https://winteryknight.com/2020/02/19/uk-nhs-government-run-healthcare-only-available-for-people-who-agree-with-the-government/
Without commenting on the veracity of the claims in this post, I'll note that it raises a significant issue with some potential negatives about government health care. How does one guarantee that health care won’t be rationed to people’s political opponents?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
48 comments:
It's a question not considered by most...wasn't by me. But then, it falls under the umbrella of government control of health care in general, and all that suggests...most of it really, really bad.
I agree. But tell me you can’t see someone denying health care to “White Supremacists” or “racists”. Or Bloomie denying it to people who drink too much pop?
Oh, I absolutely can see it!! Indeed, I see it as inevitable.
How do you guarantee did the government police give equal protection to minorities and refugees? How do you guarantee that poor folks get equal justice as the richer folks? How do you ensure that minorities are treated equally well in prisons as white folks? How do you guarantee equal environmental protections in poorer neighborhoods? Equal employment in banking opportunities?
These are all legitimate questions to ask. One of the answers is a free press what is vigorous and well-supported.
So, you’re not going to answer the question and you’re going to use examples that aren’t good analogies. They are legitimate questions, they just aren’t necessarily the same as denying health care to people solely because of political differences.
The problem with your examples is that in all cases the system is designed to treat everyone as equally as possible. The fact that the systems don’t always achieve that ideal, is due to the fact that humans operate the systems.
What’s being discussed here is an intentional setting up of a system that is designed to exclude people solely based on their political views.
I could assume that your silence indicates agreement with the actual point of the post, but I won’t.
A vigorous, unbiased, free, press is one avenue to hold people accountable to living up to the ideals of a societal system.
It's a legitimate question, just like I said. The reality is, there's no indication that there's going to be any kind of serious problem. Is anybody recommending that this would ever actually happen? No, of course not.
So yes having a free press helps fight all these problems. Not undermining the Press like your president does regularly is another important thing. Electing people who are not Petty and prone to penalizing their political opponents is another step to take.
Trump is an excellent example of a the opposite of what we want. He regularly bullies and demonizes his partisan opponents and gives a pass to his donors and friends. He is the very epitome of the sort of problem you raise in this post.
So perhaps, condemning thoroughly this thoroughly corrupt partisan buffoon would be a good first step.
The fact that Dan didn't start out with "This is an absolutely horrible idea and things like this should never be rationed based on political views.", leads me to believe that it's possible that he understands and vaguely approves of this sort of thing.
The problem with this (as we've seen in the US congress) is that it kind of presumes that the party in power will never have their standards applied to them in reverse.
Clearly the folx currently in power in the referenced article, would be shocked and appalled if they were treated the way they are treating others.
Re, " the fact that Dan didn't start with..."
In the circles that I live in, one doesn't have to state that they are opposed to murder or false claims or sexual assault of the sort that Trump engaged in and laughed about. One doesn't have to stay that because it's obvious.
Similarly, it should be obvious to anyone the topic of your post here is clearly awful, if somewhat ridiculous. Do I need to state the obvious?
The more serious question is, why aren't conservatives supporting removing Trump for engaging in precisely this sort of abuse of power?
It’s interstellar that you only blame Trump for “undermining” the press. What laws or executive orders has he enacted that limit the press? Doesn’t the press, by covering false stories, play any role at all in this alleged undermining?
I have to ask if you understand that a) this is presented as a hypothetical and b) the linked piece actually points to actions being undertaken that lead directly to the hypothetical. Maybe you didn’t read the linked piece, which would explain your ignorance.
Is there anything that you can’t somehow find a way to blame Trump for?
Speaking of ignorance, had you watched the debate the other night, or paid attention to history, you’d realize that Trump isn’t alone nor is his action unprecedented.
Since you frequently complain that everyone fails to understand you, and attributes things to you that you didn’t say, then perhaps clear and unambiguous condemnation would be helpful. I have to note, that you didn’t actually condemn the actions referenced in the linked piece/article.
Finally, if Trump was engaging in denying people access to healthcare (or something to which they are legally entitled) for purely partisan reasons I would forthrightly and loudly condemn those actions.
Dan continues to accuse Trump of things for which he is not guilty. He WANTS Trump to be those things so as to justify his hatred. So sad that none of his charges are true, nor can he support them in any way that suggests they are true.
