• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Gag order on conservatives that supported healthcare reform

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Kirby

Lifer
Apr 10, 2006
12,032
2
0
Raising min. wage to $15. would have done 4x more good than this health care package . Real job creation in The USA would be mandatory for a congress that represents the people . Not bribing China with billions in stimulus moneys. I don't want to be part of NWO. I want America government to work for American people . Build America industry screw China. Let China take care of China .

There is only one law that can be made that can change everthing and bring accountability to all men great or small rich or poor sick healthy. Repell thelaw that allows corpurations. Make accountiability a reality. Instead of corpurate firewalls were a bank can borrow money to any enemy doing business in that country . Treason is treason NO exceptions. Terrorism has many faces. We declared war on violent terrorist. But who is doing more damage to all of us The violent terrorist. Or the corperate terrorist that do way more political and social damage To Americans hiding behind a corporate firewall.
The whistles go WHOOO WHOOOOO!!!!!
 

nonlnear

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,497
0
76
Raising min. wage to $15. would have done 4x more good than this health care package . Real job creation in The USA would be mandatory for a congress that represents the people . Not bribing China with billions in stimulus moneys. I don't want to be part of NWO. I want America government to work for American people . Build America industry screw China. Let China take care of China .

There is only one law that can be made that can change everthing and bring accountability to all men great or small rich or poor sick healthy. Repell thelaw that allows corpurations. Make accountiability a reality. Instead of corpurate firewalls were a bank can borrow money to any enemy doing business in that country . Treason is treason NO exceptions. Terrorism has many faces. We declared war on violent terrorist. But who is doing more damage to all of us The violent terrorist. Or the corperate terrorist that do way more political and social damage To Americans hiding behind a corporate firewall.
I was right!
nonlnear said:
It seems more like Nemesis 1 is somebody's failed attempt to write a bot that can pass the Turing test.
You're going to have to tweak the lexicon there, and update your semantic algorithm. Your first two sentences are directly contradictory. It's just not convincingly human - by a long shot. If this is an undergrad CS project you get a C. If it's a grad project, it's an F.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
181
106
Yawn, more left wing drivel. When it comes to stupidity and socialism, being the "party of no" sounds pretty darn good.
Accuse others of what you do much? Affirmative! Guess all the conservatives don't goose step as well as you do.
 

RedChief

Senior member
Dec 20, 2004
533
0
81
On David Frum’s Departure from AEI [Charles Murray]

With Mike Allen’s account of his exchange with David Frum, we apparently have David’s version of his departure from AEI: Donor pressure forced AEI president Arthur Brooks to fire him. “But the elite isn’t leading anymore,” David is quoted as saying. “It’s trapped. Partly because of the desperate economic situation in the country, what were once the leading institutions of conservatism are constrained. I think Arthur took no pleasure in this. I think he was embarrassed. I think he would have avoided it if he possibly could, but he couldn’t.”

I have known and liked David and Danielle Frum for many years, and what I am about to write will end that friendship. I regret that. But his statement goes beyond self-serving. It is a calumny against an organization that has treated him not just fairly but generously.

Regarding donor pressure: The idea that AEI donors sit down to talk with AEI’s president about who should and shouldn’t be on the staff, or what the staff should write, is fantasy. David has never seen the slightest sign of anything like that at AEI. He can’t have. He made it up. AEI has a culture, the scholars are fiercely proud of that culture, and at its heart is total intellectual freedom. As for the reality of that intellectual freedom, I think it’s fair to say I know what I’m talking about. I’ve pushed it to the limit. Arthur Brooks is just as adamant about preserving that culture as Chris DeMuth was, and Chris’s devotion to it was seamless.

I do not have any certain information to convey about David’s departure, except what Arthur Brooks has already said publicly: David resigned. He could have stayed. But I will tell what is common knowledge around AEI: David got a handsome salary but, for the last few years, has been invisible as a member of the institute. Being a scholar at a think tank (or any institution) is not just a matter of acknowledging your affiliation in your books and op-eds. It’s also a matter of blogging at the institute’s blog, not just your own blog (David had a grand total of 3 posts on AEI’s blog in the year since it began), reviewing colleagues’ drafts, reacting to their ideas, contributing chapters to their books, organizing scholarly events, participating on the institute’s panels, attending the institute’s conferences, helping out with fundraising, serving on in-house committees, giving in-house seminars, and mentoring junior staff. Different scholars are engaged in these activities to different degrees. Full disclosure: I’m on the left-hand side of that bell curve (I make the trek from Burkittsville so seldom that I don’t even have an office at AEI). But David was at the left-hand tail. If I had to guess — and that’s what I’m doing, guessing — David’s departure arose from something as simple as this: Management thinks that an employee is not as productive a member of the organization as management thinks he should be. The employee disagrees. They part company.

