@Throbbin. Great points. Actually, the native family I was talking about are treaty indians from a Canadian reserve. They're my girlfriend's brother's family. Her brother passed away six years ago from lung cancer (not a smoker), and so we've been worried about my girlfriend's four nephews ever since.

I can tell you, things are not peachy on that reserve. Also, the locals in Canada are racist. While visiting her brother in the hospital before he died, my girlfriend, who obviously looks Native American though she has a wider racial mix than that, was in a Canadian store somewhere and the lady behind the counter treated her so rudely and to the point that she almost didn't want to serve my girlfriend. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, maybe they've come to not like the reserve indians because of bad experiences with the drugs, alcoholism and rampant child abuse, but it just smacked of disgusting racism to me.

lung cancer anyone?

This is really a prime example of exactly what is wrong with "arbitrary law" and the government in general. One guy thinks he has all the answers (sorry jwray I know you mean well) but unfortunately he choses the wrong sources to base his science on, and he gets it completely wrong....instead of a bunch of laws which "help reduce our health care costs" we have a bunch of wasteful taxation which does the exact opposite.

Every idea sounds great when it springs forth from you brain...and I'll even admit jwray not even a couple years back I have made this exact argument: Tax alcohol and use it to fund liver transplants...tax cigarettes and use it to fund lung cancer treatment, etc. The reality is such taxes are anti-human; because a tax on a personal choice is passing judgment on the way someone choses to live their life - when it does not affect you in the slightest.

If someones personal choices affect your life, then yes, pass all the judgment you want, take them to court or call 911 but if I want to live on a farm in the middle of nowhere and buy a deep fryer, cigarettes, booze, soda, and potato chips from www.unhealthylifestyleproducts.com who are you to tack on perceived "healthcare costs" ?

EDWARD R. MURROW

RTNDA Convention
Chicago
October 15, 1958

This just might do nobody any good. At the end of this discourse a few people may accuse this reporter of fouling his own comfortable nest, and your organization may be accused of having given hospitality to heretical and even dangerous thoughts. But the elaborate structure of networks, advertising agencies and sponsors will not be shaken or altered. It is my desire, if not my duty, to try to talk to you journeymen with some candor about what is happening to radio and television.

I have no technical advice or counsel to offer those of you who labor in this vineyard that produces words and pictures. You will forgive me for not telling you that instruments with which you work are miraculous, that your responsibility is unprecedented or that your aspirations are frequently frustrated. It is not necessary to remind you that the fact that your voice is amplified to the degree where it reaches from one end of the country to the other does not confer upon you greater wisdom or understanding than you possessed when your voice reached only from one end of the bar to the other. All of these things you know.

You should also know at the outset that, in the manner of witnesses before Congressional committees, I appear here voluntarily-by invitation-that I am an employee of the Columbia Broadcasting System, that I am neither an officer nor a director of that corporation and that these remarks are of a "do-it-yourself" nature. If what I have to say is responsible, then I alone am responsible for the saying of it. Seeking neither approbation from my employers, nor new sponsors, nor acclaim from the critics of radio and television, I cannot well be disappointed. Believing that potentially the commercial system of broadcasting as practiced in this country is the best and freest yet devised, I have decided to express my concern about what I believe to be happening to radio and television. These instruments have been good to me beyond my due. There exists in mind no reasonable grounds for personal complaint. I have no feud, either with my employers, any sponsors, or with the professional critics of radio and television. But I am seized with an abiding fear regarding what these two instruments are doing to our society, our culture and our heritage.

Our history will be what we make it. And if there are any historians about fifty or a hundred years from now, and there should be preserved the kinescopes for one week of all three networks, they will there find recorded in black and white, or color, evidence of decadence, escapism and insulation from the realities of the world in which we live. I invite your attention to the television schedules of all networks between the hours of 8 and 11 p.m., Eastern Time. Here you will find only fleeting and spasmodic reference to the fact that this nation is in mortal danger. There are, it is true, occasional informative programs presented in that intellectual ghetto on Sunday afternoons. But during the daily peak viewing periods, television in the main insulates us from the realities of the world in which we live. If this state of affairs continues, we may alter an advertising slogan to read: LOOK NOW, PAY LATER.