I’d say that it’s more that he exaggerates things Trump says, ignores the lack of concrete action, and exonerates the media when they do perpetuate fake news.
He certainly exaggerates the impact of Trump's words, that's for sure. I don't know who these people are that are so affected...I mean...besides Dan.
Because there’s no way the media is biased or would ever engage in fake news.
The media does not perpetuate fake news. The media does not perpetuate fake news. The media does not perpetuate fake news. Do you understand?
You can't offer support for the claim that the media perpetuates fake news. This is, itself, a bit of fake news. It's the sort of fake news that Trump pedals to people to try to get them to fear the media and not trust the media.
What that has the advantage of doing (for him) is when the media reports on his actual crimes and misdeeds, people don't believe it because, as you type of people know, the media is perpetuating fake news. Except they're not.
Legitimate journalist and media operations, like NPR, CNN, Fox News, CBS, you know, actual journalism groups, do not perpetuate fake news. They have codes and standards they live by and it's not possible for them to perpetuate fake news. They do make mistakes. But they do not perpetuate fake news. That is a false claim. I fear, however, that you do not acknowledge or believe this reality. I don't know how to help with that. Perhaps, if you would listen to actual newsgroups and stay away from conspiracy theory sites?
Really, the Covington story wasn’t fake news? Maybe you missed the first (likely of many) settlements.
Are you really suggesting that “the media” always follow all of their standards and practices 100% to the letter?
Does the fact that historically retractions for front page stories are routinely buried?
A personal anecdote. I was at an event that received national media coverage during the Clinton administration. I saw the event, I saw the CBS story, the CBS story was fake news before fake news was a thing.
Your gullibility and naive acceptance is cute and touching.
I’m so glad I don’t spend time on “conspiracy sites”, of course I don’t uncritically believe the mainstream media either.
I love how y’all think that repeating something makes it true.
It’s also cute how you think that because something might have been true in the past that it’s somehow always true and can’t be questioned.
False narratives the mainstream media ran with after they’ve been proven false.
Covington
Smolette
Hands up don’t shoot
The 1619 project
Trumps comments after Charlotte
Epstein/Weinstein
Just a few examples.
FAIR.org
What’s wrong with the news.
the Covington story wasn’t fake news?
No. It was not fake news. There was a story there. The reporters reported on what they heard and the testimony they heard. Did they make mistakes in reporting? The Post apparently think so and so they settled (out of court, as I recall). But making mistakes about a real story is not the same as it being a fake story.
It literally was not a fake story and it's a fake story to say that it was a fake story.
There really was a group of students with MAGA hats on attending a rally where this older native gentleman was. He really did report that they harassed him. The Post reported on the story as they heard it. It sounds like it was biased and painted an unfair picture of this young man, but it wasn't a fake story.
Again, you can't point to any data to support the claim that the media is reporting "fake news." They literally aren't.
you really suggesting that “the media” always follow all of their standards and practices 100% to the letter?
No. They make mistakes all the time. The more liberal ones (CNN, ABC, etc) and the more conservative ones (Fox News, etc). They are imperfect human institutions. They are also biased human institutions (as all human institutions are) and all will sometimes report from more of a conservative or liberal bias regularly.
But being imperfect is not the same as reporting fake news. Being biased is not the same as reporting fake news.
The media does not report fake news. Your president REGULARLY passes on literally fake news, makes fake claims all the time. THAT is a problem. But the media does not.
I love how y’all think that repeating something makes it true.
Of course we don't. But that IS a tool that your president uses regularly, because for some people, his constant false claims (the media is the enemy of the people, they report fake news) DOES serve to fool some segment of people into believing these stupidly false claims. But that's not anything that ANY reasonable person or group thinks or believes.
Re: the 1619 Project, here's how the reporter responded to criticisms of the project...
"“I think had any of the scholars who signed the letter contacted me or contacted the Times with concerns [before sending the letter], we would've taken those concerns very seriously,” Hannah-Jones said. “And instead there was kind of a campaign to kind of get people to sign on to a letter that was attempting really to discredit the entire project without having had a conversation.”
Underlying each of the disagreements in the letter is not just a matter of historical fact but a conflict about whether Americans, from the Founders to the present day, are committed to the ideals they claim to revere. And while some of the critiques can be answered with historical fact, others are questions of interpretation grounded in perspective and experience."
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/historians-clash-1619-project/604093/
In other words, she was open to being corrected, but opposed to attempts to undermine efforts to look at problems that slavery represents in our history. The overall story she reported was true and factual and vitally important, and she was open to correcting any smaller mistakes that may have been included, but questioned the intentions of efforts to undermine the whole project.
Sounds like a very responsible journalist.
Fairness and accuracy in reporting is what's wrong with the news?
From Fair.org...
https://fair.org/press-release/examining-the-quotliberal-mediaquot-claim/
Worth reading.
A personal anecdote. I was at an event that received national media coverage during the Clinton administration. I saw the event, I saw the CBS story, the CBS story was fake news before fake news was a thing.
Support the claim. Nothing personal, but I believe in trust, but verify. Sadly, the conservative world is full of false claims and they just can't be assumed to be factual claims, especially if it's not believable on the face of it.
Your gullibility and naive acceptance is cute and touching.
Not gullible. Informed. I studied journalism in school. I was a journalist in school. I know journalists. I know the restrictions and ethical guidelines that actual journalists have to live by. I see no data (never have) for the claims of fake news.
They just don't exist in the mainstream media. BAD reporting does. Mistakes happen, but not fake news... that is, deliberately false stories passed are not passed on (VERY rarely) and when it does happen, the reporters get in trouble.
I’m so glad I don’t spend time on “conspiracy sites”, of course I don’t uncritically believe the mainstream media either.
Nor should you. Nor should you believe a single thing that Trump says, since he makes boldly and stupidly false claims every day.
Who do you think is more reliable? More honest? Least biased? The mainstream media or Trump.
Do you think there's even a contest?
"You can't offer support for the claim that the media perpetuates fake news."
I not only have, but I did it twice, listing a multitude of examples of bad reporting, false reporting and incredibly biased reporting. Again, two blog posts.
And also again, Trump isn't saying anything that wasn't already understood to be a problem by at least half the nation from long before he got into politics. Dan's objection to the claim is ludicrous.
RE Covington- the problem was that the video evidence contradicted the narrative and the media stuck with the narrative long after it had been demonstrated to be false. The fact that the media has won zero of the lawsuits, indicates that this was fake news.
I’m not talking about mistakes. I’m talking about, and referencing instances where mistakes were pointed out, and they chose the narrative over correcting the mistakes.
The historical inaccuracies of the 1619 project have been catalogued in multiple places. If the author hasn’t corrected them, then the author isn’t a good journalist. Waiting for others to reach out and walk you through historical mistakes is simply lazy.
My degree is in journalism and the modern media has moved far from what I learned in school. I’m just not naive enough to pretend it hasn’t.
Fake news is when news organizations choose to stick to a narrative, instead of making a retraction, after evidence to contradict the narrative is available. It’s not just making stuff up. It’s choosing not to report things, or to use video from events that makes them seem larger than they were.
Your naivety is touching, or your agreement with the political slant of the mainstream media is blinding you.
As far as proof of my personal anecdote. If you aren’t going to provide proof when you offer anecdotes, by what standard do you demand proof of others?
Ok, even though you don’t offer any evidence of your anecdotes, I’ll give you enough information to do your own research.
Aug 10-12, 2000. Bill Clinton was interviewed by Bill Hybels at the GLS. The actual session is available on video, although I’m not sure how much beyond the interview is covered. That afternoon on the CBS evening news, they did a story on the event. Again, video should be available.
This is way more objective evidence that you’ve ever offered, in reality it’s enough to make my points even if I wasn’t an eyewitness.
Last comment.
Mistake conveys intent, so to blithely write off all of the examples as mistakes attributes motivation that isn’t necessary demonstrated. Beyond that, mistake implies that there will be a correction/retraction once the mistake is pointed out, yet in the cases mentioned the narrative went way beyond the exposure of the mistake. In some cases the mistake is still the narrative. Using your 1619 excuse ignores the fact that the correct history was available before publication, and that numerous historians have publicly pointed out the major problems. The fact that the author seems to think that no corrections are necessary because no one has led them by the hand to the correct information is absurd. The public correction should be plenty, and the excuses for not acknowledging the public corrections and changing the story just point out that the narrative is more important than the facts.
