Too Much Transparency?

Just Biden our time in Kabul?

(NYT/AP)

"Although Mr. Obama has said that a stable Afghanistan is central to the security of the United States, some advisers said he was also wary of becoming trapped in an overseas quagmire. Some Pentagon officials say they worry that he is having what they called 'buyer’s remorse' after ordering an extra 21,000 troops there within weeks of taking office before even settling on a strategy."

— Peter Baker and Elizabeth Bumiller, NYTimes

Read More.

When the argument was Cut-n-Run™ vs. the Surge®, (and NOT about secretly paying off Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar province), those highly argumentative memes were at least well-formed, group-tested, political propaganda brands that let people latch onto something. Obama's more public dithering over what not to do, instead of what to do, will drive people into Carter-like uncertainty.

Americans aren't educated for debate. There is a supreme being who arbitrates, and CEO's are falsely imbued with omnipotent powers by lay people, even though executives are actually beholden to a board of directors who prefer to work in secrecy.

"Mr. Obama met in the Situation Room with his top advisers on Sept. 13 to begin chewing over the problem, said officials involved in the debate.

"Among those on hand were Mr. Biden; Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates; Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton; James L. Jones, the national security adviser; and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."

It's where we are on healthcare, now that everything that would be allowed on the table is ostensibly on it; we're just fighting over what NOT to do, instead of what TO do.

The Democrats have the naïve idea that public airing of these quarrels serve the greater good in a healthy debate within a republic, but we're not a healthy republic.

"They reached no consensus, so three or four more such meetings are being scheduled. 'There are a lot of competing views,' said one official who, like others in this article, requested anonymity to discuss internal administration deliberations."

We're a babbling mass of confused tribes who believe the hand of God is guiding us by whispering in our fearless leader's ear.

Obama's drawing the wrong conclusion from his win, believing that Americans are hip to transparent public deliberation more than we are used to arguing about pre-defined tokens of brand identification.

A regulated exchange of actuarial products? What the hell is that, and what does it have to do with Communism™ or America © GOP 1776?

Read More.

Dr. Death and the Economist

Glib globs of misinformation.

(Economist)

"Unfortunately for Mr Obama, some of his academic chums have pondered seriously and publicly about the questions...

"Ezekiel Emanuel, a doctor whose brother is Mr Obama’s chief of staff, wrote a paper for the Lancet, a medical journal, in which he proposed a system for determining who should be first in line for such things as liver transplants or vaccines during an epidemic."

— The Economist

Read More.

While that's an applicable take on the ruthlessly glib rationale of Emanuel, who can afford to consider policies that will never affect him, the Economist whistles just as glibly past the cemetery when they say, "the uninsured have the most to gain, but they are only 15% of the population. Everyone else has something to lose."

"Among other factors, he suggested taking age into account, with adolescents and young adults getting priority, because they have fully developed personalities and many years of life ahead. Dr Emanuel even included a graph showing voters above and below the ideal age how much less their lives are worth.

"Conservative talk radio predictably dubbed him 'Dr Death'"

First, many people only think that they're insured, unaware as they are that the corporate death panel has already decided under what circumstances they're going to die.

Obama's own story talks about his mother haggling with the insurance company when it came time for them to pay for cancer treatment. Many more than 15% are effectively not covered for anything less than $5000 worth of treatment... on top of the $2500.00 they pay in premiums and co-pays for office visits. People pay seven to $8,000 dollars a year before the insurance company breaks a sweat to dig up some extenuating circumstance to avoid ever paying anything at all.

It's not difficult information to reveal, and the Economist is not alone, but it should be at least a little embarrassed for not adding the extra paragraph.

I won't even expound on their blithe use of the term Obamacare for a legislative situation in which he's largely left lawmaking to Congress. Suffice to say it's not particularly analytical of the Economist.

Something from the Commentariat:

"For example, we need to look no further than the stories of death row inmates being released after 15 years because oopsie, they didn't do it, or the public school administrator who expels a kid under a zero tolerance drug policy because he's possessing Tylenol.

"The onus is on Obama and his administration to prove to the American people that their reforms won't be an even bigger, more expensive failure than the present system."

— cmb53208

Opponents of reform suggest a few failures invalidate everything, that unless perfection is possible no policy is preferable.

Harrowing examples of death row mishap would be more relevant if the prison industry was driven by an insatiable urge to execute everybody... such as the insurance industry is guilty of rampant rescission, cases in which the insurance company accepts your monthly payment for years until you make a significant claim... then, all of a sudden, they see you forgot to mention the in-grown toenail you had fixed 10 years ago, and they drop you, now that you're diabetic... with a scarlet letter by your name, in some database somewhere, and you won't be seen again by anyone until your leg needs amputating in some emergency room.

We fear mistakes, naturally, but what about what's happening on purpose, on account of the defining strategy of the corporate business plan? The corporate insurance industry survives by denying us care...



...by design, in collusion, not by mistake.

Read More.