 the Secretary has identified deficiencies in
8 the plan’s compliance with rules for such
9 plans under this part.
Medicare Advantage plans may be identified if the plan has **no** "deficiencies in the plan's compliance with rules for such plans under this part" but if there **are** deficiencies in the plan, then the Secretary may "determine *not* to identify" it as a Medicare Advantage plan. Do you want the Secretary to **not** identify plans that do **not** comply with the rules and just let anything go onto tax payers' bill? I'd prefer that the Secretary determine each plan follows the rules before I have to fund it with my tax dollars.
The bill also establishes the Comparative Effectiveness Trust Fund (Sec. 1411, Pg. 524, Lines 18-22).
Do you ever check a single thing or are you content to merely moo like the rest in your herd? I mean holy cow, Anon! Lines 14-22 (starting on line 18 starts in the middle and doesn't make sense) on Page 524 say:
14 Subtitle B—Nursing Home
15 Transparency
16 PART 1—IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY OF INFOR-
17 MATION ON SKILLED NURSING FACILITIES
18 AND NURSING FACILITIES
19 SEC. 1411. REQUIRED DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP AND
20 ADDITIONAL DISCLOSABLE PARTIES INFOR-
21 MATION.
22 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1124 of the Social Secu-
23 rity Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a–3) is amended by adding at
24 the end the following new subsection:
Sorry but there's nothing about comparative anything in those lines. I think transparency about skilled nursing homes is a good thing. I sure wouldn't want to put my mother into such a place without knowing everything I could about it first.
Translation : they are raiding Medicare to pay for rationing research.
Translation from what language? You are not fooling anyone with your lies.
And its worse, read Sec. 1233, Pg. 430, Lines 11-15 - The government will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life, according to preset methods (not individually decided).
That is total BS Anon. Here they are, lines 11-15 on Page 430:
11 or pulmonary problems;
12 ‘‘(ii) the individual’s desire regarding transfer
13 to a hospital or remaining at the current care set-
14 ting;
15 ‘‘(iii) the use of antibiotics; and
But they don't make much sense without the rest of the lines in that subsection. When I include the lines above and below what you cited, the meaning is clear and completely opposite of what you claim. Here's the entire subsection:
1 ‘‘(iv) may incorporate any advance directive (as 1
2 defined in section 1866(f)(3)) if executed by the in-
3 dividual.
4 ‘‘(B) The level of treatment indicated under subpara-
5 graph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treat-
6 ment to an indication to limit some or all or specified
7 interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may in-
8 clude indications respecting, among other items—
9 ‘‘(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the
10 patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac
11 or pulmonary problems;
12 ‘‘(ii) the individual’s desire regarding transfer
13 to a hospital or remaining at the current care set-
14 ting;
15 ‘‘(iii) the use of antibiotics; and
16 ‘‘(iv) the use of artificially administered nutri-
17 tion and hydration.’’.
When an individual, not the government, makes an advance directive ranging "from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions," these "directives" are to followed and if the patient wants to discuss their options and consult with their doctors about them, the plan will pay the doctor's bill for such consultations requested by patients every 5 years.
I can't believe you are still supporting a bill that will hurt you so badly Bea. I had the impression you were close to retirement age. was this incorrect ?
I've got nearly a decade before I'm eligible for Medicare, however, Uncle Beau is on it now and both of us are fairly healty. His monthly insurance premium rate dropped more than 50% since going on Medicare and a Medicare supplemental plan. All his doctors accept it with no problem at all and our out of pocket expenses have dropped. Far from being hurt by Medicare, we have been helped. I can't wait until I get old enough to sign up too and lower my monthly costs as well. In fact I hope I can get on Medicare before age 65 and start saving sooner.
The one and only reason that Medicare works is because there's a private sector that keeps the health industry as competitive and vibrant as is possible, given all of the regulations. Medicare benefits from the private sector tremendously. Take the private sector away and you'd have a huge mess.
I worked in a hospital and know, first hand, that Medicare pays hospital LESS than the cost of care. Not the PRICE -- the actual COST of care. Thus, the private sector currently subsidizes the government in a HIDDEN tax!
"...rationing now spelled out in the bill (Sec. 122, Pg. 29, Lines 4-16)..."
Here's the text of those lines on Page 29:
4 (A) ANNUAL LIMITATION.—The cost-shar-
5 ing incurred under the essential benefits pack-
6 age with respect to an individual (or family) for
7 a year does not exceed the applicable level spec-
8 ified in subparagraph (B).