Fake news conveys intent.
Provide some proof of ANY data that supports the suggestion that the mainstream media, by and large, intends to misreport stories, then we can talk. We can find some random individual reporters who deliberately made false claims, but they are the very rare exception that proves the rule (and they generally end up being fired, discredited or at least penalized).
Also, FoxNews has a (deserved) reputation amongst real journalists to make more mistakes than the average mainstream media. Does that mean, by your measure, that FoxNews is a "fake news" outlet?
I would suggest that continuing to falsely report a story after it's been proven to be wrong, without a correction/retraction demonstrates intent to misrepresent.
The 1619 Project is an excellent example. There were historians who pointed out the errors virtually as soon as the project came out, yet the author is making excuses for the mistakes. Are you seriously suggesting that the NYT, with all it's resources, writers, editors, researchers, and fact checkers, really just innocently made the number and scale of "mistakes" in something that was intended to go beyond s simple news story?
As I pointed out, failing to promptly correct "mistakes" is perpetuating fake news. I've pointed out multiple recent examples, yet you haven't actually demonstrated that I'm wrong about any of them.
It's interesting that you used the term "deserved" regarding Fox News. It implies that there is evidence to "prove" the claim, without actually saying anything that would require providing any evidence.
I understand that you have some romanticized, idealistic, naive opinions about journalism that would have been more appropriate when there were three networks, and newspapers were a thing. But maybe don't fit the 2020 reality where more than 95% of "mainstream journalists" identify as and actively support liberal candidates.
I'll simply repeat that the fact that the narratives I've mentioned are still reported by the media as if they haven't been proven wrong, speaks pretty loudly. But no matter how loudly things speak, you're unlikely to give up your Pollyanna view of the ideal from 50 years ago.
https://hotair.com/archives/john-s-2/2020/02/19/study-journalists-left-bernie-sanders-dont-worry-theyre-totally-fair/
Oh look, data.
I don't even know that such an idea truly ever existed. For example, I have a book about Wyatt Earp that speaks of competing newspapers that unabashedly sided with one political party or candidate over the other, and their reporting of "the other side" rarely matched the reporting othe other side
on the same event. Stories about reporting during colonial times were no better. Hyperbole has always been commonplace, which itself denotes "fake" insofar as hyperbole by definition is inaccuracy.
Dan has a romantic notion of journalism, which also is "fake" as it necessarily ignores realities such as the well known leftist slant of the vast majority of the press.
Furthermore, I submit that the objection to accusations of fake news itself constitutes fake news, as the proper response, one would think, would be to thoroughly investigate the claim and report honestly on the findings.
Dan wants to dismiss long-held concerns about the media as no more than human imperfections falsely put forth as intentional misdeeds. As Craig points out, how mistakes are addressed by those who made them...and how long it takes to do so...is itself an indication of at least potential intent. It certainly indicates a rush to judgement, which is not the job of a journalist. The frequency of mistakes alone is alarming and way too often the mistakes are exposed by someone not a member of a major news agency.
News organizations are profit-making enterprises. Being the first to break a story too often means leaving the details to be resolved later, while attention grabbing headlines capture the consumers' dollars. This doesn't lend itself to a devotion to truth. The "scoop" is the thing, and it's corrupted by the biases of the reporter on top of it. The result is: be first, grab attention, push the ideology.
And as an example of what's all too common, we have Dan the journalism student, STILL pushing the "Trump grabs women by the crotch" meme long after the truth if that story has been presented to him numerous times. In other words, Dan the journalism student demonstrated no desire to uncover the truth of what Trump actually said, ignores the truth of what Trump said after having the truth presented to him numerous times and continues to push the narrative that Trump grabs women by the crotch. Fake news.
Art,
Here’s the deal.
Newspapers have always been partisan, since the founding of the country. The rationale is that anyone can start a newspaper and complete.
Once radio and tv entered the picture they played by different rules. Because the airways are “public” and the broadcasters need a license to “borrow” a slice of a limited spectrum, there were limits put on broadcast entities. The Fairness doctrine and Equal Time are examples of those rules. Broadcasters were expected to be unbiased and fair in reporting the news, and to keep opinion completely separate from straight news. As long as it was just broadcast outlets, this actually worked pretty well.
