US Goverment coul possible be able to shut down internet

"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite."
--John Kenneth Galbraith

If one reads up on "socialism" one will realize that what is proposed is NOT socialism.

Many very successful countries manage "socialized" systems and as a result have some of the highest standards of living in the world (Germany, Sweden, Canada) etc.
Higher taxes. Yep, welcome to the real world.

We have socialized medicine up here in Canada and are doing just fine, thank you very much. I had MAJOR surgery this Spring and what did it cost me? Not a penny.
Our current government is actually Conservative in capital letters.

For some reason, some radicals down your way are waving banners in the air, marching up and down against the evils of socialism without understanding how that term applies. It's fear mongering of the highest order (those idiots are even invoking the names of Hitler and Moussolini, for heaven's sake!) and opposing political parties are using the average Joe's ignorance to their advantage.

QFT


There was an excellent article in Newsweek last Wednesday, I believe, discussing the language of fear used by opponents of Health Care Reform.



I personally believe there's much substantive discussion we as a nation could and should be having about many of the issues facing our nation, but the rhetoric of name-calling, fear, and intimidation drown out the voices of reason.

ETA: IMO, this thread is a perfect example of the type of knee-jerk emotional reaction we've come to accept as a substitute for public discourse. Why shouldn't the President have the ability and the responsibility to lock down federal government web sites during a time of cyber attack? What specific language led the OP to conclude the proposed legislation would allow the Federal Government to shut down the internet (if such a thing is even possible?) There are whackjobs all over the Internet with no higher purpose than to foment panic about every little thing. Everyone of us , if we wish to be taken seriously, has a responsibility to analyze what we read and exercise selective judgement before passing it on.

Of course, if your pupose is to troll, YMMV.

Great quote.

The difference between capitalism and communism is:

Capitalism ruins the economy, then socializing it.

Communism socializes the economy, then ruin it.

So, explain to me why, when Canadians go to Florida for the winter, the first thing they do is purchase supplemental health insurance?

But I'm not here to diss socialized medicine...despite the fact that under a similar program, patients in Great Britain were forced to drink the water from vases of flowers, because the system wouldn't give them a drink.

I'm here to gaze in jaw-dropped horror at the idea that we'd allow the government to have the ability to shut off the internet. A free society depends on the free flow of information. Conversely, he who controls access to information wields vast power.

First it was the banks. Then the auto industry. The housing industry. The health care industry. As part of the push for the last, the White House invited ABC News to jump in bed with them, which they did, like a whore whose john waves a hundred dollar bill under her nose. Now the next step in media control...the ability to shut down the most free and unfiltered information source around...the internet.

Keep your powder dry. You're going to need it.

I'm not sure how that is relevant to Brann's example but there are certainly limits to what services are insured and that would include coverage outside of the country. The reason why Canadians get out of country insurance is that only limited services would be covered that, generally speaking would be instances such as an acute and unexpected event that occurs outside of Canada and required immediate treatment eg. Grandpa gets an acute MI on a trip to Vegas. Even in those instances, the coverage reimbursed would be the cost of the service rendered in the US or the cost of the same service in Canada - whichever is lower. Since the cost for treatment is significantly higher in the US, most people would have to pay the difference, hence the need for out of country insurance coverage.

they buy health ins to go to florida because we dread the thought of being caught in the USA and being sent to a hospital there! THATs why the supplimental ins, exits. to ward off the horrid USA medical system in case grandma falls down a stairwell.

Think im making that up your 60 minutes or some such JUST had a program on this very item not to long ago.

Grandma just needs a LifeCall system .. halp me I've fallen and I can't get up http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQlpDiXPZHQ

Heck, we buy supplemental insurance INSIDE Canada. The gov insurance covers basic services. We buy additional coverage for private hospital rooms, drugs, chiropractor, massage and other paramedical stuff as well as out-of-country expenses, such as shipping a body home when one of our snowbirds kicks it in Tampa.
Our plan does NOT cover everything. It makes sure you don't lose your house and car if you need your appendix out.


Forgive me for appending "urban legend to this". I am pretty sure that this is not standard operating procedure over there. Horrible errors happen in US hospitals, too, that make the news.

Well, come to my house and log into SL from here, then. I'll have a cold beer waiting.


You mean like FOX jumped into bed with the right wing? Like Limbaugh is schmoozed to keep whipping the proletariat into bizarre demonstrations of their general confusion regarding the issues?

hahaha i remember seeing that commercial in chicago..

here is another from up there..
Eagle man!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4-e4nlfdRI&feature=related

I don't think it's urban legend. But I will agree that errors happen in our hospitals, too. I've experienced a couple of them.

There is some parallel in your mention of FOX, but it's inaccurate. FOX reports news with a conservative bias. ABC reports news with a liberal bias. There they part company...FOX never put on what amounts to a sponsored promotional series from the White House, not even when the Republicans had the majority.

As far as "general confusion regarding the issues". Most conservatives are not confused at all. They understand exactly what is being debated: the question of how much a people should allow its government control over their destinies. At the moment, the crowd in power is of the "government should control everything for the greater good" school of thought.