9 (B) APPLICABLE LEVEL.—The applicable
10 level specified in this subparagraph for Y1 is
11 $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a
12 family. Such levels shall be increased (rounded
13 to the nearest $100) for each subsequent year
14 by the annual percentage increase in the Con-
15 sumer Price Index (United States city average)
16 applicable to such year.
Does anyone see anything about "rationing" and "comparative effectiveness data" in these lines? Anon, if you expect to win any arguments here, you need to do better research. This section defines the “cost-sharing incurred under the essential benefits package” and discusses limits on what Americans will have to spend on health care under this minimum standard. In no way does this section stipulate the rationing of care.
This section talks about "cost-sharing" and I don't think you know what cost-sharing means. Cost sharing refers to how much the individual pays out of pocket, such as a copay for prescriptions. When you foot the Rx copay, you are sharing the cost of the pills. This section states the most someone will have to "cost-share" is $5000 for an individual and $10,000, essentially an out of pocket maximum.
Pulling repeated Betsy McCaughey stunts by reading text and then deliberately misinterpreting it to say something it does not say, is not helping your side's push to do nothing about health care but to keep the status quo in place.
This country voted for change and part of the change we want is improved and universal health care. I stand with the late Teddy Kennedy on this issue: Yes we can, and, finally, yes we will!
The one and only reason that Medicare works is because there's a private sector that keeps the health industry as competitive and vibrant as is possible
That is total BS. In 1965, LBJ got Congress to approve and he signed Medicare into law because the private sector, in an effort to remain competitive, did not take adequate care of our senior citizens. Before Medicare was approved, when there was only private insurance available, as President Obama reminded us in his speech to Congress, we were appalled at the plight of our senior citizens and together, "...this nation stood up for the principle that after a lifetime of hard work, our seniors should not be left to struggle with a pile of medical bills in their later years. That is how Medicare was born."
It's because private health insurance too often left our senior citizens with little or no coverage while medical bills mounted as aging took its toll on them, that we as a nation decided Medicare was necessary. And now we have thousands of senior citizens like Uncle Beau and me, standing up every day demanding that Medicare be continued and that private insurers be held accountable for denials and terminations of seniors' coverage.
Bea,
All of the people who are against a total government run healthcare system are NOT against Medicare. They agree that it's working, IN CONJUNCTION WITH the private sector.
Just because Medicare works (albeit with problems) alongside the private sector (albeit with problems) does NOT mean that the private sector should be banished.
I think you're getting yourself all confused, thinking that people who are against a government monopoly of healthcare are also against Medicare.
Anon,
HR 3200 does not set up "a total government run healthcare system."
Each lie you have posted about HR 3200 has been easily refuted and you have nothing to say to rebut my refutation of each of them.
Now you've just spun a new lie and this time you didn't even bother with the charade of posting page and line numbers for it from within HR 3200 because you know, once again, I will prove you are lying by going right to HR 3200 itself.
You are flat out spinning another lie without even attempting to document it at and without any sense of shame.
Thank you for doing that right here for all Vigilance readers to see.
We all know that spin and lies are all you've got.
I don't which Anon is arguing with Anon-B but it's not the usual one.
I'm not going to read through the whole thing, which is, honestly, TMI for a blog.
It will suffice to paraphrase Disraeli, a British Prime Minister from the nineteenth century:
"There are lies, there are damned lies and then there are literalist intepretations of legislation that don't admit its implications."
[It will suffice to paraphrase Disraeli, a British Prime Minister from the nineteenth century:
"There are lies, there are damned lies and then there are literalist intepretations of legislation that don't admit its implications."]
Let the record note that Disraeli never said that.
Bea,
It is true that the bills currently before Congress do not explicitly state that everyone must use government-run healthcare.
However, the proposed laws will encourage employers to drop their current healthcare plans and go with the cheaper government option. As more and more employers do that, then more and more private insurers will be forced out of business.
It's a matter of simple, basic, elementary economics . Elementary, my Dr. Watson, elementary...
"Let the record note that Disraeli never said that."
Let the medical records read: "passerby doesn't knoe the meaning of 'paraphrase'"
Let the record note that Disraeli never said anything like that.
actually, he did say something quite like that
someone must have ripped a page out of your copy of Complete Listing of Everything Disraeli Ever Said
Prove it
"I can't wait until I get old enough to sign up too and lower my monthly costs as well. In fact I hope I can get on Medicare before age 65 and start saving sooner."
I am not arguing that Medicare isn't good. It is good. My mom is on it. That is why it is upsetting that Medicare is being cut so bady under this plan... again. 1.2 billion in 2010 from cardiac and cancer care. My mom had open heart surgery at 78. she is now 83.