I think that’s what happened. I also think that for David to have leveled the charge that Arthur Brooks caved in to donor pressure, knowing that the charge would be picked up and spread beyond recall, knowing that such a charge strikes at the core of the Institute’s integrity, and making such a sensational charge without a shred of evidence, is despicable.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDk4NjA3NmU5NTI3ZDNhOGM4ODUzOWI2OTViNTg1NDM=

Sounds to me that Frum just wasn't doing the job he was hired to do...
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
Funny, but your thread mentions health care. While I have a problem with Republicans selecting out opposition because it's stupid and ultimately counterproductive, I note that ignorance is a common commodity to both parties.

Of course the good or ill that people suffer as a result of bad planning is secondary to blaming the ideology of the other side so please continue.
It isn't as if we haven't discussed the merits or lack thereof of this legislation in dozens of other threads. There are a super-adequate number of places on P&N to express opposition to the bill. However, it seems to me that the singular privilege of starting a thread is that you get to define the topic.

There is a broader point, or trend, that the OP's article underscores. Throughout the debate over this legislation, which has gone on for about a year now, we have heard numerous loud and strident liberal voices in opposition to this bill. These have come from all quarters, from Congressional democrats, to MSN, to Huffingtong Post, to Firedoglake. Even those in support of the bill have felt free to criticize specific aspects of it, and this continues through today. Yet when I look at the other side, I see what appears to be a totally homogenous position in maximal opposition, with essentially zero concession that even a part of the legislation may be positive, let alone the expected minority of conservatives who would overall support the legislation. Indeed, even conservatives who have supported similar ideas in the past seem to have suddenly and conveniently changed their minds.

This is curious, as recent opinion polling shows that amongst the public, republican opposition to the bill is no higher in proportion than democratic support of the bill. Both show numbers around 80/20, 20/80. Presumably, if 15-20% of republican have a favorable view of the bill, or even 10%, some of those republicans will be bloggers, pundits, congressmean, members of think tanks, etc. Meaning people who have media access which allows them to make their views publically known. Where are these dissenting republican views? Clearly they exist among the general public, but among the subset of conservatives with media access, such views appear to be non-existent.

It's all too easy to profer the obvious "both sides do it" whenever a point like this is made. Obviously both political blocs are quite large and some of everything imaginable happens on both sides. Still, it's clear to any observer that on the whole, one side has dialogued publically about the policy merits of this bill, while the other side has closed ranks to present an absolute lockstep position to the public.

Incidentally, the AEI describes itself as a "non-partisan" organization that is in favor of "open debate."

- wolf
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,035
5,121
126
I love how so called party of individual responsibility is lashing out at individual mandate. You know, individuals paying to insure against their own health care cost risks instead of waiting till they get sick, going to ER and socializing those costs. It absolutely does not surprise me that intellectual conservatives support it, but those are an endangered species in the anti-intellectual Republican party. American Enterprise Institute may as well rename itself American Teabagger Institute.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
I love how so called party of individual responsibility is lashing out at individual mandate. You know, individuals paying to insure against their own health care cost risks instead of waiting till they get sick, going to ER and socializing those costs. It absolutely does not surprise me that intellectual conservatives support it, but those are an endangered species in the anti-intellectual Republican party. American Enterprise Institute may as well rename itself American Teabagger Institute.
Geez, what's the deal with you "progressives"? It's almost like Obama really has carved out that brain of yours and left you with nothing inside...

Do you guys take marching orders? This _exact_ same argument was just made by another huge-ass "progressive" in another thread. Do you all read the same blog and regurgitate your "newly found information" into P&N?

You can't even get your terminology correct.

Socializing - To place under government or group ownership or control.

The government does not own the debt, nor do the people. The hospital owns the debt and they are responsible for collecting it. No one else is responsible for it.


Every private business has added expenses for situations like this. But it's like you "progressives" just figured out this concept and collectively thought it timely to use to attack political enemies. So let's celebrate your newly discovered knowledge - something that the rest of us have understood for a very long time.
 
Last edited:

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,035
5,121
126
Geez, what's the deal with you "progressives"? It's almost like Obama really has carved out that brain of yours and left you with nothing inside...

Do you guys take marching orders? This _exact_ same argument was just made by another huge-ass "progressive" in another thread. Do you all read the same blog and regurgitate your "newly found information" into P&N?

You can't even get your terminology correct.

Socializing - To place under government or group ownership or control.

The government does not own the debt, nor do the people. The hospital owns the debt and they are responsible for collecting it.


Every private business has added expenses for situations like this. But it's like you "progressives" just figured out this concept and thought it timely to use to attack political enemies. So let's celebrate your newly discovered knowledge - something that the rest of us have understood for a very long time.
And if hospital cannot collect debt, they will SOCIALIZE it, by building it into the cost that other members of society have to pay when using their services. So instead of INDIVIDUAL buying insurance to cover their own risk, without individual mandate, SOCIETY as a whole is paying for that insurance in our health care costs.
Republicans are fighting to socialize this cost and against individual responsibility. And they are purging intellectuals within their ranks who see through this farce.
 

nyker96

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2005
5,630
2
81
It's becoming more and more clear to me that there are two types of people in this country- reasonable people and Republicans.
I don't think Republicans are unreasonable. But I think the biggest problem with the party now is that they are making arguments on things based on fear tactics like death panels, birther movements etc. Although entertaining, don't really provide too much substance that could be used in solving real problems.

