-
Website
http://drumsnwhistles.com -
Original page
http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/2009/10/18/meet-the-right-wing-charity-cartel/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
For some perspective, George Soros ALONE donated $23,581,000 to defeat George W. Bush in 2004. All of that money was donated to tax exempt "charities" as well. Altogether, George Soros's foundations spend over a half billion dollars every year, a large percentage of that is political.
I see no difference. People should be able to use their money as they please. If people want to donate money to Media Matters (which I think is the most despicable organization on the internet), I say they should damn well be able to. If I were to send $100 to ThinkProgress, I should be able to. If I want to send it to Heritage instead, same thing. And that should still be allowed even if I was rich.
I am not arguing that anyone can use their money as they see fit. It just struck me as more than a little intellectually bereft to criticize the Tides Foundation (rather than, for example, Soros or his related foundations) for the work they do, and to insinuate that there was some deep and illegal tie between them and Obama without acknowledging the very, very deep valley that right-wing charitable giving has funded.
FYI, the reason he didn't call out Soros Charitable Foundation or related entities? The absence of five letters: ACORN. At least, that's how it looks to me.
Just curious. . .
Also, are you authoring the responses tagged with your name Karoli?
Again, just wondering. . .
No one writes posts for this site but me, and once in awhile, a guest post by my daughter. The only difference between now and a few months ago is that I decided to merge the political writing with the personal writing.
Here is the link to my political blog: http://politics.drumsnwhistles.com/
Here are a few samples just in case you don't feel like picking through my liberal rants: http://politics.drumsnwhistles.com/2009/01/wher... (on 401k hysteria)
http://politics.drumsnwhistles.com/2007/01/is-t... (on Iran's non-threat)
and, the Yes on 8 bus tour post
http://politics.drumsnwhistles.com/2008/10/yes-...
The only difference between now and a few months ago is the location of the post.
I was not aware that you had a political blog also. So, when your history links went away and these political only blogs with links to everything progressive began to show up on a regular basis, and the MSNBC video port appeared, I wondered what happened to the Karoli I was introduced to.
Didn't mean to insult you at all, just wanted to know why things were different.
difficult right now to find certain things, though you can use the
navigation links at the top or the search function to find them. As I
finalize the design, you'll see more of the other posts emerging, and
in the meantime my photography is being posted on http://karoli.posterous.com
right now. As my time unemployed continues into its 10th month and
the reason is usually related to age and the cost of health insurance
for me and my family, I have decided that I need to make my own
future. I hope it will involve being employed in a cause-based role
either as a researcher, reporter, community manager on the web. If
nothing materializes, I may make my own proposal and pitch it for
funding.
I'm glad we were able to clear that up.
And for someone questioning whether Karoli's writing her own words, and using her net-nom de plume, you've sure picked a doozie of an insulting psuedonym.
Signed,
Lisa Rowe.
You must be so proud of yourself with your handle and snide comment.
The responders commented on my user name. It is strong. It was not passive aggressive when I registered to reply to Karoli's blog. I was so appalled with her coverage of a finger biting incident she witnessed that the name just completed the very 'active/aggressive'?? response I sent as a reply to her post.
I've since followed Karoli's blogs. They help me to better understand how those from the progressive ideology reasons and thinks. I've kept the name for continuity. My name bothers you, but if we get what progressives are asking for at the federal level, my name still applies and I will be disgusted with the results.
I can understand being disappointed, upset, and even angry at legislative results. But disgusted implies a level of over-emotionalization that just shouldn't be happening here.
Consider, also, that you're tarring about half of all americans with the "disgusting" brush. Your neighbors, friends, and probably some family.
I think one of the problems with discourse is that we forget that our "opposition" is comprised of people we actually know and like, and in some cases, love.
Perhaps you will be disgusted with the results of government run health insurance if it does in fact become part of our federal legislation. Perhaps not. And, you will not use harsh words to describe it's effects. So be it.
I haven't brushed anyone as disgusting, I am brushing the ideology that's leading many Americans down a path that will crush our economy and reduce the medical care we now enjoy. I love America and Americans and I am 'disappointed, upset, and even angry' at what's being pushed for our country right now. Okay, I've said it your way, will you now rethink what you are promoting for those you love?
These companies, with no competition, have completely changed how healthcare is provided to us. I am old enough to remember when my DOCTOR, in conjunction with me, made decisions about my healthcare. In the past 5 years, I have had innumerable episodes of fighting with my insurance company to have basic, needed tests paid for, or even approved in the first place. I've had to pay out of pocket for things that were arbitrarily deemed unnecessary (yet later found to be life-saving).
What's being pushed now, as you say, is the chance for us to return to no 3rd-party functionaries inserting themself in my healthcare for profit.
I think what you say is merely fearmongering, and you've been ginned up by organizations run by these same for-profit companies. You're fighting against your own interest, and you're too deluded to know it.
I feel very sorry for you.
Boy I hope you're right. When you look at history and the effects of government run entities, the results you expect just aren't there. No matter, I think we will find out soon enough. The left has the majority, and they will pass something.
I chuckled at your statement. "What's being pushed now, as you say, is the chance for us to return to no 3rd-party functionaries inserting themself in my healthcare for profit." I think, you will find that you will not be getting what your statement declares (the government will be the 3rd-party functionary). Let's hope that your statement is true and I'm only delusional about history.
I like this one too. "These companies, with no competition..." Once the government gets their hands into the health insurance business that you are calling for, competition will not be there. And, just in case you might be unhappy with the results of the government running health insurance, and you find you are even more frustrated than now, you will not have a competitor to consider in order to shop around for a better deal. But hey what the hell, I'm sure the altruistic government will never let you suffer. They are there just to pay your bills and make paperwork easier for you. According to your expectations, you will be able to get any arbitrary necessary or unnecessary test and/or treatment you want, because you got those nasty ole insurance companies out of the way...