Doubtful if they will cover this in the future.
The main point you seem to be missing is that government WILL make the rules about what insurance companies can cover and also what they WILL NOT COVER.
The rules will be determined AFTER THE BILL IS PASSED.
The rules will use the effectiveness research in the bill and in the stimulus bill. The guy on the Federal Healh Commission (Ezekial Emmanual) has written articles saying that health care should given with most preference to those between 15 and 40 AND that the hippocratic oath is wrong, that doctors should work for the good of society, not the good of the patient. The board he is on will determine the rules for what gets covered and what does not get covered. Why do you assume the govt is going to make rules that will help the elderly ? All signs (including obama's own words about end of life care) point to the fact that THEY WON't. close to 70% of seniors are now against this plan. What you are you going to do if your husband needs heart surgery (both my parents needed it) and you can't find a doctor to provide it because of the massive cuts to Medicare under this plan ?
All attempts to prohibit the Comparitive effectiveness research from being use to deny care have been voted down (by Democrats)
Anti-Rationing Amendments Fail in House and Senate
House Energy and Commerce Committee Votes July 20, 2009:
Rep. Phil Gingrey Amendment #14A: Dr. Gingrey’s amendment ensured that healthcare providers
made healthcare decisions without government intrusion. Failed 24-33.
Rep. Michael Rogers (MI) offered Amendment #1: This amendment prevented the use of
comparative effectiveness research from being used to decide whether to offer or withhold coverage or
to reduce reimbursements for healthcare providers for offering treatments. Failed 23-35.
Senate HELP Committee Markup June 17th-July 15th:
Senator Enzi Amendment #271: This amendment prohibited the government run plan from providing
treatments to patients to preserve, restore or prevent their death. Failed 13-10.
Senator Enzi Amendment #273: This amendment prohibited the Secretary of HHS from limiting
doctor’s ability to choose treatments for patients to prevent death, or restore or preserve their health.
Failed 13-10.
Senator Enzi Amendment #7: This prevented the Healthcare Center from developing healthcare
rationing methods. Failed 13-10.
WAKE UP BEA !
when you're on medication, you can't wake up
Theresa I am awake. My eyes are wide open and unmedicated, but they are not filled with blinding fear like yours.
1.2 billion in 2010 from cardiac and cancer care
Repeating bogus claims don't make them any less bogus. You've made this claim before and have never managed to point to the page and line numbers in HR 3200 that include these supposed cuts. Instead of based in reality, you seem to be completely caught up in a frenzy of fear, believing and even spreading health industry BS.
What I know happens right now is that 14,000 people every single day lose their private health insurance coverage. There are literally thousands of cases of private health insurers refusing to cover the treatments individual American's doctors tell insured people they need. And all the while these private insurance company's CEOs make huge, seemingly recession-proof salaries and bonuses.
The guy on the Federal Healh Commission (Ezekial Emmanual [sic]) has written articles saying that health care should given with most preference to those between 15 and 40 AND that the hippocratic oath is wrong, that doctors should work for the good of society, not the good of the patient.
There you go again, Theresa. Now you are repeating the fabrications and twisting of Dr. Emanual's record by Betsy McCaughey, the creator of the death panel myth who resigned from Cantel Medical Corp. the day she humiliated herself on The Daily Show.
McCaughey took a paper that Dr. Emanual wrote about how care might be rationed when "resources (organs, vaccines and so forth) are scarce", and publicized it as if this was his general view of medical care. It was not his view of normal health care; it was a discussion of how health care needs might be met under a special set of dire circumstances. Remember, until the day she resigned, she worked for Cantel Medical Corp. She is not what anyone can call a disinterested party and has a long history of creating lies to defeat health care reform.
Again, it was Betsy McCaughey who has been repeatedly publicizing another twisting of Dr. Emanual's words about the Hippocratic Oath on FOX News (of course!), Time Magazine, and in some papers she wrote. Read about it here.
And here you are, Theresa, being an echo chamber of McCaughey's well documented lies.
You'd think the Heritage Foundation would have noticed the different vote totals of the various amendments and noted that different committees and subcommittees did the voting, but apparently such distinctions escape their notice when they're trying to paint a picture with broad, unclear strokes.
Sorry Theresa, but I will not join you and Betsy McCaughey and the Heritage Foundation in doing the bidding of American private insurance companies and their death panels who leave American citizens with illnesses they refuse to cover day after day.
It's time to hold insurers accountable and work to make sure there are no more uninsured Americans and no more insured Americans who go bankrupt paying for insurer-denied but doctor-deemed-necessary medical treatments ever again.