For surely we shall pay for using this most powerful instrument of communication to insulate the citizenry from the hard and demanding realities which must be faced if we are to survive. I mean the word survive literally. If there were to be a competition in indifference, or perhaps in insulation from reality, then Nero and his fiddle, Chamberlain and his umbrella, could not find a place on an early afternoon sustaining show. If Hollywood were to run out of Indians, the program schedules would be mangled beyond all recognition. Then some courageous soul with a small budget might be able to do a documentary telling what, in fact, we have done--and are still doing--to the Indians in this country. But that would be unpleasant. And we must at all costs shield the sensitive citizens from anything that is unpleasant.

I am entirely persuaded that the American public is more reasonable, restrained and more mature than most of our industry's program planners believe. Their fear of controversy is not warranted by the evidence. I have reason to know, as do many of you, that when the evidence on a controversial subject is fairly and calmly presented, the public recognizes it for what it is--an effort to illuminate rather than to agitate.

Several years ago, when we undertook to do a program on Egypt and Israel, well-meaning, experienced and intelligent friends shook their heads and said, "This you cannot do--you will be handed your head. It is an emotion-packed controversy, and there is no room for reason in it." We did the program. Zionists, anti-Zionists, the friends of the Middle East, Egyptian and Israeli officials said, with a faint tone of surprise, "It was a fair count. The information was there. We have no complaints."

Our experience was similar with two half-hour programs dealing with cigarette smoking and lung cancer. Both the medical profession and the tobacco industry cooperated in a rather wary fashion. But in the end of the day they were both reasonably content. The subject of radioactive fall-out and the banning of nuclear tests was, and is, highly controversial. But according to what little evidence there is, viewers were prepared to listen to both sides with reason and restraint. This is not said to claim any special or unusual competence in the presentation of controversial subjects, but rather to indicate that timidity in these areas is not warranted by the evidence.

Recently, network spokesmen have been disposed to complain that the professional critics of television have been "rather beastly." There have been hints that somehow competition for the advertising dollar has caused the critics of print to gang up on television and radio. This reporter has no desire to defend the critics. They have space in which to do that on their own behalf. But it remains a fact that the newspapers and magazines are the only instruments of mass communication which remain free from sustained and regular critical comment. If the network spokesmen are so anguished about what appears in print, let them come forth and engage in a little sustained and regular comment regarding newspapers and magazines. It is an ancient and sad fact that most people in network television, and radio, have an exaggerated regard for what appears in print. And there have been cases where executives have refused to make even private comment or on a program for which they were responsible until they heard'd the reviews in print. This is hardly an exhibition confidence.

The oldest excuse of the networks for their timidity is their youth. Their spokesmen say, "We are young; we have not developed the traditions nor acquired the experience of the older media." If they but knew it, they are building those traditions, creating those precedents everyday. Each time they yield to a voice from Washington or any political pressure, each time they eliminate something that might offend some section of the community, they are creating their own body of precedent and tradition. They are, in fact, not content to be "half safe."

Nowhere is this better illustrated than by the fact that the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission publicly prods broadcasters to engage in their legal right to editorialize. Of course, to undertake an editorial policy, overt and clearly labeled, and obviously unsponsored, requires a station or a network to be responsible. Most stations today probably do not have the manpower to assume this responsibility, but the manpower could be recruited. Editorials would not be profitable; if they had a cutting edge, they might even offend. It is much easier, much less troublesome, to use the money-making machine of television and radio merely as a conduit through which to channel anything that is not libelous, obscene or defamatory. In that way one has the illusion of power without responsibility.

So far as radio--that most satisfying and rewarding instrument--is concerned, the diagnosis of its difficulties is rather easy. And obviously I speak only of news and information. In order to progress, it need only go backward. To the time when singing commercials were not allowed on news reports, when there was no middle commercial in a 15-minute news report, when radio was rather proud, alert and fast. I recently asked a network official, "Why this great rash of five-minute news reports (including three commercials) on weekends?" He replied, "Because that seems to be the only thing we can sell."

In this kind of complex and confusing world, you can't tell very much about the why of the news in broadcasts where only three minutes is available for news. The only man who could do that was Elmer Davis, and his kind aren't about any more. If radio news is to be regarded as a commodity, only acceptable when saleable, then I don't care what you call it--I say it isn't news.

My memory also goes back to the time when the fear of a slight reduction in business did not result in an immediate cutback in bodies in the news and public affairs department, at a time when network profits had just reached an all-time high. We would all agree, I think, that whether on a station or a network, the stapling machine is a poor substitute for a newsroom typewriter.

One of the minor tragedies of television news and information is that the networks will not even defend their vital interests. When my employer, CBS, through a combination of enterprise and good luck, did an interview with Nikita Khrushchev, the President uttered a few ill-chosen, uninformed words on the subject, and the network practically apologized. This produced a rarity. Many newspapers defended the CBS right to produce the program and commended it for initiative. But the other networks remained silent.

Likewise, when John Foster Dulles, by personal decree, banned American journalists from going to Communist China, and subsequently offered contradictory explanations, for his fiat the networks entered only a mild protest. Then they apparently forgot the unpleasantness. Can it be that this national industry is content to serve the public interest only with the trickle of news that comes out of Hong Kong, to leave its viewers in ignorance of the cataclysmic changes that are occurring in a nation of six hundred million people? I have no illusions about the difficulties reporting from a dictatorship, but our British and French allies have been better served--in their public interest--with some very useful information from their reporters in Communist China.

One of the basic troubles with radio and television news is that both instruments have grown up as an incompatible combination of show business, advertising and news. Each of the three is a rather bizarre and demanding profession. And when you get all three under one roof, the dust never settles. The top management of the networks with a few notable exceptions, has been trained in advertising, research, sales or show business. But by the nature of the coporate structure, they also make the final and crucial decisions having to do with news and public affairs. Frequently they have neither the time nor the competence to do this. It is not easy for the same small group of men to decide whether to buy a new station for millions of dollars, build a new building, alter the rate card, buy a new Western, sell a soap opera, decide what defensive line to take in connection with the latest Congressional inquiry, how much money to spend on promoting a new program, what additions or deletions should be made in the existing covey or clutch of vice-presidents, and at the same time-- frequently on the same long day--to give mature, thoughtful consideration to the manifold problems that confront those who are charged with the responsibility for news and public affairs.

Sometimes there is a clash between the public interest and the corporate interest. A telephone call or a letter from the proper quarter in Washington is treated rather more seriously than a communication from an irate but not politically potent viewer. It is tempting enough to give away a little air time for frequently irresponsible and unwarranted utterances in an effort to temper the wind of criticism.

Upon occasion, economics and editorial judgment are in conflict. And there is no law which says that dollars will be defeated by duty. Not so long ago the President of the United States delivered a television address to the nation. He was discoursing on the possibility or probability of war between this nation and the Soviet Union and Communist China--a reasonably compelling subject. Two networks CBS and NBC, delayed that broadcast for an hour and fifteen minutes. If this decision was dictated by anything other than financial reasons, the networks didn't deign to explain those reasons. That hour-and-fifteen-minute delay, by the way, is about twice the time required for an ICBM to travel from the Soviet Union to major targets in the United States. It is difficult to believe that this decision was made by men who love, respect and understand news.

So far, I have been dealing largely with the deficit side of the ledger, and the items could be expanded. But I have said, and I believe, that potentially we have in this country a free enterprise system of radio and television which is superior to any other. But to achieve its promise, it must be both free and enterprising. There is no suggestion here that networks or individual stations should operate as philanthropies. But I can find nothing in the Bill of Rights or the Communications Act which says that they must increase their net profits each year, lest the Republic collapse. I do not suggest that news and information should be subsidized by foundations or private subscriptions. I am aware that the networks have expended, and are expending, very considerable sums of money on public affairs programs from which they cannot hope to receive any financial reward. I have had the privilege at CBS of presiding over a considerable number of such programs. I testify, and am able to stand here and say, that I have never had a program turned down by my superiors because of the money it would cost.

But we all know that you cannot reach the potential maximum audience in marginal time with a sustaining program. This is so because so many stations on the network--any network--will decline to carry it. Every licensee who applies for a grant to operate in the public interest, convenience and necessity makes certain promises as to what he will do in terms of program content. Many recipients of licenses have, in blunt language, welshed on those promises. The money-making machine somehow blunts their memories. The only remedy for this is closer inspection and punitive action by the F.C.C. But in the view of many this would come perilously close to supervision of program content by a federal agency.

So it seems that we cannot rely on philanthropic support or foundation subsidies; we cannot follow the "sustaining route"--the networks cannot pay all the freight--and the F.C.C. cannot or will not discipline those who abuse the facilities that belong to the public. What, then, is the answer? Do we merely stay in our comfortable nests, concluding that the obligation of these instruments has been discharged when we work at the job of informing the public for a minimum of time? Or do we believe that the preservation of the Republic is a seven-day-a-week job, demanding more awareness, better skills and more perseverance than we have yet contemplated.

I am frightened by the imbalance, the constant striving to reach the largest possible audience for everything; by the absence of a sustained study of the state of the nation. Heywood Broun once said, "No body politic is healthy until it begins to itch." I would like television to produce some itching pills rather than this endless outpouring of tranquilizers. It can be done. Maybe it won't be, but it could. Let us not shoot the wrong piano player. Do not be deluded into believing that the titular heads of the networks control what appears on their networks. They all have better taste. All are responsible to stockholders, and in my experience all are honorable men. But they must schedule what they can sell in the public market.

And this brings us to the nub of the question. In one sense it rather revolves around the phrase heard frequently along Madison Avenue: The Corporate Image. I am not precisely sure what this phrase means, but I would imagine that it reflects a desire on the part of the corporations who pay the advertising bills to have the public image, or believe that they are not merely bodies with no souls, panting in pursuit of elusive dollars. They would like us to believe that they can distinguish between the public good and the private or corporate gain. So the question is this: Are the big corporations who pay the freight for radio and television programs wise to use that time exclusively for the sale of goods and services? Is it in their own interest and that of the stockholders so to do? The sponsor of an hour's television program is not buying merely the six minutes devoted to commercial message. He is determining, within broad limits, the sum total of the impact of the entire hour. If he always, invariably, reaches for the largest possible audience, then this process of insulation, of escape from reality, will continue to be massively financed, and its apologist will continue to make winsome speeches about giving the public what it wants, or "letting the public decide."

I refuse to believe that the presidents and chairmen of the boards of these big corporations want their corporate image to consist exclusively of a solemn voice in an echo chamber, or a pretty girl opening the door of a refrigerator, or a horse that talks. They want something better, and on occasion some of them have demonstrated it. But most of the men whose legal and moral responsibility it is to spend the stockholders' money for advertising are removed from the realities of the mass media by five, six, or a dozen contraceptive layers of vice-presidents, public relations counsel and advertising agencies. Their business is to sell goods, and the competition is pretty tough.

But this nation is now in competition with malignant forces of evil who are using every instrument at their command to empty the minds of their subjects and fill those minds with slogans, determination and faith in the future. If we go on as we are, we are protecting the mind of the American public from any real contact with the menacing world that squeezes in upon us. We are engaged in a great experiment to discover whether a free public opinion can devise and direct methods of managing the affairs of the nation. We may fail. But we are handicapping ourselves needlessly.

Let us have a little competition. Not only in selling soap, cigarettes and automobiles, but in informing a troubled, apprehensive but receptive public. Why should not each of the 20 or 30 big corporations which dominate radio and television decide that they will give up one or two of their regularly scheduled programs each year, turn the time over to the networks and say in effect: "This is a tiny tithe, just a little bit of our profits. On this particular night we aren't going to try to sell cigarettes or automobiles; this is merely a gesture to indicate our belief in the importance of ideas." The networks should, and I think would, pay for the cost of producing the program. The advertiser, the sponsor, would get name credit but would have nothing to do with the content of the program. Would this blemish the corporate image? Would the stockholders object? I think not. For if the premise upon which our pluralistic society rests, which as I understand it is that if the people are given sufficient undiluted information, they will then somehow, even after long, sober second thoughts, reach the right decision--if that premise is wrong, then not only the corporate image but the corporations are done for.

There used to be an old phrase in this country, employed when someone talked too much. It was: "Go hire a hall." Under this proposal the sponsor would have hired the hall; he has bought the time; the local station operator, no matter how indifferent, is going to carry the program-he has to. Then it's up to the networks to fill the hall. I am not here talking about editorializing but about straightaway exposition as direct, unadorned and impartial as falliable human beings can make it. Just once in a while let us exalt the importance of ideas and information. Let us dream to the extent of saying that on a given Sunday night the time normally occupied by Ed Sullivan is given over to a clinical survey of the state of American education, and a week or two later the time normally used by Steve Allen is devoted to a thoroughgoing study of American policy in the Middle East. Would the corporate image of their respective sponsors be damaged? Would the stockholders rise up in their wrath and complain? Would anything happen other than that a few million people would have received a little illumination on subjects that may well determine the future of this country, and therefore the future of the corporations? This method would also provide real competition between the networks as to which could outdo the others in the palatable presentation of information. It would provide an outlet for the young men of skill, and there are some even of dedication, who would like to do something other than devise methods of insulating while selling.

There may be other and simpler methods of utilizing these instruments of radio and television in the interests of a free society. But I know of none that could be so easily accomplished inside the framework of the existing commercial system. I don't know how you would measure the success or failure of a given program. And it would be hard to prove the magnitude of the benefit accruing to the corporation which gave up one night of a variety or quiz show in order that the network might marshal its skills to do a thorough-going job on the present status of NATO, or plans for controlling nuclear tests. But I would reckon that the president, and indeed the majority of shareholders of the corporation who sponsored such a venture, would feel just a little bit better about the corporation and the country.

It may be that the present system, with no modifications and no experiments, can survive. Perhaps the money-making machine has some kind of built-in perpetual motion, but I do not think so. To a very considerable extent the media of mass communications in a given country reflect the political, economic and social climate in which they flourish. That is the reason ours differ from the British and French, or the Russian and Chinese. We are currently wealthy, fat, comfortable and complacent. We have currently a built-in allergy to unpleasant or disturbing information. Our mass media reflect this. But unless we get up off our fat surpluses and recognize that television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse and insulate us, then television and those who finance it, those who look at it and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture too late.

I do not advocate that we turn television into a 27-inch wailing wall, where longhairs constantly moan about the state of our culture and our defense. But I would just like to see it reflect occasionally the hard, unyielding realities of the world in which we live. I would like to see it done inside the existing framework, and I would like to see the doing of it redound to the credit of those who finance and program it. Measure the results by Nielsen, Trendex or Silex-it doesn't matter. The main thing is to try. The responsibility can be easily placed, in spite of all the mouthings about giving the public what it wants. It rests on big business, and on big television, and it rests at the top. Responsibility is not something that can be assigned or delegated. And it promises its own reward: good business and good television.

Perhaps no one will do anything about it. I have ventured to outline it against a background of criticism that may have been too harsh only because I could think of nothing better. Someone once said--I think it was Max Eastman--that "that publisher serves his advertiser best who best serves his readers." I cannot believe that radio and television, or the corporation that finance the programs, are serving well or truly their viewers or listeners, or themselves.

I began by saying that our history will be what we make it. If we go on as we are, then history will take its revenge, and retribution will not limp in catching up with us.

We are to a large extent an imitative society. If one or two or three corporations would undertake to devote just a small traction of their advertising appropriation along the lines that I have suggested, the procedure would grow by contagion; the economic burden would be bearable, and there might ensue a most exciting adventure--exposure to ideas and the bringing of reality into the homes of the nation.

To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost.

This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box. There is a great and perhaps decisive battle to be fought against ignorance, intolerance and indifference. This weapon of television could be useful.

Stonewall Jackson, who knew something about the use of weapons, is reported to have said, "When war comes, you must draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." The trouble with television is that it is rusting in the scabbard during a battle for survival.

Somebody around here said that the global temperatures were actually going down over the past decade. How exactly does that jive with NASA's report that the past decade was the hottest on record?

“There's substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Niño-La Niña cycle. But when we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find that global warming is continuing unabated." - James Hansen, the director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies

Ya know what? When scientists say that smoking increases the risk of lung cancer, I avoid smoking. When scientists say that greenhouse gasses increase the risk of global climate change that could cause the extermination of the human species, I avoid creating greenhouse gasses.

As far as I'm concerned, Global Climate Destabilization is about as contested as Evolution. The only people speaking out about it are the nutbars that would say anything to keep the argument going.

On the other hand, if you want to debate what to do about it, that's entirely different. I've heard some pretty bad things about Cap and Trade. We need to keep that discussion going until we can be reasonably sure our chosen course will help (or hurt) everybody on fairly equitable terms.

Wharrgarble! We're not "living in a different age", we're not in a "post-911" world. The TSA is a massive overreaction to one incident. That incident sucked, and there is no downplaying it. But the lesson that needed to be learned, ie that hijackers might do more with a hijacked plane that just kill everyone on board (as terrible as that alone is), has been learned.

Half the the response should be to lock cabin doors. Done. The other half should be for travelers on planes to remain alert and be willing to fight back against hijackers. Done - flight 93 accomplished that before the 9/11 attacks were even finished.

Instead, the TSA is created. Charged with the task of delaying, inconveniencing, and harassing law-abiding citizen travelers while doing absolutely nothing of any real value to prevent or limit terrorist attacks.

The shoebomber happens, all of a sudden everybody has to wait in line to take off shoes. Somebody realizes that some binary explosives are made by mixing liquids, all of a sudden you can't take a bottle of goddamn water or toothpaste on a plane. The Bush administration decides to make a massive list of names for a "no fly list", all of a sudden many completely innocent people are detained and harassed simply because they happen to share a name with someone who may have a tenuous connection to "terrorism". Not to mention the people who get put on the list out of pure spite, like reporters who question TSA practices. I shudder to think what the response to the "undies-bomber" is going to be.

Now Cheney et al are criticizing Obama for "failing to keep America safe". How about criticizing the goddamn TSA? How about remembering that you're infinitely more likely to die in a car accident, or from smoking-induced lung cancer, or even from being bitten by a snake than you are to die in an air-travel incident, terror related or not?

It bothers me these responses to Cheney running his mouth are good in that they make us remember that a lot of this crap started on the Bush administration's watch, but they don't go the bit further and point out what an obvious farce and waste of time, effort, and money the TSA is in general.

>> ^westy:
lol what a mupit
, how can you claim that preventative care would cost more mony? i mean what the fuck research is that bassed on.
im fairly confident that if u prevented cancer detected it early in just 10% more than what u get now from that alone you would reecoperate all costs.
although having sead that i guess now people just have it and die as they cannot afford insurance or basic helth care in usa.


The reason why preventative care for cancer can cost more is exactly because it prevents people from dying young. This is why smokers on average cost our system less than non-smokers. Many of them develop lung cancer before they're retired, and die of it quickly. They pay into the system while they're young and healthy, and skip over the last few decades of life when they would need the most care.

Of course, I'm not using any of that as an argument against preventative cancer screenings or anti-smoking campaigns. We just have to remember that the point of health-care is to improve and save our lives, saving money is secondary.

* Given a single payer system: How will preventative medicine work in principal? If person A begins smoking and gets lung cancer, does that person get the same deal as everyone else? Or more likely, if person A is obese and as a result has to have more treatments for a particular problem, does that give the government or the people paying the right to decide what he can and can't eat? Just thinking. (Following along with the ban of Trans-fats, and the talk about a soda tax)

You never deny people the right to smoke, or to eat shit foods, you just take money from the purchase of things that are proven bad for you (like cigarettes) and give that to the pool of money for health care (such as we do in Australia, cigarettes are HUGELY taxed here such that if you smoke at least you're putting a fair chunk of change aside for your eventual health care requirements).

Also, you can/could (I don't know how much this may be done already here or elsewhere) provide discounts in the usual medicare levy you pay in your taxes if you are doing proactive things of taking care of yourself. If you are a gym user or swim center user or whatever, you should be able to get some money back on your health levy... although I guess this is hard to quantify... how would I prove that I walk to the train station every day instead of driving? Not sure...

I gotta agree with Ron on this, but it's nice to see some real back and forth. I just wish we could get some real debate instead of some 5 min talking points roundtable on Larry King or something. Interesting notes I've heard but never see discussed:

* Given a single payer system: How will preventative medicine work in principal? If person A begins smoking and gets lung cancer, does that person get the same deal as everyone else? Or more likely, if person A is obese and as a result has to have more treatments for a particular problem, does that give the government or the people paying the right to decide what he can and can't eat? Just thinking. (Following along with the ban of Trans-fats, and the talk about a soda tax)

* With the close ties of the healthcare cos and the government now, what incentive would they have to sever the relationship? A million in campaign funds pre-single payer is the same as a million post-single payer. This is what I've heard some people refer to as the rise of Medical Industrial Complex(An obvious play off the old Military Industrial Complex term).

* Why isn't closer examination given to US healthcare pre-HMOs? I might be missing something, but this didn't seem to be a hot button issue in the 10's, 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's?

* Why is the term 'insurance' used so incorrectly? If I used the term fire insurance the way some are using health insurance, people would start looking at me funny. The catastrophic-centric part seems neglected and now it covers everything from a skinned knee to a tumor. Can we give it a new name or something to differentiate? Maybe just use health care?

* Assuming the GAO's analysis that the US government is effectively broke, and social security is essentially a ponzi scheme, how does that factor in to the debate? Or put generally, given the last 8 years of Bush (including a Patriot Act, 9/11 & Katrina), what evidence is there that any major new system will be run any better and cost any less?

* Following along with the post about laws changing to define rights: If we have a framework to change the laws, and the right to healthcare is HUGE change, why isn't an official constitutional amendment being put forth that makes the responsibilities clear? Seems that if we could draft something as dumb as 'no alcohol', something can be proposed in regards to healthcare.

Just thinking out loud here. I have lots more questions (including the role of States) if anybody is still awake at this point

>> ^blankfist:
Firefighters aren't fire insurance. There actually is a thing called fire insurance. Maybe we should socialize, universalize or whatever you want to call it fire insurance. fear politicking with loose logic. I want the corporations out of health care, too. But, this is silly.


Your description of the fear channel is:

A place for videos exhibiting examples of fear, the use of fear to control and oppress, fear of differences, terrorized people and animals, paranoia, distrust, fear of death, and phobias.

Is pointing out the true fact that private insurance companies can deny claims, and that the uncovered medical bills can bankrupt you really qualify for *fear?

How about anti-smoking ads that tell people smoking can cause lung cancer? Is that fear too?

How about videos that say war leads to the death of innocent people? Is that fear too?

Using fear to oppress people is saying "Vote for me, or the terrorists will kill your children".

So is saying that our current health care system can lead to very bad outcomes sometimes, and that an alternative could prevent that "the use of fear to control and oppress"? Is it the "fear of differences" or an example of "paranoia", "phobias", or "distrust"? It can't be "fear of death" since there is no death mentioned. No terrorized people or animals appear in the clip, either.

If anything, the real problem with comparing health care to what we do with fire departments is that fire departments are more government run than what's being proposed by even the Kuciniches of the Democratic party.

Firefighters are employees of the government. There's no insurance at all. That's like Britain's NHS, not like a Canadian or French style single-payer system.

If we had single-payer fire fighting, we would actually have privately owned and operated fire stations who compete for contracts with the government, who then pays them with tax money collected via a progressive tax structure. But they wouldn't deny your claims.

The medical equivalent of the fire insurance you're talking about would be disability coverage -- and we do have that socialized, universalized, or fascistized or whatever the fuck you fear mongers want to call it when you're trying to use fear to control and oppress the majority of people in this country.

Breaking Bad is about this chemistry professor who finds out he has inoperable lung cancer who decides to make a nest egg for his family by making methamphetamines.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erZqsV5UJpM
It really is a very good show and won several emmys

I have a feeling that our low life expectancy in the US is due to lifestyle more than health care. People here, on average, have much higher body fat and exercise far less (including walking) than those in other countries. These are both great ways to ensure that you die at a younger age than you would have otherwise, even with good health care.

I also suspect that this is one factor in the high per capita cost. Emergency care, especially when involving surgery, costs far more than standard care. When there are more people who are obese and sedentary there is generally a greater demand for those expensive emergency treatments. Many of the most costly diseases (diabetes, heart disease, cancer, etc) are strongly associated with unhealthy lifestyles, and therefore health care costs tend to correlate with such lifestyles as well.

Of course, diagnostic tools like electrocardiograms are not going to be effective if the patient doesn't care about the results. The test isn't going to cure them. A person might be upset to find out they have heart disease, but how likely will they be to give up cheeseburgers? My grandfather had a lung removed because of lung cancer, but not even that experience put a dent in his smoking habit.

Obviously there are lots of expensive medical procedures that have very little relation to lifestyle (treating accident victims for example), but I don't see how preventable health problems wouldn't inflate our per capita spending numbers. It may be true that treatments simply cost more here than anywhere else, but that isn't the whole story.

You used the example of "statins to prevent a heart attack."

You seem to be suggesting that healthcare should cover the prevention of every possible disease yet death is not preventable! No amount of prevention, money, healthcare, or health insurance can stop you from dying! Everyone dies. What kind of idealistic crap are you spewing that you expect free heart, lung, and skin transplants for every retard who eats 150 lbs of sugar, smokes 150 packs of cigarettes and spends 150 days in direct sunlight each and every year?