Once cable came along, things changed because it’s not using public airwaves and is more like newspapers than broadcast news. Add in the internet and it’s even more fragmented.
On top of that was the decision that the network news departments weren’t to be supported by the entertainment departments, but must be profitable on their own.
Technically NBC and MSNBC are held to different standards, yet there’s so much crossover that it’s impossible to monitor.
Dan’s view of the situation is that of the 1950’s, an innocent, naive, idealized view of something that’s changed significantly. Much like his rose colored glasses he puts on when he talks about the “ideals” of the DFL which don’t comport with the reality we see.
I’ve come to the place where I’d rather let news outlets be partisan, but publicly acknowledge that fact, than continue with what we have currently.
The crotch grabbing thing is a great example.
The media and Dan, won’t differentiate between Trump using a hypothetical, and specific actions Trump may or may not have engaged in. They are willing to say, or at least suggest, that Trump actually, physically grabbed random women when there’s no proof that he did.
The combination of refusing to correct “mistakes”, selectively editing or leaving out context is exactly the kind of thing that falls under fake news.
The crotch grabbing sexual assault that Trump laughingly boasted about IS a great example.
Given the long, overt history that Trump has a being a sexual predator and deviant, reasonable people know to take his own words to be just what they appear to be, a boast about sexual assault Eddie regularly engages in and feels he can get away with because of his power and position. It's abundantly clear.
And it's abundantly clear to most people. And so, reporters report on what is abundantly clear.
Now, if you have a different opinion, that does not mean that the reporters are wrong, that they're mistaken, or that they're making up fake news. It means you have a difference of opinion on the known data. You have a different interpretation than the majority of the people.
And that's fine, you're welcome to have a different opinion. But having a different opinion does not make the media reports fake news. It just doesn't.
Dan,
If you’re going to keep insisting that the crotch grabbing is a real thing that actually happened then you’ll need to provide some proof.
If you can’t provide some proof, then you’ll need to stop bearing false witness.
FYI, if women “let” Trump grab them by the crotch, then it’s consensual and not sexual assault.
And yes, if journalists or you keep repeating a story you can’t demonstrate to be true, it’s fake news.
Your president, the president that white conservative evangelicals put into office, IS a sexual predator. At this point there is no doubt about that. He's a pervert, a deviant, someone who preys upon women and especially young women and even teenage girls. And he boasts about it and laughs about it.
I'm sorry if you all don't see that. It's a little disturbing that so many conservatives will ignore what is obvious. Just ask Al Mohler or any of the other conservatives who aren't blinded on this point. They will tell you that you all are destroying your credibility, you who deny this deviancy and his sexual predatorial nature.
The man is a sexual predator. Shame on you all for supporting him and defending him. On this point, listen to Al Mohler. Open your eyes. You're destroying your credibility and witness.
Re... "FYI, if women “let” Trump grab them by the crotch, then it’s consensual..."
Perhaps you have not worked with victims of sexual abuse and aren't aware of this, but sexual predators always say that the women "wanted it." That they let it happen. It's one of the signs of a rapist, predator. Also, the ability to callously laugh at sexual assault and mocks victims. The signs are all there. The man is a sexual predator. There may not be enough evidence to convict him of anything, especially given his wealth and the "Justice" that wealth buys, but there's little doubt at this point.
So your response to asking for proof of something, is to repeat your assertion about something else. Excellent choice. You keep claiming that Trump is a rapist, and that he's grabbed women by the crotch. Simply moving the target, doesn't get you off of the claims you keep making and your inability to prove them.
Now you're arguing against something I didn't say.
You still haven't demonstrated that Trump actually engaged in the grabbing of women by the crotch.
I understand that you are incredibly committed to your beliefs about Trump, and I wouldn't dream of trying to change your mind. However, once you move beyond the friendly confines of your own feelings and opinion, you need something that looks like proof, not an appeal to numbers.
Now, you've had your opportunity to rant about this, (I've allowed you some freedom to do so. Freedom frequently denied at your blog.) so how about sticking with the topic?
Here's more information...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/inside-the-criminal-mind/201712/the-thinking-processes-sexual-predators%3famp
Again, I'll allow you the kind of grace not seen at your blog and not delete this.
At the risk of encouraging you to continue down this off topic road, I'll simply point out that you have absolutely zero foundation to apply some general findings to any specific case. In this case, you have made specific claims about a specific person engaging in specific actions. Merely providing something general, regardless of the accuracy, doesn't help you prove the specific.
Now, can you please get back on topic?
More...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.france24.com/en/20191117-ladies-and-the-trump-the-making-of-a-sexual-predator-1
Open your eyes.
This is what happens when you get so focused on beating people over the head with your point, no matter if it's relevant or not, that you don't pay attention to anyone else.
Given this obsession with sexual assault, and a desire to get back to the topic, are you suggesting that people with allegations of sexual impropriety be denied healthcare under the new "healthcare for all"?
No. I'm suggesting that people who are sexual predators, who have boasted about sexually assaulting women, who have the history the testimony of trump and the witnesses against him, should not be the president of the United States. They are fundamentally unfit for office. Is a line that no one should ever have even thought about Crossing. Unfortunately, the vast majority of white evangelicals gladly passed that line. That's a problem.
Interesting that the article in question brought Epstein into the conversation without mentioning his deep ties to the Clinton's and to democrats in general.
Unfortunately, it's my blog so I can go off topic with impunity. Unfortunately, you've pushed your limits and need to stay on topic.
It's all part of Dan's own brand of fake news. Here, he brings info that has nothing whatsoever to do with Trump given the constant repetition of a false belief that has been proven so...that being the crotch grabbing. As has been proven to Dan several times, Trump NEVER said he grabs women in such a way, EVEN WITH THEIR CONSENT! No. He was speaking about the character of certain women men of his position too often encounter. Basically, he was talking about women rock stars would refer to as "groupies" also known as "gold diggers", whose objective is to capture the full and undivided attention of the celebrity in order to profit in some way by being accepted. These women are willing to use their bodies for the purpose...whoring themselves, which makes them whores...and will do most anything in order to benefit financially by becoming the celeb's woman. This goes well beyond mere consent, because consent implies being asked. These women "throw themselves" at celebs. In the end, they use each other at best. The ceoeb uses the tramp for sex, and the tramp the celebrity for money, power and celebrity status for herself.
And what continues to fascinate me about Dan the liar is how he appears to totally believe the guy he insists is a liar and conman only when Trump speaks of his conquests and such. In Dan's hateful grace embracing, it is only gyen that this alleged pathological liar speaks truthfully. How convenient for Dan's hateful opinion of the man!
So, your blatantly unapologetic about your unwillingness to actually make comments that align with the topic of the post.
As tempting as it is to follow your example, I’ll simply continue to nicely, respectfully, ask that you stay on topic.
Art,
As Dan has been willfully abusing the freedom and grace I give him around staying on topic, I’ll allow your response to him to stand.
But, of course your fundamental point is correct. There’s no evidence that Trump’s comments were about actual actions. Further the context supports your view that Trump was speaking in general about certain types of women that are drawn to the rich and powerful, and are willing to trade/or offer sex as a way to associate with the rich/powerful. As you point out the phenomenon of the groupie around rock stars is a great example of this.
Dan’s version requires several assumptions on his part. The most egregious being that everything begins by assuming the absolute worst about the man, and the absolute best about the woman. There’s no room for nuance, no room for anything but the narrative.
Ultimately, because it makes the narrative about groups, stereotypes, and assumptions, it seems like these blanket accusations actually minimize the effect of individual stories of abuse.
In the case of Dan’s article the point of the article wasn’t to determine the validity of any individual charge, or even to investigate the truth of the aggregated claims, it was simply to assert “Where there’s smoke, there absolutely must be fire.”. This eliminates that pesky need for anything like proof. Dan actually makes that argument elsewhere. “That the simple accumulation of allegations (without even attempting to verify the veracity) should be disqualifying for things.
It’s why we get this absurd “Believe all women.” sloganeering. Even the those who mindlessly spout this pablum don’t actually live it out.
Sorry for the long response, I know this’ll make Dan think he has carte blanche to spout whatever off topic swill he wants, but that’s because he’s narcissistic enough to think that he should control content on my blog.
Post a Comment