Bea,
I have a very close friend who has been intricately involved in health policy for 30 years. He thinks that a government-run program could be a good thing. He'd be for it.
He also feels that straightening out the private sector could also be a good thing. He'd be for it.
The point being...whichever option you choose needs to be done thoughtfully and with careful consideration.
The democrats, led by Obama, have not been doing healthcare reform thoughtfully and with care. The American people have caught on to this and are rebelling.
It's as simple as that.
"What I know happens right now is that 14,000 people every single day lose their private health insurance coverage. There are literally thousands of cases of private health insurers refusing to cover the treatments individual American's doctors tell insured people they need."
This is not an argument for governmental intervention, it's an argument that we need to disentangle it.
The A number one problem is that insurance companies don't try to meet the needs of those who use their services because those users don't control the selection of their insurer.
Most Americans have no choice about which insurance company to use because they get insurance through their employer.
They get it throught their employer because the idiotic governement has made health insurance tax-free under that arrangement but not if you purchase insurance directly.
So, insurance goes up. The employer doesn't care much because they've already capped the amount they will pay. The increase gets passed to the employee who has little choice. There is no market pressure on insurance companies to change anything.
This is why insurance is so expensive and the insurance companies get away with certain policies.
In short, the market has been warped by governmental intervention.
"And all the while these private insurance company's CEOs make huge, seemingly recession-proof salaries and bonuses."
Their CEO's don't make any more than other CEO's.
Drop the class warfare before everyone starts to think you're a Communist .
Yes, the class warfare is getting tiresome.
YAWN.
Yes, the class warfare is getting tiresome.
YAWN.
Oh brother.
Go tell that to Senator Coburn's crying constituent, who was told by her private health insurance company to take her traumatically brain injured husband and his feeding tube home from the nursing home, and to feed him, hydrate him, and give him speech therapy herself.
And then go tell it to these people too.
There's a simple solution if you don't like the comments on this blog: Don't keep coming back to read them.
your resentment of the successful is indeed tiresome
government intervention has lead to the fact that the health insurance industry can't meet more needs
if you don't pay CEOs what they're worth they'll go elswhere and the health insurance companies will be even worse off
nationalizing the healthcare industry won't help and will bankrupt our nation
we've already discussed how sanity can be restored
what we don't need is for our healthcare industry to become like public schools
trickle-up poverty doesn't help anyone
during the Reagan era, until Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, our country prospered and unemployment was near nothing
now, as the Democrats seek to destroy our economy, unemployment hovers around 10% and most economists believe it will remain that way even when the recession ends
that's the way it's always been in the socialist economies of Western Europe
“if you don't pay CEOs what they're worth they'll go elswhere (sic) and the health insurance companies will be even worse off”
Indeed, the CEO of Fedex (Fred Smith) only made $7.7 million last year, down 26 percent from the previous year. ( http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/economy/ap/53522217.html )
If only Fred didn’t have to deal with the socialist behemoth that is the US Postal Service, he would have been able to have an income more on the level of my insurance company’s CEO. In 2005 alone Stephen Hemsley was granted $39 million in stock options. In 2008 his compensation dropped to a paltry $3.24 million. It’s a good thing he still has $662,546,318 in currently exercisable options to help him through these difficult times. ( http://people.forbes.com/profile/stephen-j-hemsley/82872 )
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
your resentment of the successful is indeed tiresome
Are you saying you think CEO's of private health insurance firms who have their own in-house death panels deny coverage for needed treatments for illnesses and deny policies to those with pre-existing conditions, sometimes bankrupting families in the process, to protect their salaries and bonuses are "successful?"
I doubt you'll find many who agree with you on that one.
There are many better measures of success than how many dollars you can grab for yourself.
they way capitalism works, anon-B, is this:
they try to make money
we give our money to whomever best fulfills our needs
end result: whoever best fulfills our needs makes the most money
it works great unless the government intervenes, as it has with the health care industry
deepening that intervention is not the answer
Ronald Reagan:
"government is not the solution to our problems
government is the problem"
Defensive lineman Albert Haynesworth is getting 100 million to play half the game and spending the other half catching his breath on the sidelines.
Is he worth more than a CEO?
Sorry I am arriving a tad late for this entry...busy at work and home does not leave me with much time to chat.
FWIW, I agree with Jim...signatures on a petition must be in the public domain and open to scrutiny, as well as contributions made to any political cause or candidate. This is essential to a free and open society (or, at least one that would make such a claim).
I say such knowing full well the character of those leading the campaign of harassment and hate against those that have "gone on record" opposing the radical redefinition of a vital social institution for a very few (in relative terms).
Post a Comment
<< Home