As a Centrist Democrat, I think it is important to call on Obama for clarity and full disclosure, when it is clear these are lacking. If we accuse the Wingnuts of being intellectually dishonest (for those with any intellect) we must admit, quickly, when "we" are not.
(1) During his appearance at American University with Chris Matthews et al, the other day, Obama stated that the NSA is not interested in our emails or texts, and that there are many oversight safeguards to protect us from abuses and misuses. He said this information is strictly to track and watch those who would hurt us.
This is clearly untrue. Indeed, for years, collateral law enforcement agency's like DEA etc, without a shred of connection to terrorism, have routinely had access to this intelligence, along with the FBI, Treasury, etc., all used to make standard criminal cases and then lie to the courts where the initial information came from. There are many verified websites on this and it is commonly known. To suggest otherwise is bullshit.
(2) the Georgia Insurance Commissioner, a GOP clod, said something about pre existing conditions being somehow the claimants fault, and the progressives jumped on him. In the flurry, what the idiot was actually trying to say had good merit. What he was trying to say was that it is not actuarially possible to prohibit discrimination against pre-existing conditions. You cannot do that. Just as he suggested, people would go without insurance and then buy after falling ill (I.e., after having an accident)-- so, in order to take people with pre-existing conditions, the insurance carriers will have to spread that risk and cost. Ergo, you may find that the govt is more involved than touted. I don't know what the actuarial solution will be, but I know it is a serious cost issue.
Let's be truthful, if we expect it from others.
A slide from a presentation about a secretive information-sharing program run by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration's Special Operations Division (SOD) is seen in this undated photo.
CREDIT: REUTERS/JOHN SHIFFMAN
(1) During his appearance at American University with Chris Matthews et al, the other day, Obama stated that the NSA is not interested in our emails or texts, and that there are many oversight safeguards to protect us from abuses and misuses. He said this information is strictly to track and watch those who would hurt us.
This is clearly untrue. Indeed, for years, collateral law enforcement agency's like DEA etc, without a shred of connection to terrorism, have routinely had access to this intelligence, along with the FBI, Treasury, etc., all used to make standard criminal cases and then lie to the courts where the initial information came from. There are many verified websites on this and it is commonly known. To suggest otherwise is bullshit.
(2) the Georgia Insurance Commissioner, a GOP clod, said something about pre existing conditions being somehow the claimants fault, and the progressives jumped on him. In the flurry, what the idiot was actually trying to say had good merit. What he was trying to say was that it is not actuarially possible to prohibit discrimination against pre-existing conditions. You cannot do that. Just as he suggested, people would go without insurance and then buy after falling ill (I.e., after having an accident)-- so, in order to take people with pre-existing conditions, the insurance carriers will have to spread that risk and cost. Ergo, you may find that the govt is more involved than touted. I don't know what the actuarial solution will be, but I know it is a serious cost issue.
Let's be truthful, if we expect it from others.
No comments:
Post a Comment