You eat 150 lbs a sugar a year you're going to develop heart disease. You smoke 150 packs of cigarettes a year you are going to get lung cancer. You sunbathe 150 days a year you are going to get skin cancer.

Those are the laws of the universe.

You get a heart attack, or stop breathing, or collapse from heart disease or cancer - call 911 and the nearest hospital will assign several doctors to save your life! What more do you want? You get in a car accident, you get shot in the chest, you show up to the ER holding your severed arm in your hand - any hospital or clinic anywhere in the US will treat you upon arrival.

Healthcare is already available for every single person in this country who can lift their fat finger to call 911.

You aren't asking for healthcare, you are asking to violate the laws of the universe - for a magical fairy life where anything and everything can be taken in excess and there will be no ill effects or consequences for anyone. Full-body transplants on the house. That is idealistic bullshit.

"I'm looking for all people to have access to the same quality level of healthcare."

Is that not a theoretical social construct? It's much more idealistic than "Every man's labor should be his own." My point is that as long as there are uncurable diseases out there, everyone will not have the same level of healthcare.

Almost any "common" illness or injury can be treated quickly and easily in almost any area of the country - for under $100 in most cases - ailments that would have killed people not even 100 years ago. So I don't understand your argument about lifespan or "quality of healthcare."

Maybe you should include some illnesses that fall under "quality level of healthcare" because chemotherapy, triple heart bypasses, and $10,000 surgical removal of cysts are not treatments for "common" ailments. Cancer, heart disease, and diabetes - three of the main killers in the US - are rare diseases (1 in 100,000 one hundred years ago) that have only been recently made common (1 in 3) due to our lifestyle choices. Xeroderma pigmentosum, an extremely rare disorder (1 in 80,000) was actually more common than heart disease prior to the dietary intake of over 150lbs of sugar a year - as we see today. Smoke 5 packs of cigarettes a day and suddenly a "rare" form of lung cancer becomes real common.

Your lifestyle plays a large role in the development of "rare" illnesses and injuries. Many people will never have an injury requiring hospitalization, yet some fly through windshields and break half the bones in their body. These are not "common" injuries.

As I pointed out, there are simply not enough resources in the world to cure every rare disease or fund the correction of every poor lifestyle choice. So tell me, how can you justify funding research for any one particular rare disease over another?

If we exclude rare disease, which we must - there will always be rare disease regardless of our medical technology, where is the disparity in healthcare? As far as I can see, you can walk into a clinic on any street corner and be treated for 99% of the existing diseases and injuries for under $100.

Clearly, blankfist and I are heartless, immoral bastards; the rest of the world is far more morally advanced than the US; everyone should live forever and never get sick, ill, unhappy, eat 5 course meals 3 times a day and have a personal chauffeur, a fast car, a giant house, several maids, infinite wealth, and never have to work a day in our lives.

We KNOW that. Can someone please explain (via logic) how the right to healthcare is compatible with all other human rights, why it is a right in itself, and what constraints exist on that right.

e.g.
Two guys live in a village with population = 2. Both have the right to use their own labor as they see fit (freedom from slavery). Both have the right to healthcare. One gets sick. The other guy must 1. be free to use his labor as he sees fit 2. be forced to provide healthcare (labor) to the sick guy.

Is the right to healthcare only valid for population > 2, or am I missing something?

e.g.
Hundreds of millions die of malaria. A worldwide movement involving all 193 countries costing over $5 trillion dollars focuses on the creation of an anti-malarial treatment. It is a success and malaria is cured. Millions are saved. A single person becomes ill with a rare, mutated form of malaria which is not susceptible to the current treatment, and has never been seen in any other person alive. Everyone has a right to healthcare, which means we are as morally obligated to cure the single rare case of malaria as we are to cure the worldwide, general case - so by law - via the "universal right to adequate healthcare" every single person in every single country from all 193 countries of the world has to stop work, and fund another $5 trillion dollars to create a modified malarial treatment for the single, rare case that a single, ill person is suffering from.

Is the right to healthcare only valid for common diseases affecting large populations, or all diseases equally? How do you decide which diseases get precedence in funding? I have lung cancer and you have heart disease but we only have enough resources to cure one. What do we do? Who do we save? If we both have a disease and we both have the right to healthcare, and we are both equal as human beings, how can we justify curing your disease over mine or vice versa?

???