Another trend which I fear both parties now share is the moving away from the center. All the moderates are been asked to leave the party even McCain is challenged in primary. This leaves only extreme people in either party who cannot work out any compromises. I find it strange that people inside one party can agree on 100% like their uniform voting records from Rep/Dem sometimes I see on certain issues. That is just not helpful.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
And if hospital cannot collect debt, they will SOCIALIZE it, by building it into the cost that other members of society have to pay when using their services. So instead of INDIVIDUAL buying insurance to cover their own risk, without individual mandate, SOCIETY as a whole is paying for that insurance in our health care costs.
Republicans are fighting to socialize this cost and against individual responsibility. And they are purging intellectuals within their ranks who see through this farce.
It's apparently useless trying to reason with cubby1223; I tried in another thread, and he's become the energizer bunny of denial. He somehow cannot fathom the connection between - on the one hand - health care providers charging higher prices to cover the losses incurred by treating the uninsured and - on the other hand - the fact that those higher prices are paid both directly by the rest of us (for co-pays) and indirectly by the rest of us in the form of higher insurance premiums.
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1601/groupthink-right-would-make-stalin-proud?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+CapitalGainsAndGames+(Capital+Gains+and+Games+-+Wall+Street,+Washi

"

As some readers of this blog may know, I was fired by a right wing think tank called the National Center for Policy Analysis in 2005 for writing a book critical of George W. Bush's policies, especially his support for Medicare Part D. In the years since, I have lost a great many friends and been shunned by conservative society in Washington, DC.

Now the same thing has happened to David Frum, who has been fired by the American Enterprise Institute. I don't know all the details, but I presume that his Waterloo post on Sunday condemning Republicans for failing to work with Democrats on healthcare reform was the final straw.

Since, he is no longer affiliated with AEI, I feel free to say publicly something he told me in private a few months ago. He asked if I had noticed any comments by AEI "scholars" on the subject of health care reform. I said no and he said that was because they had been ordered not to speak to the media because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.

It saddened me to hear this. I have always hoped that my experience was unique. But now I see that I was just the first to suffer from a closing of the conservative mind. Rigid conformity is being enforced, no dissent is allowed, and the conservative brain will slowly shrivel into dementia if it hasn't already.

Sadly, there is no place for David and me to go. The donor community is only interested in financing organizations that parrot the party line, such as the one recently established by McCain economic adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin.

I will have more to say on this topic later. But I wanted to say that this is a black day for what passes for a conservative movement, scholarship, and the once-respected AEI.
"

This isn't a surprise. Especially considering the mandate was a republican idea. The Republican party is only a party of no now. Party over country all the way. Doesn't matter if it is health bills, education bills, job bills, or even military hearings!
When you are old and have gained the wisdom from living your life, I guarantee that you will understand the importance of party. Really doesn't matter which side you stand with.

But, what is important now is to cash in on what you do know, right?
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,670
1,889
126
Kindly show me anything even resembling reason coming out of the Republican party today or STFU.
The reason that the health care debate has reached such an emotional pinnacle is because neither party is willing to behave reasonably. The Democrats are willing to pass anything under the banner of health care simply to score a political victory, and the Republicans are doing everything in their power to prevent the Democrats from doing so...rinse, wash, repeat.
 

Lanyap

Elite Member
Dec 23, 2000
7,317
1,081
126
I suppose if left wing think tanks exist they would allow conservative members who disagreed with them. LOL
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
0
0
"Since, he is no longer affiliated with AEI, I feel free to say publicly something he told me in private a few months ago."

For me, that's pretty much enough said.
 

Praxis1452

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2006
2,197
0
0
And if hospital cannot collect debt, they will SOCIALIZE it, by building it into the cost that other members of society have to pay when using their services. So instead of INDIVIDUAL buying insurance to cover their own risk, without individual mandate, SOCIETY as a whole is paying for that insurance in our health care costs.
Republicans are fighting to socialize this cost and against individual responsibility. And they are purging intellectuals within their ranks who see through this farce.
You are grossly misusing the word socialize. At some point, hospitals can refuse to treat. Currently hospitals will often treat for emergencies, even without insurance, but they have no obligation to provide you with organ transplant, medication etc. So no, not all uninsured directly place costs onto others. I don't really give a shit about the republicans, but your entire understanding of socialism is wrong, your use of the word socialize is wrong, your understanding of individual responsibility is entirely different than the rhetoric on the opposing side (which you fail to recognize), and even your understanding of how hospitals work is wrong.

By your own definition an insurance company is then the socialization of risk and republicans should fight against insurance because it socializes risk. <= is EXACTLY what you imply. Not indirectly, DIRECTLY from your post. Understand why reps are not against insurance and you'll understand why your post is some of the worst logic I've seen in all these healthcare threads.

You could say this, but you are grossly misusing the word. Not even just that but your understanding of how the system works in collecting money is off, just by your explanation. I don't think you could have failed any harder.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY