Glen Beck, conservative websites and e-mail continue to insist that you will go to jail if you don’t purchase health insurance. This half-lie clearly is intended to inflame, not illuminate. Was there any such outrage when auto insurance was made mandatory? Media Matters, has done a nice job of stating the facts!
The bottom line is that if you do not secure health insurance AND refuse to pay the tax of 2.5% of your income (That's relatively cheap for access to our healthcare system), like ALL tax evaders, you COULD face jail time. However, the Healthcare Reform Bill goes out of its way to compensate for those who are financially marginalized. For someone to chose not to have health insurance AND refuse to pay a fitting tax for your access to healthcare (it’s not a punishment), it would have to be a willful act to make some sort of point.
Fact: Penalty for failure to purchase insurance is a tax, NOT jail time.
As Media Matters noted, a reporter's question to Pelosi was based on a false talking point. Section 501 of the House health care reform bill provides that an individual must be "covered by acceptable coverage at all times." "Acceptable coverage" includes "qualified health benefits plan coverage," "grandfathered health insurance coverage," "Medicare," "Medicaid," coverage provided to members of the armed forces and their dependents, "coverage under the veteran's health care program," people who receive health care "through the Indian Health Service," or other coverage deemed acceptable by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If a person does not have acceptable health care coverage, Section 501 imposes a tax on that person "not to exceed the applicable national average premium."
Fact: Willful failure to pay taxes of any sort can result in civil or criminal penalties
A press release by Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) relying on a letter from the Joint Committee on Taxation states that "Americans who do not maintain 'acceptable health insurance coverage' and who choose not to pay the bill's new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years." That section of the letter dealing with "civil and criminal penalties for noncompliance" specifies that Camp asked the committee to "discuss the situation in which the taxpayer has chosen not to comply with individual mandate and not to pay the additional tax." Thus, the letter is not discussing the penalties for failure to buy insurance, but the penalties for both failing to buy insurance and failing to pay the tax. The committee's letter explains that the tax code provides penalties to prevent tax evasion of any sort: "The Code provides for both civil and criminal penalties to ensure complete and accurate reporting of tax liability and to discourage fraudulent attempts to defeat or evade tax." [Joint Committee on Taxation letter, 11/5/09]
At the end of the day, our National Healthcare Bill does everything possible to be fair to everyone.
Apr 27, 2010
Bush Increased the National Debt 71.9%...A New Record!
The conservatives love to send e-mail messages blaming Obama for the national debt, however here is a response suggesting that the nation debt ceiling rose seven times under the Bush administration and broke all records.
Let's see....
When Bush entered office, the national debt was $5.727 TRILLION and when he left office the national debt had increased 71.9% to $9.849 TRILLION. The was the largest debt increase in the history of the United States. Bush, and his Republican Congress, raised the national debt limit, SEVEN times while in office....and then the economy collapsed.
Question: Why is it I never heard a peep from my Republican friends during this period?
Businesses, which Republicans favor unabashingly on all legislative initiatives, begged for monetary stimulus since neither citizens nor businesses had the cash to jump-start the economy. Bush and the Republicans passed the first TARP stimulus program and Obama followed suit, since the government was the only party that COULD respond. The Republicans and conservatives understood this and decided to pass the first TARP in 2008. However when Obama entered office, suddenly the tool THEY used, was considered ruinous.
Obama is cleaning up Bush's collapse and you are angry with Obama?
This sounds like blaming the fire department for an arson's crime...
I bet you won't forward this...;-)
Let's see....
When Bush entered office, the national debt was $5.727 TRILLION and when he left office the national debt had increased 71.9% to $9.849 TRILLION. The was the largest debt increase in the history of the United States. Bush, and his Republican Congress, raised the national debt limit, SEVEN times while in office....and then the economy collapsed.
Question: Why is it I never heard a peep from my Republican friends during this period?
Businesses, which Republicans favor unabashingly on all legislative initiatives, begged for monetary stimulus since neither citizens nor businesses had the cash to jump-start the economy. Bush and the Republicans passed the first TARP stimulus program and Obama followed suit, since the government was the only party that COULD respond. The Republicans and conservatives understood this and decided to pass the first TARP in 2008. However when Obama entered office, suddenly the tool THEY used, was considered ruinous.
Obama is cleaning up Bush's collapse and you are angry with Obama?
This sounds like blaming the fire department for an arson's crime...
I bet you won't forward this...;-)
Apr 13, 2010
The ACLU Attacks a Marine Praying?
Another old favorite circulating the web is that the ACLU is anti-God and Anti-American and they use e-mail suggesting that the ACLU is against a Marine praying. Nothing can be farther from the truth. The event never happened and the ACLU is our greatest defenders of our right to practice or not practice a religion. In my response, you will be surprised at a sampling list of pro-religion cases that the ACLU supported.
My reply...
Thanks for forwarding the e-mail message suggesting that the ACLU was against a recent gathering of U. S. Marines praying in public. Since I was a little surprised by this accusation, I checked with the ACLU web site and evidently this urban legend has been making the rounds for a number of years. Contrary to the e-mail message, the ACLU states, "We have no knowledge of this event, nor have we ever had a spokesperson by the name of Lucius Traveler."
I have an opinion I would like to share with you, and I would love to get your reaction.
I believe that the “unsubstantiated” junk mail, e-rumors and urban legends that many of us send and receive, every day, may be tearing our nation apart by pushing us deeper into our camps.
The great majority of Americans are Christians and many would like to have the Ten Commandments enshrined on government properties, however contrary to the ninth commandment, "Thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor,” many of us have forwarded unsubstantiated e-rumors. Recognizing the problem, I am beginning to reflect on the harmful and immoral effects of spreading false rumors via e-mail.
With regards to the anti-ACLU e-mail, I am embarrassed to admit that many of my friends, who appropriately love the freedoms our forefathers won for them, are extremely ignorant of what our freedoms are. A survey by the Freedom Museum in January of 2006, found that only one in a THOUSAND Americans can even name the Five Freedoms given to us by the Bill of Rights (without Googling, of course), while 28% can name all five members of the cartoon Simpson family. Pretty sad!
When asked, the vast majority cannot even tell you in what founding document the Bill of Rights resides or how many amendments there are to the Bill of Rights, or even more sadly, what form of government we are. Most will say, that we are a pure Democracy; we are not! Benjamin Franklin referred to majority-rule as “Mobocracy,” and Jefferson said that the future of America would not be left to the “whims of men.” And so our founding fathers decided to “...chain us to the law” with a Constitutional Republic, founded on laws that defended the rights-of-the-individual…NOT the majority. I am sure we have all experienced, with great frequency, how wrong-headed the majority can be at times; ergo, we are founded on laws and principles. That is why when our representatives take the oath of office, they swear to “support and defend” the Constitution, NOT the majority opinion in their district. That is what makes us different, indeed, that is what has made America great.
Therefore, it would seem, that the ACLU is attacked by freedom loving Americans who have very little knowledge of what their freedoms are or what a Republic is. The ACLU is the oldest American organization dedicated to the protection of the Bill of Rights, and yet they are repeatedly attacked by people who refer to themselves as patriots, lovers of their country. How can that be?! How can lovers of our country seemingly hate deeply committed lovers and protectors of our Bill of Rights? Voltaire was once attributed the statement, “I may hate what you say, but I will fight to the death, your right to say it.” Should not every American patriot give full support to this stirring American principle? The ACLU does!
Indeed, it is part of the mission statement of the ACLU, to defend the Bill of Rights, the right of an American citizen to exercise the freedoms of speech, press, religion, peaceful assembly, and to petition the government for grievances.
In the end, I believe some of our friends would be shocked to discover that the ACLU recently and successfully defended a second-grader's right to sing "Awesome God" at a talent show; an evangelical’s right to preach on a sidewalk; and a Mormon student's right to wear a religious T-shirt to school.
I’ve put together a sampling-list of recent ACLU successes in defending a citizen’s right to practice or not to practice, their religious belief, for the majority has no right over the minority in religious practices in our constitutional republic. Thankfully, for my religious beliefs are held by a small minority. Notice in these successes how the majority or community position, consistently loses:
September 20, 2005: ACLU of New Jersey joins lawsuit supporting second-grader's right to sing "Awesome God" at a talent show.
August 4, 2005: ACLU helps free a New Mexico street preacher from prison.
May 25, 2005: ACLU sues Wisconsin prison on behalf of a Muslim woman who was forced to remove her headscarf in front of male guards and prisoners.
February 2005: ACLU of Pennsylvania successfully defends the right of an African American Evangelical church to occupy a church building purchased in a predominantly white parish.
December 22, 2004: ACLU of New Jersey successfully defends right of religious expression by jurors.
November 20, 2004: ACLU of Nevada supports free speech rights of evangelists to preach on the sidewalks of the strip in Las Vegas.
November 9, 2004: ACLU of Nevada defends a Mormon student who was suspended after wearing a T-shirt with a religious message to school.
August 11, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska defends church facing eviction by the city of Lincoln.
July 10, 2004: Indiana Civil Liberties Union defends the rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets.
June 3, 2004: Under pressure from the ACLU of Virginia, officials agree not to prohibit baptisms on public property in Falmouth Waterside Park in Stafford County.
May 11, 2004: After ACLU of Michigan intervened on behalf of a Christian Valedictorian; a public high school agrees to stop censoring religious yearbook entries.
March 25, 2004: ACLU of Washington defends an Evangelical minister's right to preach on sidewalks.
February 21, 2003: ACLU of Massachusetts defends students punished for distributing candy canes with religious messages.
October 28, 2002: ACLU of Pennsylvania files discrimination lawsuit over denial of zoning permit for African American Baptist church.
July 11, 2002: ACLU supports right of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at school.
April 17, 2002: In a victory for the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the ACLU of Virginia, a federal judge strikes down a provision of the Virginia Constitution that bans religious organizations from incorporating.
January 18, 2002: ACLU defends Christian church's right to run "anti-Santa" ads in Boston subways.
Surprised?
In the end, I am going to do my best not to forward unsubstantiated E-rumors thereby bearing false witness against our neighbors.
Let us rededicate ourselves to a better understanding of what the Bill of Rights REALLY states and support any organization that joins us in this great fight, for when Benjamin Franklin was asked, “What form of government have you given us?” He replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it!”
My reply...
Thanks for forwarding the e-mail message suggesting that the ACLU was against a recent gathering of U. S. Marines praying in public. Since I was a little surprised by this accusation, I checked with the ACLU web site and evidently this urban legend has been making the rounds for a number of years. Contrary to the e-mail message, the ACLU states, "We have no knowledge of this event, nor have we ever had a spokesperson by the name of Lucius Traveler."
I have an opinion I would like to share with you, and I would love to get your reaction.
I believe that the “unsubstantiated” junk mail, e-rumors and urban legends that many of us send and receive, every day, may be tearing our nation apart by pushing us deeper into our camps.
The great majority of Americans are Christians and many would like to have the Ten Commandments enshrined on government properties, however contrary to the ninth commandment, "Thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor,” many of us have forwarded unsubstantiated e-rumors. Recognizing the problem, I am beginning to reflect on the harmful and immoral effects of spreading false rumors via e-mail.
With regards to the anti-ACLU e-mail, I am embarrassed to admit that many of my friends, who appropriately love the freedoms our forefathers won for them, are extremely ignorant of what our freedoms are. A survey by the Freedom Museum in January of 2006, found that only one in a THOUSAND Americans can even name the Five Freedoms given to us by the Bill of Rights (without Googling, of course), while 28% can name all five members of the cartoon Simpson family. Pretty sad!
When asked, the vast majority cannot even tell you in what founding document the Bill of Rights resides or how many amendments there are to the Bill of Rights, or even more sadly, what form of government we are. Most will say, that we are a pure Democracy; we are not! Benjamin Franklin referred to majority-rule as “Mobocracy,” and Jefferson said that the future of America would not be left to the “whims of men.” And so our founding fathers decided to “...chain us to the law” with a Constitutional Republic, founded on laws that defended the rights-of-the-individual…NOT the majority. I am sure we have all experienced, with great frequency, how wrong-headed the majority can be at times; ergo, we are founded on laws and principles. That is why when our representatives take the oath of office, they swear to “support and defend” the Constitution, NOT the majority opinion in their district. That is what makes us different, indeed, that is what has made America great.
Therefore, it would seem, that the ACLU is attacked by freedom loving Americans who have very little knowledge of what their freedoms are or what a Republic is. The ACLU is the oldest American organization dedicated to the protection of the Bill of Rights, and yet they are repeatedly attacked by people who refer to themselves as patriots, lovers of their country. How can that be?! How can lovers of our country seemingly hate deeply committed lovers and protectors of our Bill of Rights? Voltaire was once attributed the statement, “I may hate what you say, but I will fight to the death, your right to say it.” Should not every American patriot give full support to this stirring American principle? The ACLU does!
Indeed, it is part of the mission statement of the ACLU, to defend the Bill of Rights, the right of an American citizen to exercise the freedoms of speech, press, religion, peaceful assembly, and to petition the government for grievances.
In the end, I believe some of our friends would be shocked to discover that the ACLU recently and successfully defended a second-grader's right to sing "Awesome God" at a talent show; an evangelical’s right to preach on a sidewalk; and a Mormon student's right to wear a religious T-shirt to school.
I’ve put together a sampling-list of recent ACLU successes in defending a citizen’s right to practice or not to practice, their religious belief, for the majority has no right over the minority in religious practices in our constitutional republic. Thankfully, for my religious beliefs are held by a small minority. Notice in these successes how the majority or community position, consistently loses:
September 20, 2005: ACLU of New Jersey joins lawsuit supporting second-grader's right to sing "Awesome God" at a talent show.
August 4, 2005: ACLU helps free a New Mexico street preacher from prison.
May 25, 2005: ACLU sues Wisconsin prison on behalf of a Muslim woman who was forced to remove her headscarf in front of male guards and prisoners.
February 2005: ACLU of Pennsylvania successfully defends the right of an African American Evangelical church to occupy a church building purchased in a predominantly white parish.
December 22, 2004: ACLU of New Jersey successfully defends right of religious expression by jurors.
November 20, 2004: ACLU of Nevada supports free speech rights of evangelists to preach on the sidewalks of the strip in Las Vegas.
November 9, 2004: ACLU of Nevada defends a Mormon student who was suspended after wearing a T-shirt with a religious message to school.
August 11, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska defends church facing eviction by the city of Lincoln.
July 10, 2004: Indiana Civil Liberties Union defends the rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets.
June 3, 2004: Under pressure from the ACLU of Virginia, officials agree not to prohibit baptisms on public property in Falmouth Waterside Park in Stafford County.
May 11, 2004: After ACLU of Michigan intervened on behalf of a Christian Valedictorian; a public high school agrees to stop censoring religious yearbook entries.
March 25, 2004: ACLU of Washington defends an Evangelical minister's right to preach on sidewalks.
February 21, 2003: ACLU of Massachusetts defends students punished for distributing candy canes with religious messages.
October 28, 2002: ACLU of Pennsylvania files discrimination lawsuit over denial of zoning permit for African American Baptist church.
July 11, 2002: ACLU supports right of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at school.
April 17, 2002: In a victory for the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the ACLU of Virginia, a federal judge strikes down a provision of the Virginia Constitution that bans religious organizations from incorporating.
January 18, 2002: ACLU defends Christian church's right to run "anti-Santa" ads in Boston subways.
Surprised?
In the end, I am going to do my best not to forward unsubstantiated E-rumors thereby bearing false witness against our neighbors.
Let us rededicate ourselves to a better understanding of what the Bill of Rights REALLY states and support any organization that joins us in this great fight, for when Benjamin Franklin was asked, “What form of government have you given us?” He replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it!”
Snopes.com: A Bastion of Liberalism?
Here comes another widely circulated e-mail suggesting that Snopes.com founders, David and Barbara Mikkelson, are just a bunch of "liberals", with the usual dearth of citations or references. Evidently the conservative audience has an extremely low bar when when it comes to the rules of logic and argumentation. O.K., say you didn't go to college, weren't people taught in high school to cite and reference when presenting a paper? When you don't, the reasons are usually apparent...Heck, I even had one conservative college grad get angry with me when I cited a source and more amazingly, he asked that I not use "other people's statistics".
Here is the original Snopes article, however please note the "Update" at the bottom of the article, which references the e-mail I am responding to.
http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/chicken.asp
Since the attack is against Snopes.com, I reasoned that maybe I should research elsewhere since the "alleged" liberal Mikkelsons may be a bit defensive. I found the following great article already written by Viveca Novak, in the FactCheck.Org website.
Enjoy another crushing retort to the lies and misinformation that conservatives keep pumping out. I actually hunger for a real number or fact that would challenge real problems instead of wasting time responding to misinformation and actual lies.
This widely circulated e-mail contains a number of false claims about the urban legend-busting Snopes.com and its proprietors, Barbara and David Mikkelson, who started the site in 1995 and still run it. They’re accused of hiding their identities, doing shoddy research, producing articles with a liberal bent and discrediting an anti-Obama State Farm agent out of partisanship.
The Trouble with Bud
We’ll deal first with the most specific allegation, which is that the Mikkelsons fabricated an account about State Farm agent Bud Gregg.
At issue is a sign Gregg posted last summer outside his office in Mandeville, La. It said, "A taxpayer voting for Barack Obama is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders." Snopes.com wrote it up in an article headlined "Chicken Hawked." The e-mail writer says that "they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort ‘ever’ took place." But that’s exactly what did happen, according a company representative.
In her article, Barbara Mikkelson didn’t actually use the word "pressured" as the e-mail claims. What she said was:
Snopes.com: A State Farm representative said that Bud Gregg’s office sign bore these messages until 3 July 2008 and that the company had requested the sign be removed as soon as they became aware of it because the sign was inconsistent with State Farm’s policy of not endorsing candidates or taking sides in political campaigns.
And State Farm spokeswoman Molly Quirk-Kirby confirmed in a letter to us the same thing she had told Snopes.com earlier:
State Farm: Management requested the sign be removed as soon as its presence became known. It was taken down on July 3, 2008. Mr. Gregg’s sign was not endorsed by, nor consistent with State Farm’s corporate practices. The company does not endorse candidates, nor take sides in political campaigns.
The e-mail’s author says the Mikkelsons didn’t call Gregg, and David says that’s true. He says he sent the insurance agent an e-mail, but did not receive a response.
Politically Preferential?
The e-mail goes on: "Then it has been learned the Mikkelson’s are very Democratic (party) and extremely liberal," adding: "There has been much criticism lately over the Internet with people pointing out the Mikkelson’s liberalism revealing itself in their website findings." The author cites no evidence and no sources for either of these propositions.
We asked David. He told us that Barbara is a Canadian citizen, and as such isn’t allowed to vote here or contribute money to U.S. candidates. As for him, "My sole involvement in politics is on Election Day to go out and vote. I’ve never joined a party, worked for a campaign or donated money to a candidate."
"You’d be hard-pressed to find two more apolitical people," David Mikkelson said. We checked online to see if he had given money to any federal candidates, and nothing turned up. Mikkelson even faxed us a copy of his voter registration form. He asked us not to post an image of it here, but we can confirm that it shows he declined to state a party affiliation when he registered last year, and also that when he registered in 2000 he did so as a Republican.
Do the Snopes.com articles reveal a political bias? We reviewed a sampling of their political offerings, including some on rumors about George W. Bush, Sarah Palin and Barack Obama, and we found them to be utterly poker-faced. David does say that the site receives more complaints that it is too liberal than that it is too conservative. Nevertheless, he says, "We apply the same debunking standards to both sides."
Hiding in Plain Sight
The e-mail also accuses the Mikkelsons of "hiding" their identities. "Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it," the message claims. That’s nonsense. It may well be that the author of this e-mail was ignorant of the Mikkelsons until recently, but it’s never been a secret who is behind Snopes.com.
We even dug up a reference to David Mikkelson from 1995, a year when the Internet was in its infancy. A collection of short items under the headline "A Special Report: The Virtual Valley" in the Los Angeles Times included a photo of him. Reporter David Brady wrote: "Meet David Mikkelson, above. Known in cyberspace as "snopes," the Agoura Hills resident spends much of his time debunking urban legends via the Usenet newsgroup alt.folklore.urban." The Mikkelsons were hardly holed up in an undisclosed location, even then.
David says the couple has done "hundreds" of media interviews over the years. Some of the major national pieces are listed on the site, including a new (April 2009) Reader’s Digest feature on them.
Lift That Bale!
Another claim in the e-mail: That the Mikkelsons have been criticized for "not really investigating and getting to the bottom of various issues." The message gives no examples, but there’s plenty of evidence that the couple expends a great deal of effort to find the truth. Take, for example, "Easily Lead," Barbara Mikkelson’s attempt to ascertain whether lipstick contains dangerous levels of lead, as one chain e-mail claimed. Mikkelson had an extensive conversation with a federal Food and Drug Administration compliance officer, conducted her own experiments rubbing various metals across lipstick and wax smears on white paper, dug up a number of articles about and industry memos on lead in lipstick, and sifted through medical literature on the topic. The list of sources at the end of the article doesn’t come close to doing justice to the amount of work that went into it. (Bottom line: Lipstick is safe, at least in the U.S.).
For another piece, "Chubby Bunny Death," the Mikkelsons verified that a child had indeed died while playing a game that entails stuffing as many marshmallows as possible into one’s mouth and trying to say the words "chubby bunny." However, they dispelled the notion that the death occurred because the marshmallows had "emulsified," forming a sticky liquid that choked the child and was difficult to extract in time to save her. Instead, it was a case of marshmallows blocking her air passages. The Mikkelsons knew that because they reviewed a number of articles about a lawsuit that resulted from the incident. But they also conducted their own experiment, David Mikkelson told us in an interview, in which he held marshmallows in his mouth to determine how long it takes them to dissolve. Now that’s research.
And no account of the lengths to which the Mikkelsons will go to chase down the facts would be complete without a mention of "Crash Course," their shredding of the rumor (repeated in Time magazine and elsewhere) that Clark Gable had run over and killed a pedestrian while driving drunk one night in 1945, and that his studio, MGM, paid an employee to take the rap for him. The Mikkelsons checked four biographies and other books, which had conflicting accounts, and a number of old newspaper articles (all on microfilm) to sort out the truth, which was that Gable did have a car wreck, but he never hit a pedestrian. Their account of the extensive research process is worth a read.
Although our sites have somewhat different emphases – we focus on what’s being said in political ads, speeches, interviews and debates, while Snopes.com concentrates more on such things as whether former Monkee band member Michael Nesmith’s mother was the inventor of liquid correction fluid (she was) – Snopes.com does take on some claims in the political realm. That has given us an opportunity to evaluate the Mikkelson’s work from time to time. We have found it solid and well-documented. We even link to Snopes.com when it’s appropriate rather than reinvent the wheel ourselves, which we consider high praise.
A Final Warning
The e-mail’s last paragraph advises that everyone who goes to Snopes.com for "the bottom line facts" should "proceed with caution." We think that’s terrific advice, not just in connection with material on Snopes but for practically anything a reader finds online — including articles on FactCheck.org. The very reason we list our sources (as does Snopes.com) and provide links is so that readers can check things out for themselves.
Oh, we almost forgot: That Wikipedia entry mentioned in the e-mail? Not only was it not the first place to reveal the Mikkelsons’ identities, but it contains several factual errors, according to David. For instance, it says that he works "part-time" on Snopes.com. That was never true, according to David; early on he did hold another job as well, but even that hasn’t been true since 2002. The mistakes could have been avoided if the authors had contacted the couple. "None of them did," he said.
–Viveca Novak
Sources
Brady, David E. "Valley Newswatch/A Special Report: The Virtual Valley," Los Angeles Times, 5 June 1995.
Interview with David Mikkelson, 8 April 2009.
Hochman, David. "Rumor Detectives: True Story or Online Hoax?" Reader’s Digest, April 2009.
Mikkelson, Barbara. "Chubby Bunny Death," Snopes.com, 15 Sept. 2006.
"Crash Course," Snopes.com, 9 Aug. 2007
Mikkelson, Barbara. "Easily Lead," Snopes.com, 12 Nov. 2008.
"Liquid Paperback Writer," Snopes.com, 26 April 2007.
Mikkelson, Barbara. "Chicken Hawked," Snopes.com, 23 Oct. 2008.
Selected pages on George W. Bush, Sarah Palin and Barack Obama, Snopes.com, various dates
Here is the original Snopes article, however please note the "Update" at the bottom of the article, which references the e-mail I am responding to.
http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/chicken.asp
Since the attack is against Snopes.com, I reasoned that maybe I should research elsewhere since the "alleged" liberal Mikkelsons may be a bit defensive. I found the following great article already written by Viveca Novak, in the FactCheck.Org website.
Enjoy another crushing retort to the lies and misinformation that conservatives keep pumping out. I actually hunger for a real number or fact that would challenge real problems instead of wasting time responding to misinformation and actual lies.
This widely circulated e-mail contains a number of false claims about the urban legend-busting Snopes.com and its proprietors, Barbara and David Mikkelson, who started the site in 1995 and still run it. They’re accused of hiding their identities, doing shoddy research, producing articles with a liberal bent and discrediting an anti-Obama State Farm agent out of partisanship.
The Trouble with Bud
We’ll deal first with the most specific allegation, which is that the Mikkelsons fabricated an account about State Farm agent Bud Gregg.
At issue is a sign Gregg posted last summer outside his office in Mandeville, La. It said, "A taxpayer voting for Barack Obama is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders." Snopes.com wrote it up in an article headlined "Chicken Hawked." The e-mail writer says that "they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort ‘ever’ took place." But that’s exactly what did happen, according a company representative.
In her article, Barbara Mikkelson didn’t actually use the word "pressured" as the e-mail claims. What she said was:
Snopes.com: A State Farm representative said that Bud Gregg’s office sign bore these messages until 3 July 2008 and that the company had requested the sign be removed as soon as they became aware of it because the sign was inconsistent with State Farm’s policy of not endorsing candidates or taking sides in political campaigns.
And State Farm spokeswoman Molly Quirk-Kirby confirmed in a letter to us the same thing she had told Snopes.com earlier:
State Farm: Management requested the sign be removed as soon as its presence became known. It was taken down on July 3, 2008. Mr. Gregg’s sign was not endorsed by, nor consistent with State Farm’s corporate practices. The company does not endorse candidates, nor take sides in political campaigns.
The e-mail’s author says the Mikkelsons didn’t call Gregg, and David says that’s true. He says he sent the insurance agent an e-mail, but did not receive a response.
Politically Preferential?
The e-mail goes on: "Then it has been learned the Mikkelson’s are very Democratic (party) and extremely liberal," adding: "There has been much criticism lately over the Internet with people pointing out the Mikkelson’s liberalism revealing itself in their website findings." The author cites no evidence and no sources for either of these propositions.
We asked David. He told us that Barbara is a Canadian citizen, and as such isn’t allowed to vote here or contribute money to U.S. candidates. As for him, "My sole involvement in politics is on Election Day to go out and vote. I’ve never joined a party, worked for a campaign or donated money to a candidate."
"You’d be hard-pressed to find two more apolitical people," David Mikkelson said. We checked online to see if he had given money to any federal candidates, and nothing turned up. Mikkelson even faxed us a copy of his voter registration form. He asked us not to post an image of it here, but we can confirm that it shows he declined to state a party affiliation when he registered last year, and also that when he registered in 2000 he did so as a Republican.
Do the Snopes.com articles reveal a political bias? We reviewed a sampling of their political offerings, including some on rumors about George W. Bush, Sarah Palin and Barack Obama, and we found them to be utterly poker-faced. David does say that the site receives more complaints that it is too liberal than that it is too conservative. Nevertheless, he says, "We apply the same debunking standards to both sides."
Hiding in Plain Sight
The e-mail also accuses the Mikkelsons of "hiding" their identities. "Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it," the message claims. That’s nonsense. It may well be that the author of this e-mail was ignorant of the Mikkelsons until recently, but it’s never been a secret who is behind Snopes.com.
We even dug up a reference to David Mikkelson from 1995, a year when the Internet was in its infancy. A collection of short items under the headline "A Special Report: The Virtual Valley" in the Los Angeles Times included a photo of him. Reporter David Brady wrote: "Meet David Mikkelson, above. Known in cyberspace as "snopes," the Agoura Hills resident spends much of his time debunking urban legends via the Usenet newsgroup alt.folklore.urban." The Mikkelsons were hardly holed up in an undisclosed location, even then.
David says the couple has done "hundreds" of media interviews over the years. Some of the major national pieces are listed on the site, including a new (April 2009) Reader’s Digest feature on them.
Lift That Bale!
Another claim in the e-mail: That the Mikkelsons have been criticized for "not really investigating and getting to the bottom of various issues." The message gives no examples, but there’s plenty of evidence that the couple expends a great deal of effort to find the truth. Take, for example, "Easily Lead," Barbara Mikkelson’s attempt to ascertain whether lipstick contains dangerous levels of lead, as one chain e-mail claimed. Mikkelson had an extensive conversation with a federal Food and Drug Administration compliance officer, conducted her own experiments rubbing various metals across lipstick and wax smears on white paper, dug up a number of articles about and industry memos on lead in lipstick, and sifted through medical literature on the topic. The list of sources at the end of the article doesn’t come close to doing justice to the amount of work that went into it. (Bottom line: Lipstick is safe, at least in the U.S.).
For another piece, "Chubby Bunny Death," the Mikkelsons verified that a child had indeed died while playing a game that entails stuffing as many marshmallows as possible into one’s mouth and trying to say the words "chubby bunny." However, they dispelled the notion that the death occurred because the marshmallows had "emulsified," forming a sticky liquid that choked the child and was difficult to extract in time to save her. Instead, it was a case of marshmallows blocking her air passages. The Mikkelsons knew that because they reviewed a number of articles about a lawsuit that resulted from the incident. But they also conducted their own experiment, David Mikkelson told us in an interview, in which he held marshmallows in his mouth to determine how long it takes them to dissolve. Now that’s research.
And no account of the lengths to which the Mikkelsons will go to chase down the facts would be complete without a mention of "Crash Course," their shredding of the rumor (repeated in Time magazine and elsewhere) that Clark Gable had run over and killed a pedestrian while driving drunk one night in 1945, and that his studio, MGM, paid an employee to take the rap for him. The Mikkelsons checked four biographies and other books, which had conflicting accounts, and a number of old newspaper articles (all on microfilm) to sort out the truth, which was that Gable did have a car wreck, but he never hit a pedestrian. Their account of the extensive research process is worth a read.
Although our sites have somewhat different emphases – we focus on what’s being said in political ads, speeches, interviews and debates, while Snopes.com concentrates more on such things as whether former Monkee band member Michael Nesmith’s mother was the inventor of liquid correction fluid (she was) – Snopes.com does take on some claims in the political realm. That has given us an opportunity to evaluate the Mikkelson’s work from time to time. We have found it solid and well-documented. We even link to Snopes.com when it’s appropriate rather than reinvent the wheel ourselves, which we consider high praise.
A Final Warning
The e-mail’s last paragraph advises that everyone who goes to Snopes.com for "the bottom line facts" should "proceed with caution." We think that’s terrific advice, not just in connection with material on Snopes but for practically anything a reader finds online — including articles on FactCheck.org. The very reason we list our sources (as does Snopes.com) and provide links is so that readers can check things out for themselves.
Oh, we almost forgot: That Wikipedia entry mentioned in the e-mail? Not only was it not the first place to reveal the Mikkelsons’ identities, but it contains several factual errors, according to David. For instance, it says that he works "part-time" on Snopes.com. That was never true, according to David; early on he did hold another job as well, but even that hasn’t been true since 2002. The mistakes could have been avoided if the authors had contacted the couple. "None of them did," he said.
–Viveca Novak
Sources
Brady, David E. "Valley Newswatch/A Special Report: The Virtual Valley," Los Angeles Times, 5 June 1995.
Interview with David Mikkelson, 8 April 2009.
Hochman, David. "Rumor Detectives: True Story or Online Hoax?" Reader’s Digest, April 2009.
Mikkelson, Barbara. "Chubby Bunny Death," Snopes.com, 15 Sept. 2006.
"Crash Course," Snopes.com, 9 Aug. 2007
Mikkelson, Barbara. "Easily Lead," Snopes.com, 12 Nov. 2008.
"Liquid Paperback Writer," Snopes.com, 26 April 2007.
Mikkelson, Barbara. "Chicken Hawked," Snopes.com, 23 Oct. 2008.
Selected pages on George W. Bush, Sarah Palin and Barack Obama, Snopes.com, various dates
Apr 11, 2010
Dr. Stamer Jones Laments the "Cultural Crisis"
A new Email circulating the Internet, has a confirmed letter, written by Dr. Stamer Jones, lamenting the "cultural crisis" by modeling a rather unsympathetic patient laden with tattoos and a gold tooth.
A suggested reply...
I truly understand how maddening it is to help people who make bad decisions in terms of finances and health. But frankly, we gather on a slippery slope when we target others, the uneducated or poor, to vent our feelings. The truth is, there are many rich, educated and middle-class folks, whom, while maybe not sporting tattoos and other “symbols” of wealth within their own “clan”, feel the same way as our gold-toothed friend.
The tag line in the e-mail laments, “It is a culture based in the irresponsible credo that, "I can do whatever I want to because someone else will always take care of me".
Obviously, Dr. Jones’ patient is an easy target and will not illicit much sympathy, however I would suggest that even those at the top of our society, feel the same way.
When Dr. McQuire, ex-CEO of United Healthcare, the poster child of bad corporate governance, is given a $1.2 BILLION golden parachute, could it be that deep within his consciousness, he felt that “someone else (the Board) will always take care of me", not unlike Dr. Jones' patient.
How about AIG’s series of bad financial decisions, or Morgan Stanley et al, could they not also believe that “someone else will always take care of us", because the country cannot afford to let us go under.
Or the physician who adds a few unnecessary "procedures" to the bill, submitted to the insurance company, taking advantage of their fee-for-service system, not unlike Dr. Jones' patient taking advantage of a system that she has access to.
How about the common-man, the heroic veteran who takes up drinking and needs financial help. Should we attack the veteran for bad health and financial decisions because he supposedly knows that “someone else will always take care of me”?
Those of us who bristle with moral superiority, living in our McMansion sized glass-houses, should be careful about pointing fingers at the powerless who steal a few bucks from "The System", after all, how many times have we justified taking advantage of a system, subconsciously assuming that someone else will take up the slack. Remember Leona Helmsley infamous remark to her housekeeper before she was sentenced to prison, "We don't pay taxes! Only little people pay taxes." Aaaah, the slippery slope....
The e-mail states that we are in the midst of a “cultural crisis”. Dictionaries define a crisis as a “turning point”. The truth is every generation sees itself in the midst of a cultural crisis. From Moses throwing down stone tablets upon a crowd of drunkards, to Caesar’s lamenting of the wayward-youth of his generation, to our parents rating of “juvenile delinquency’ as the number one problem in America in the 1950’s (see the movies "Blackboard Jungle", "The Wild Bunch" and "Westside Story"), etc., etc. The truth is that the human condition has never been a comforting enterprise to watch.
Maybe it’s up to those of us who have been given much, by means of birth, education, wealth, connections, abundant brain cells or simple good luck, to be better models. Throughout history, princes, presidents and popes, have been “taken care of” or have been “bailed-out” after making bad decisions. Why should we expect better behavior from those lower in the food-chain? Wisdom suggests that to those who have been given much, much is required and responsible modeling of good behavior and accountability would be a great starting point for all of us.
So at the end of the day, and for the first time in history, maybe we, the fortunate, should begin modeling responsible behavior and accountability, before lamenting the bad behavior of those who look up to us.
Just a thought…
A suggested reply...
I truly understand how maddening it is to help people who make bad decisions in terms of finances and health. But frankly, we gather on a slippery slope when we target others, the uneducated or poor, to vent our feelings. The truth is, there are many rich, educated and middle-class folks, whom, while maybe not sporting tattoos and other “symbols” of wealth within their own “clan”, feel the same way as our gold-toothed friend.
The tag line in the e-mail laments, “It is a culture based in the irresponsible credo that, "I can do whatever I want to because someone else will always take care of me".
Obviously, Dr. Jones’ patient is an easy target and will not illicit much sympathy, however I would suggest that even those at the top of our society, feel the same way.
When Dr. McQuire, ex-CEO of United Healthcare, the poster child of bad corporate governance, is given a $1.2 BILLION golden parachute, could it be that deep within his consciousness, he felt that “someone else (the Board) will always take care of me", not unlike Dr. Jones' patient.
How about AIG’s series of bad financial decisions, or Morgan Stanley et al, could they not also believe that “someone else will always take care of us", because the country cannot afford to let us go under.
Or the physician who adds a few unnecessary "procedures" to the bill, submitted to the insurance company, taking advantage of their fee-for-service system, not unlike Dr. Jones' patient taking advantage of a system that she has access to.
How about the common-man, the heroic veteran who takes up drinking and needs financial help. Should we attack the veteran for bad health and financial decisions because he supposedly knows that “someone else will always take care of me”?
Those of us who bristle with moral superiority, living in our McMansion sized glass-houses, should be careful about pointing fingers at the powerless who steal a few bucks from "The System", after all, how many times have we justified taking advantage of a system, subconsciously assuming that someone else will take up the slack. Remember Leona Helmsley infamous remark to her housekeeper before she was sentenced to prison, "We don't pay taxes! Only little people pay taxes." Aaaah, the slippery slope....
The e-mail states that we are in the midst of a “cultural crisis”. Dictionaries define a crisis as a “turning point”. The truth is every generation sees itself in the midst of a cultural crisis. From Moses throwing down stone tablets upon a crowd of drunkards, to Caesar’s lamenting of the wayward-youth of his generation, to our parents rating of “juvenile delinquency’ as the number one problem in America in the 1950’s (see the movies "Blackboard Jungle", "The Wild Bunch" and "Westside Story"), etc., etc. The truth is that the human condition has never been a comforting enterprise to watch.
Maybe it’s up to those of us who have been given much, by means of birth, education, wealth, connections, abundant brain cells or simple good luck, to be better models. Throughout history, princes, presidents and popes, have been “taken care of” or have been “bailed-out” after making bad decisions. Why should we expect better behavior from those lower in the food-chain? Wisdom suggests that to those who have been given much, much is required and responsible modeling of good behavior and accountability would be a great starting point for all of us.
So at the end of the day, and for the first time in history, maybe we, the fortunate, should begin modeling responsible behavior and accountability, before lamenting the bad behavior of those who look up to us.
Just a thought…
Apr 9, 2010
The Ugly Truth about Tort Reform and Healthcare!
Here's a retort to those who keep pushing tort-reform as the answer to reducing healthcare costs. The truth is the G.O.P. simply wants to keep their healthcare corporate donors from being held accountable for medical negligence. Here's a reply...
The truth is tort reform at the state and national level is very bi-partisan, in which Republicans are largely in favor and Democrats are largely opposed to it. Large insurance and healthcare companies contribute to the Republican interests and trial lawyer associations contribute to the Democrat interests. Large settlements and verdicts in personal injury cases can be seen as a transfer of wealth from large companies (Republican base) to victims and their lawyers (Democratic base). Tort reform proposals have mostly come from the Republican side of the aisle in Congress in order to curb this transfer of wealth. This is a good starting point and I would humbly suggest…a given!
For instance, many tort reform proponents will see a high-profile case, like McDonald’s Spilt Hot Coffee case versus Stella (Liebeck VS McDonald's Restaurants), who is the poster child for the Republicans, and the conservative right-wing, as an example of why tort reform is needed. They have managed to instill that case in EVERY Americans brain stem. Everyone is familiar with it! Every time I get into a discussion about tort reform it is thrown in my face, which is why I have memorized the case. These so-called “outrageous awards” are almost never let to stand as originally reported by the media and they are routinely struck down on appeal or before appeal. Punitive damages are by their very nature rare, constituting less than 4-percent of all personal injury verdicts, and in fact, happened in the now infamous MacDonald’s/Stella lawsuit, but that is never mentioned. If you want the "facts" of the case, you might change your mind. Go to...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants
I keep hearing the myth that the number of tort cases is skyrocketing out of control. However, according to the Office of the U. S. Courts tort cases decreased 28-percent between 2002 - 2003. Between 1992 and 2001 the number of civil cases filed in state court dropped by 47-percent. Another great myth is that citizens are bringing forth too many frivolous lawsuits against companies, driving up prices for all of us. Actually, the reverse is true! According to a recent survey, 69 out of 100 frivolous lawsuits, sanctioned as such, were brought by U. S. businesses and their attorneys against other companies. What the hell, we have attorneys on staff; let’s give them something to do. Why are corporations allowed to sue each other, but somehow, individuals are seen as the problem.
I don’t want to ramble too far afield, so let’s focus on healthcare.
Since 1986 more than half of the 50 states have enacted some kind of tort reform. For example, 34 states have legal limits on punitive damages, and 23 states have capped “non-economic” damages. By now we should be able to measure the real impact of tort reform. When coupled with the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, pushed through by Republicans, which stipulates that the law-suit must be for at least $5 million bucks and 2/3’s of the plaintiffs must come from the State the suit is filed in (clearly constructed to crush class-action lawsuits by individuals), we should be seeing some real cost reductions in healthcare in these states.
Evidently, however, the passage of tort reform laws has done nothing to reduce overall healthcare costs. Healthcare costs and patient insurance premiums continue to increase at the same rate as before, if not faster. And the promised cost reductions from less “defensive medicine”, never materialized.
Frankly, I keep hearing the same mantra, tort reform, cut taxes and ignore the deficit, and yet I really don’t see things getting better in any of the Republican states that HAVE enacted tort reforms OR tax cuts. What’s up? Who is REALLY benefiting from these enactments? Take a guess! Yup, the G.O.P loves covering the collective bums of corporations. Tort reform means keeping corporations from being held accountable for screw-ups!
According to the highly esteemed Institute of Medicine, medication errors ALONE, involving prescription drugs, account for 1.5 million injuries and deaths every YEAR (that’s over 4000 people a DAY). Of this number, 400,000 cases of medical errors are preventable. Of this number 44,000-98,000 die every year due to prescription medication error. And yet, a landmark study published by the Harvard School of Public Health concluded that MOST people who have grounds to file a malpractice claim for medical negligence, do NOT! A New York Times article posited that the number of people who might actually have legitimate malpractice claims is one-in-hundred, and only 2% of THESE people ever file a claim.
Imagine, an average 75,000 people DIE of prescription drug error, alone. We are not even discussing all other fields of medicine. And let’s not even discuss why American hospitals have an epidemic of the old superbug MRSA and why Denmark has managed to keep it under control for 30 years. The truth is, the G.O.P simply does NOT want to hold the hospitals accountable for the deaths, after all, we DO want to keep Republican ex-Senator (Dr.) Frist and his family’s Hospital Corporation of America free of accountability when their patients die because of their medical negligence, right? It was probably the patient’s fault for getting sick in the first place…
Frankly, healthcare corporations should be glee-filled knowing that only 2% are going to the lawyers. Why only 2%? Because most people “like” their doctors and cut them slack. That’s not my assumption, that’s a known fact, which is why some insurance companies “time” how many minutes a physician spends with the patient, when quoting doctors on malpractice insurance. They know that the more minutes spent equals better “bonding” with the patient and that the “timely” doctors will probably only average ONE to TWO malpractice lawsuits in the whole history of the physician’s practice.
At the end of the day, we are told that if we limit awards through tort reform, medical care costs and the cost of medical liability insurance should drop by up to 70%, and the overall healthcare costs will drop around 40%.” If it is so simple, than EVERY Republican state that has enacted these tort reforms (caps and limits on punitive damages) should begin seeing the numbers being thrown around.
However, in the 23 Republican states that have “capped” damages in their new reform tort laws, costs continue to rise. Frankly, the Congressional Budget Office report on tort reform, agrees with only one point, while it would lower doctors malpractice insurance premiums by as much as 30% (not 70%...of course THEY want tort reform!)), it would only reduce healthcare premiums by a measly half-percent (not 40%). Come on, does anyone REALLY believe that if a doctor’s practice suddenly had their malpractice insurance premiums drop 30%, they would begin charging less for the services then the doctor across the street. Come on, get real! They would merely pocket the difference!
So much for tort-reform lowering the cost of healthcare.
The truth is tort reform at the state and national level is very bi-partisan, in which Republicans are largely in favor and Democrats are largely opposed to it. Large insurance and healthcare companies contribute to the Republican interests and trial lawyer associations contribute to the Democrat interests. Large settlements and verdicts in personal injury cases can be seen as a transfer of wealth from large companies (Republican base) to victims and their lawyers (Democratic base). Tort reform proposals have mostly come from the Republican side of the aisle in Congress in order to curb this transfer of wealth. This is a good starting point and I would humbly suggest…a given!
For instance, many tort reform proponents will see a high-profile case, like McDonald’s Spilt Hot Coffee case versus Stella (Liebeck VS McDonald's Restaurants), who is the poster child for the Republicans, and the conservative right-wing, as an example of why tort reform is needed. They have managed to instill that case in EVERY Americans brain stem. Everyone is familiar with it! Every time I get into a discussion about tort reform it is thrown in my face, which is why I have memorized the case. These so-called “outrageous awards” are almost never let to stand as originally reported by the media and they are routinely struck down on appeal or before appeal. Punitive damages are by their very nature rare, constituting less than 4-percent of all personal injury verdicts, and in fact, happened in the now infamous MacDonald’s/Stella lawsuit, but that is never mentioned. If you want the "facts" of the case, you might change your mind. Go to...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants
I keep hearing the myth that the number of tort cases is skyrocketing out of control. However, according to the Office of the U. S. Courts tort cases decreased 28-percent between 2002 - 2003. Between 1992 and 2001 the number of civil cases filed in state court dropped by 47-percent. Another great myth is that citizens are bringing forth too many frivolous lawsuits against companies, driving up prices for all of us. Actually, the reverse is true! According to a recent survey, 69 out of 100 frivolous lawsuits, sanctioned as such, were brought by U. S. businesses and their attorneys against other companies. What the hell, we have attorneys on staff; let’s give them something to do. Why are corporations allowed to sue each other, but somehow, individuals are seen as the problem.
I don’t want to ramble too far afield, so let’s focus on healthcare.
Since 1986 more than half of the 50 states have enacted some kind of tort reform. For example, 34 states have legal limits on punitive damages, and 23 states have capped “non-economic” damages. By now we should be able to measure the real impact of tort reform. When coupled with the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, pushed through by Republicans, which stipulates that the law-suit must be for at least $5 million bucks and 2/3’s of the plaintiffs must come from the State the suit is filed in (clearly constructed to crush class-action lawsuits by individuals), we should be seeing some real cost reductions in healthcare in these states.
Evidently, however, the passage of tort reform laws has done nothing to reduce overall healthcare costs. Healthcare costs and patient insurance premiums continue to increase at the same rate as before, if not faster. And the promised cost reductions from less “defensive medicine”, never materialized.
Frankly, I keep hearing the same mantra, tort reform, cut taxes and ignore the deficit, and yet I really don’t see things getting better in any of the Republican states that HAVE enacted tort reforms OR tax cuts. What’s up? Who is REALLY benefiting from these enactments? Take a guess! Yup, the G.O.P loves covering the collective bums of corporations. Tort reform means keeping corporations from being held accountable for screw-ups!
According to the highly esteemed Institute of Medicine, medication errors ALONE, involving prescription drugs, account for 1.5 million injuries and deaths every YEAR (that’s over 4000 people a DAY). Of this number, 400,000 cases of medical errors are preventable. Of this number 44,000-98,000 die every year due to prescription medication error. And yet, a landmark study published by the Harvard School of Public Health concluded that MOST people who have grounds to file a malpractice claim for medical negligence, do NOT! A New York Times article posited that the number of people who might actually have legitimate malpractice claims is one-in-hundred, and only 2% of THESE people ever file a claim.
Imagine, an average 75,000 people DIE of prescription drug error, alone. We are not even discussing all other fields of medicine. And let’s not even discuss why American hospitals have an epidemic of the old superbug MRSA and why Denmark has managed to keep it under control for 30 years. The truth is, the G.O.P simply does NOT want to hold the hospitals accountable for the deaths, after all, we DO want to keep Republican ex-Senator (Dr.) Frist and his family’s Hospital Corporation of America free of accountability when their patients die because of their medical negligence, right? It was probably the patient’s fault for getting sick in the first place…
Frankly, healthcare corporations should be glee-filled knowing that only 2% are going to the lawyers. Why only 2%? Because most people “like” their doctors and cut them slack. That’s not my assumption, that’s a known fact, which is why some insurance companies “time” how many minutes a physician spends with the patient, when quoting doctors on malpractice insurance. They know that the more minutes spent equals better “bonding” with the patient and that the “timely” doctors will probably only average ONE to TWO malpractice lawsuits in the whole history of the physician’s practice.
At the end of the day, we are told that if we limit awards through tort reform, medical care costs and the cost of medical liability insurance should drop by up to 70%, and the overall healthcare costs will drop around 40%.” If it is so simple, than EVERY Republican state that has enacted these tort reforms (caps and limits on punitive damages) should begin seeing the numbers being thrown around.
However, in the 23 Republican states that have “capped” damages in their new reform tort laws, costs continue to rise. Frankly, the Congressional Budget Office report on tort reform, agrees with only one point, while it would lower doctors malpractice insurance premiums by as much as 30% (not 70%...of course THEY want tort reform!)), it would only reduce healthcare premiums by a measly half-percent (not 40%). Come on, does anyone REALLY believe that if a doctor’s practice suddenly had their malpractice insurance premiums drop 30%, they would begin charging less for the services then the doctor across the street. Come on, get real! They would merely pocket the difference!
So much for tort-reform lowering the cost of healthcare.
Obama is Leading Us to Socialism?
E-mail, U-Tube entries, conservative websites and cable networks love to accuse President Obama of leading us into socialism. The truth is socialistic programs are as American as apple pie! My reply:
OMG, Obama is a Socialist! We are becoming a socialist nation!
In all honesty, those who buy into this rhetoric, probably didn’t do very well in history or government classes as students. Conservatives and the GOP have made socialism a dirty word, when in fact, America has been very comfortable with socialism from the beginning of our republic (not that these chicken-littles have a clue what the difference is between a Democracy, Socialism, Fascism and Communism or what a Republic is). They have demonized the word socialism as much as they did with healthcare reform, with “death panels”, not knowing, of course, that most Americans endorse “living-wills” and end-of-life directives since the advent of Medicare in 1965. Heck, even the great trifurcate of Bush, Rush, Sarah, and even Newt, loved these documents, but after Sarah referred to them as “death panels” (after endorsing it), a great program has now been taken out of the Healthcare Bill. To wit…
1) Back in her half-term as Alaska governor, Sarah Palin spoke out for advance healthcare directives in her 2008 Healthcare Decision Day Proclamation.
2) Rush Limbaugh enthusiastically read ad copy championing LegalZoom.com, whose services include do-it-yourself living wills.
3) Newt Gingrich recently advocated for advance directives (end-of-life planning) in his July 2nd Washington Post column.
4) Most Senate and House Republicans voted to fund counseling for end-of-life issues and care in George W. Bush’s 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill.
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. So the widely used end-of life directives and attendant paid-for consultations with your doctor by anyone over the age of 65, has been sabotaged. Nice work GOP!
Hey, “death panels” worked with the non-illuminati before, let’s demonize socialism and thereby attack the most fundamental and long-standing institutions in America.
Premise! What is socialism? Frankly, most people, even the well-educated, would have difficulty defining economic-theory within socialism since there are so many views that even well-known socialists argued over its goals and implementation, but implemented they were. Go ahead to Wikipedia and see if you can parse the varying forms of socialism.
The same goes with the term “democracy”. There is no one simple understanding of it. We are still arguing about how a democracy should be implemented, i.e., states-rights vs. federal-rights vs. re-districting, etc.. Some people want the “government” off the backs off business and totally de-regulated while, at the same time, having no problem with the governments issuing “regulations” in our personal lives such as, abortion, drug use, suicide, etc.
The truth is socialism is as American as apple pie!
So that we have a common understanding of the word “socialism”, let’s use the very safe Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Socialism is:
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
And what terrible programs have been identified as socialistic in America? Well, let’s use the conservative anti-socialism website, Amarxica.com.
http://www.amarxica.com/pages/programs.html
They have identified the following as socialistic American programs.
Government Worker Programs
Civil Service Retirement Systems
Federal Employee Retirement Systems
Railroad Retirement System
Housing & Urban Development (HUD) Programs
Public Housing
Rental Vouchers & Certificates
Section 8 Housing Vouchers
Shelter Plus Care
Single Room Occupancy
Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Social Security Programs
Social Security (OASDI)
Unemployment Insurance
Temporary Disability Insurance
Medicare
Medicaid
Medicare Prescription Drug Plan (Oops, the GOP and George W, should be ashamed of themselves)
Welfare Programs
Supplemental Security Income
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Food Stamp Program
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)
National School Lunch Program
School Breakfast Program
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Programs That Threaten Liberties in General
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Import Tariffs
Other programs and institutions that are controlled by the government and owned “by the people”, a result of the redistribution of wealth, and funded by the pooling of tax-payer money for the greater good are:
• The VA Hospital (Damn, Abe Lincoln)
• The Post Office (Damn, Ben Franklin!)
• Jails (Damn, the Founding Fathers!)
• State and National Parks (Damn, Teddy Roosevelt)
• Libraries (Ben Franklin was a socialist?)
• Fire Departments (Again, Ben Franklin was a socialist?)
• Roads and freeways (Damn, Eisenhower!)
• Street lights paid by city and state governments
• The U.S. Military (Damn, Jefferson!)
And to make matters worse, socialists have fought for municipalities and cities to own their own waterworks, gas and electric plants, and co-operatives, rather than being gouged by “for-profits”. The outrage!
Obama is leading us to socialism? Hmmmm, it would seem that it has been around a little longer than Obama. Certainly the GOP had no problem with their first TARP program signed into existence by George W., giving the people’s money to corporations and allowing “the people” to have ownership in private institutions, like General Motors and financial institutions. And for bailing them out with “the people’s money”, the government now has a ownership stake and should now rightfully enjoy the profits of our bailout. Wait a minute, who led us into socialism?
You see, governments are formed to handle common societal problems that cannot be handled by individuals.
The truth is, we love our socialistic programs and we love our socialists.
The U.S. Pledge of Allegiance was written by the now well-known Christian Socialist, Francis Bellamy.
Upton Sinclair, a well-known socialist, wrote “The Jungle” which every H.S. student must still read and it, of course, caused such an uproar that the Meat Inspection Act of 1906 was enacted…those damn socialists!
George Orwell’s "1984", another must-read for H.S. students, was a devoted socialist.
Clarence Darrow, Jack London, D. H. Lawrence...the point is, the socialist list is extensive!
At the end of the day, the socialistic mind-sync institutions have been with America since the beginning and they are cherished American institutions. If conservatives want to use the same tactics as they did with “death-panels”, have at it, but our democratic-socialist leaning country has done a pretty good job over the last 200 years, and I do not support those who attack it, hoping that the “simpletons” will trump our country’s finest socialist services and institutions (read community and/or government owned and administered organizations) to win votes for the GOP.
After my research into your question, I guess I should refer to myself as a Democratic-Socialist! I like the idea of pooling our money together for a common-good (“species that run in packs, have a higher survival-rate”) and having our “elected” and “appointed” officials administer them. Others, would prefer Halliburton, Enron, Washington Mutual, Morgan Stanley, WorldCom, Tyco, Adelphia Communications, ImClone, Qwest, Country Wide, etc., etc.,…I humbly disagree! We can vote "out" elected officials; corporations are virtually bullet-proof and have no mandate or charter to support the common good...only make profits for their shareholders.
The good news is that we have been a working Democratic Socialist Republic in action, if not in name, for a long time, unfortunately, their are many who remain clueless to the reality of our American history.
OMG, Obama is a Socialist! We are becoming a socialist nation!
In all honesty, those who buy into this rhetoric, probably didn’t do very well in history or government classes as students. Conservatives and the GOP have made socialism a dirty word, when in fact, America has been very comfortable with socialism from the beginning of our republic (not that these chicken-littles have a clue what the difference is between a Democracy, Socialism, Fascism and Communism or what a Republic is). They have demonized the word socialism as much as they did with healthcare reform, with “death panels”, not knowing, of course, that most Americans endorse “living-wills” and end-of-life directives since the advent of Medicare in 1965. Heck, even the great trifurcate of Bush, Rush, Sarah, and even Newt, loved these documents, but after Sarah referred to them as “death panels” (after endorsing it), a great program has now been taken out of the Healthcare Bill. To wit…
1) Back in her half-term as Alaska governor, Sarah Palin spoke out for advance healthcare directives in her 2008 Healthcare Decision Day Proclamation.
2) Rush Limbaugh enthusiastically read ad copy championing LegalZoom.com, whose services include do-it-yourself living wills.
3) Newt Gingrich recently advocated for advance directives (end-of-life planning) in his July 2nd Washington Post column.