Boy I hope your right.
Reform is needed. Absolutely! Government controlled, dominated health insurance? No thanks.
Your response like many others like you are very eager to make life easier for yourselves. Anything has to be better than this. Right? Unfortunately, I don't see where you've done your homework to see the pros and cons of reforming private health insurance or giving up your choices to government. Unfortunately, there are alot of Americans out there like you who are easily persuaded to give up essential principles for ease and convenience. This has been done before and the results speak for themselves. Due to your side's simple minded solutions, our country will suffer. (Oops, fear mongering again). What about all the books and documents regarding free markets vs government control? What about our ancestors (mine anyway) who came here to come out from under an opressive government? (Oops, fear mongering again).
Oh well...we will soon find out as this same old tired story plays itself out one more time.
system is another thing, however. And that will provide some less-than-fully-for-profit options to those who choose to utilize it or who have few other resources from which to choose.
One issue that I don't see covered much in any discussion is how the insurance industry can essentially stifle job mobility. Many, like me, are pretty much held captive in our work positions, even if those environments are otherwise terrible, for the simple reason that we cannot afford to lose our insurance benefits. There are virtually no affordable non-group insurance options available for the majority of us. If, for instance, I leave my job for another there is little likelihood that I would be entitled to full medical benefits without a large time gap--in many cases up to a year after hire. Financially getting non-group insurance is out of the question for most of us, as well as having those exclusionary pre-existings as a consideration. COBRA is one option, but again, financially prohibitive. My partner, however, is on Medicare -- one of those government controlled and implemented programs you
reference so negatively. She is not limited in her work choices by concerns of losing her insurance, and even has the option of fulfilling self employment if she so chooses.
Yes, we have government run/controlled programs that fail us. But we have many more that work relatively seamlessly: fire and police service, public works, public education, the military. And those are only a few examples. Education, in my opinion, is the best analogy here. There is a public option for education but
one always still has the private sector option, as well. If you don't like the way one is implemented you can choose another path with no penalty for some kind of pre-existing issue, and no delay in continuation of education.
The physical health of a nation's citizens would seem to be one of a government's first priorities. Until this health care initiative push, it has truly appeared the opposite in this nation.
Fear mongering, as some have referred to your voicing of some of your concerns, may or may not be appropriate labelling. What I know is appropriately called fear is the tightwire dance so many of us live our lives performing because of the corporately manufactured enthrallment to the whims of insurance providers.
discourages entrepreneurship and the creation of small businesses.
What person in their right mind would ever choose self-employment over
the security of employer-provided group health insurance, particularly
if they've ever had any health issue that insurers deem a future
liability.
Chuckle all you like. A gov't entity wouldn't be motivated by profit,and wouldn't have the same impetus for recissions, denials, etc. Fact.
You are confused. The gov't isn't going to "(get) their hands into the health insurance business..." There isn't going to be privatization of existing entities. Insurance co's aren't going away. So that negates your whole lovely fear-mongering there.
"...you will be able to get any arbitrary necessary or unnecessary test and/or treatment you want, because you got those nasty ole insurance companies out of the way..."
You're making assumptions not born out by facts, and not supported by any knowledge of me. 3 weeks ago, my insurance company denied payment for a CT scan. Said scan prevented my having to have immediate surgery to determine if a condition existed. With my doctor's office, I was finally able to get payment approved, thereby saving myself from unnecessary surgery, and the insurance company for a 10 times greater bill.
"Your response like many others like you are very eager to make life easier for yourselves."
Oh, I see where you're going. I want free everything right? No, dude, I want the ins. co. I have now, which I pay for (quite expensively, I guarantee), to live up to its contractual obligations, and not attempt to weasel out of its responsibilities.
"Unfortunately, there are alot of Americans out there like you who are easily persuaded to give up essential principles for ease and convenience."
Yadda yadda, Ben Franklin, yadda. Yeah, you're using the wrong analogy.
"Due to your side's simple minded solutions, our country will suffer"
Wanna back that up with, ya know, FACTS, rather than liberatarian blatherings and posturings?
"What about all the books and documents regarding free markets vs government control? "
What about them? Just invoking their existance doesn't prove you actually know anything about them.
"What about our ancestors (mine anyway) who came here to come out from under an opressive government? "
You're from a communist nation? Bravo. My ancestors came here between 1880 & 1902. My grandfather gained his citizenship through service in WWI - something that's not available to current immigrants.
I could write you a tome on how the conditions they faced are not applicable for analogy today.
cash. Before they rang up my purchase, they requested my cell phone
number, business name, and the last 4 digits of my business ID
number. It was almost not worth it for a $20 phone case. When I hear
the argument against government invasiveness, I wonder why the same
argument is not made against corporate entities. Why should AT&T have
to know my account number to sell me a case for my phone? Why should
the pharmacy be tracking not only my prescription purchases, but my
shampoo choices? Why should the bookstore have a database of
everything I've read?
Don't even get me started on credit scores and banks...I can rant for
days on that one. What is it about for-profit entities that makes it
okay for them to be invasive? Are they any more trustworthy than the
government? I hardly think so. This argument is a red herring.
Here's something interesting. On my call with Senator Merkley today,
he discussed public insurance plans that have a proven track record.
Oregon, it seems, has had a 'public option' for Workers' Compensation
for 20 years. Their costs today are half of what they were 20 years
ago. That strikes me as pretty compelling evidence for a public option.