4) Most Senate and House Republicans voted to fund counseling for end-of-life issues and care in George W. Bush’s 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill.
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. So the widely used end-of life directives and attendant paid-for consultations with your doctor by anyone over the age of 65, has been sabotaged. Nice work GOP!
Hey, “death panels” worked with the non-illuminati before, let’s demonize socialism and thereby attack the most fundamental and long-standing institutions in America.
Premise! What is socialism? Frankly, most people, even the well-educated, would have difficulty defining economic-theory within socialism since there are so many views that even well-known socialists argued over its goals and implementation, but implemented they were. Go ahead to Wikipedia and see if you can parse the varying forms of socialism.
The same goes with the term “democracy”. There is no one simple understanding of it. We are still arguing about how a democracy should be implemented, i.e., states-rights vs. federal-rights vs. re-districting, etc.. Some people want the “government” off the backs off business and totally de-regulated while, at the same time, having no problem with the governments issuing “regulations” in our personal lives such as, abortion, drug use, suicide, etc.
The truth is socialism is as American as apple pie!
So that we have a common understanding of the word “socialism”, let’s use the very safe Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Socialism is:
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
And what terrible programs have been identified as socialistic in America? Well, let’s use the conservative anti-socialism website, Amarxica.com.
http://www.amarxica.com/pages/programs.html
They have identified the following as socialistic American programs.
Government Worker Programs
Civil Service Retirement Systems
Federal Employee Retirement Systems
Railroad Retirement System
Housing & Urban Development (HUD) Programs
Public Housing
Rental Vouchers & Certificates
Section 8 Housing Vouchers
Shelter Plus Care
Single Room Occupancy
Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Social Security Programs
Social Security (OASDI)
Unemployment Insurance
Temporary Disability Insurance
Medicare
Medicaid
Medicare Prescription Drug Plan (Oops, the GOP and George W, should be ashamed of themselves)
Welfare Programs
Supplemental Security Income
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Food Stamp Program
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)
National School Lunch Program
School Breakfast Program
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Programs That Threaten Liberties in General
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Import Tariffs
Other programs and institutions that are controlled by the government and owned “by the people”, a result of the redistribution of wealth, and funded by the pooling of tax-payer money for the greater good are:
• The VA Hospital (Damn, Abe Lincoln)
• The Post Office (Damn, Ben Franklin!)
• Jails (Damn, the Founding Fathers!)
• State and National Parks (Damn, Teddy Roosevelt)
• Libraries (Ben Franklin was a socialist?)
• Fire Departments (Again, Ben Franklin was a socialist?)
• Roads and freeways (Damn, Eisenhower!)
• Street lights paid by city and state governments
• The U.S. Military (Damn, Jefferson!)
And to make matters worse, socialists have fought for municipalities and cities to own their own waterworks, gas and electric plants, and co-operatives, rather than being gouged by “for-profits”. The outrage!
Obama is leading us to socialism? Hmmmm, it would seem that it has been around a little longer than Obama. Certainly the GOP had no problem with their first TARP program signed into existence by George W., giving the people’s money to corporations and allowing “the people” to have ownership in private institutions, like General Motors and financial institutions. And for bailing them out with “the people’s money”, the government now has a ownership stake and should now rightfully enjoy the profits of our bailout. Wait a minute, who led us into socialism?
You see, governments are formed to handle common societal problems that cannot be handled by individuals.
The truth is, we love our socialistic programs and we love our socialists.
The U.S. Pledge of Allegiance was written by the now well-known Christian Socialist, Francis Bellamy.
Upton Sinclair, a well-known socialist, wrote “The Jungle” which every H.S. student must still read and it, of course, caused such an uproar that the Meat Inspection Act of 1906 was enacted…those damn socialists!
George Orwell’s "1984", another must-read for H.S. students, was a devoted socialist.
Clarence Darrow, Jack London, D. H. Lawrence...the point is, the socialist list is extensive!
At the end of the day, the socialistic mind-sync institutions have been with America since the beginning and they are cherished American institutions. If conservatives want to use the same tactics as they did with “death-panels”, have at it, but our democratic-socialist leaning country has done a pretty good job over the last 200 years, and I do not support those who attack it, hoping that the “simpletons” will trump our country’s finest socialist services and institutions (read community and/or government owned and administered organizations) to win votes for the GOP.
After my research into your question, I guess I should refer to myself as a Democratic-Socialist! I like the idea of pooling our money together for a common-good (“species that run in packs, have a higher survival-rate”) and having our “elected” and “appointed” officials administer them. Others, would prefer Halliburton, Enron, Washington Mutual, Morgan Stanley, WorldCom, Tyco, Adelphia Communications, ImClone, Qwest, Country Wide, etc., etc.,…I humbly disagree! We can vote "out" elected officials; corporations are virtually bullet-proof and have no mandate or charter to support the common good...only make profits for their shareholders.
The good news is that we have been a working Democratic Socialist Republic in action, if not in name, for a long time, unfortunately, their are many who remain clueless to the reality of our American history.
What? Obama said Veterans Should Get Their Own Insurance for War Injuries! The Truth!
It would seem that one of the fastest moving e-mailed mistruths circulating the eternet, quotes President Obama telling Vets to get their own health insurance for combat injuries. This is not true! Here is my response to this e-mailed lie!
I would agree that if President Obama HAD uttered these words, it would be disgraceful, but IF anyone HAD checked Snopes.com, they would have read:
“President Obama did NOT utter the words attributed to him above; the quoted example is a bit of fictional dialogue excerpted from a satirical piece by CONSERVATIVE humorist John Semmens.”
Here’s my question, what type of people attribute a quote to the President knowing that it was lifted from a satire written by a “conservative” humorist?
To make matters worst, they start the e-mailed message, in the first paragraph, by telling the reader that it was already checked out on Snopes.com, knowing, full-well, that most of the Obama-haters will meekly accept the statement thereby assuaging them of any guilt in passing on a lie. The truth is that this increasingly common practice of telling people that a rumor has been already checked out at snopes.com, does not give the "forwarders" of rumors, a free-pass. They want accountability, then they should be held accountable.
If you consider yourself a Christian, Jew or Muslim, let me remind you that since we consider the Ten Commandments as necessary in a moral society, we should try to obey them, less we be seen as hypocrites, to wit, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor”.
If you want to make a political point, I think truth is a great starting point.
To all of those who consider themselves moral agents, passing on this lie with your name on it, is hypocritical, dishonest, disgraceful and despicable.
And people wonder why people don't listen to them…once a liar, always a liar.
Like Jesus said in Luke 16:10, “If a person is dishonest in little things, then he will be dishonest in big things too.”
To those who passed this on, thanks for proclaiming, publically, that you’re “dishonest” and not to be trusted again.
Like Jesus said, “Woe unto you hypocrites!”
I would agree that if President Obama HAD uttered these words, it would be disgraceful, but IF anyone HAD checked Snopes.com, they would have read:
“President Obama did NOT utter the words attributed to him above; the quoted example is a bit of fictional dialogue excerpted from a satirical piece by CONSERVATIVE humorist John Semmens.”
Here’s my question, what type of people attribute a quote to the President knowing that it was lifted from a satire written by a “conservative” humorist?
To make matters worst, they start the e-mailed message, in the first paragraph, by telling the reader that it was already checked out on Snopes.com, knowing, full-well, that most of the Obama-haters will meekly accept the statement thereby assuaging them of any guilt in passing on a lie. The truth is that this increasingly common practice of telling people that a rumor has been already checked out at snopes.com, does not give the "forwarders" of rumors, a free-pass. They want accountability, then they should be held accountable.
If you consider yourself a Christian, Jew or Muslim, let me remind you that since we consider the Ten Commandments as necessary in a moral society, we should try to obey them, less we be seen as hypocrites, to wit, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor”.
If you want to make a political point, I think truth is a great starting point.
To all of those who consider themselves moral agents, passing on this lie with your name on it, is hypocritical, dishonest, disgraceful and despicable.
And people wonder why people don't listen to them…once a liar, always a liar.
Like Jesus said in Luke 16:10, “If a person is dishonest in little things, then he will be dishonest in big things too.”
To those who passed this on, thanks for proclaiming, publically, that you’re “dishonest” and not to be trusted again.
Like Jesus said, “Woe unto you hypocrites!”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