I happen to disagree with that philosophy rather strongly. Having been IN government, in one way or another, my entire working life, I am all too aware of how inept government generally is.

Most of the "general confusion" comes from attempts by politicians (of both camps, but it seems to me that the liberals are more often guilty of this) to "scare" the public into giving up some of their freedom in return for some perceived benefit or protection. Examples:

- Medicare prescription drug coverage. To "protect" the poor and elderly
- The bank bailouts
- Global Warming (pardon me, "climate change"...since the data no longer unilaterally support a warming trend). Enormous changes in our economy, including vastly increased goverment control of nearly everything from cars to heating oil are being proposed, under the guise of dealing with this "crisis".
- The health care "crisis". The USA has the best health care system in the world. 80% of the citizens are happy with their health care. What crisis?

I thought it was claimed here in Britain that our secret serviices had the know-how to shut down the internet too.

Of course they can! Didn't they do it (at the US Government's request I think) in one of the episodes of the [spooks] series of documentaries . . .

Pep ( . . . but Colin found a way to get in around the back. )

Shutting down the Internet is not so big a thing. Doing it and staying out of jail, that's the tricky part.

To quote - what planet are you from?

The FOX has touched you one to many times, step away from glenn and rush and get treatment.

the bank bailouts started with Bush and Co. and as far as having the best health care in the world, tell that to someone who has cancer or a pre existing condition or maybe they happen to be unemployed and cant afford cobras.

the republicans WROTE the book on scaremongering.
These rednecks i see on the news protesting at meetings are the funniest thing ever if it werent so sad that they actually believe it.

case closed.

*peers* You know... I don't think the government knows the meaning of the word "revolution." Cutting off the internet? That.. might actually cause a revolution. I mean, if Gmail can be down for 45 minutes and cause havoc in other areas of the web? Imagine how bad it will be when the junkies realize they're gonna get bumkiss in the way of a fix? They won't even be able to TWEET.

Then the shakes will start, withdrawal will set in... people will get bored... some might discover books.. others might actually use a phone for talking. Still others might go outside and play, do lawn work. Others might discover computer games that don't require online use.

But what the heck are we gonna do about the really addicted WoW-tards? They're gonna be running amok, smashing things, thinking they are their toons... It's not gonna be pretty, folks. Just remember, if you're faced with a raging MMO player during a nation wide internet outage, simply give them the directions to Capital Hill under the guise of "major raid boss here."

And people aren't hesitant to use Aristotle.

I wouldn't be surprised if the whole of the 'net were supervised, controlled, and toll-gated in the future. The way some think the govt. is going, it will need control that the internet flouts.

The USA does *not* have the best health care system in the world. The USA has higher infant mortality, and lower life expectancy, figures than just about all of the major western countries, and we spend about 40% more per capita annually on health care than those other countries to get those inferior results.

80% of citizens are happy with their health *care* but a much lower number is happy with their health *insurance*, whose premium cost rises at 2 or 3 times the inflation rate each year, while deductibles and copays also rise. And if you compare people who use a lot of health services to those who don't--in other words, if you ask the people who actually are in a position to know something about how the system works on a day to day basis--you get a much different answer about who is happy with the *care* too.

In America today insurance companies tell people which doctors they can or can't see, which drugs they can or can't take, and which treatments they can or can't get. In most other countries, the government tells people those things, at considerably less cost, and with considerably better results in terms of overall health and longevity. Personally, I'd rather have the opportunity to elect the people who direct my health care than have them imposed upon me by a corporation over which I don't have even the slightest bit of control.

Oh gosh, Esquivel. There is no greater potential for tyranny literally affecting people's lives, than to hand over all those decisions to the govt.

We are not other countries - to disallow free market in health insurance is suicide.

I dunno.. I think I like the option of a public health insurance, if private is unavailable for reasons of illness (damn pre-existing conditions) or because they can't afford the premiums/co-pays/out of pockets/everything that they've added to make their major money.

I know of a family that possibly has an inherited genetic disease.. but none of them want to get tested for it except the old man. He is a veteran, so most, if not all of it is covered. But his kids, their kids.. well, they don't want to get tested for the gene and I can't blame them. I know full well that if they have it, it means they're gonna wind up with higher than heck premiums, WITH riders that won't cover it. So, why should they get checked out and possibly be caught before it becomes a major issue, because they won't be able to afford insurance or the cost of treatments?

So, having that option, a government run insurance that will accept them. And will keep the costs to what they can afford.. well, that might encourage more people to get the treatment they need, before they get bad enough to be a bigger burden on the health care system.

But there is already Medicare.

There were govt. sponsored health clinics - shut down years ago for lack of funds. Is the economy better today?

But my main problem with this is the WAY it's being gone about. They are not even consulting people who run businesses and keep employees in wonderful health care, or private insurance agencies (there are others out there aside from the big guns) who offer many options cheaply and whose clients are very happy with it.

It's being rushed to press so to speak and it's going to be a debacle unless they really rethink things.

here are some probs with the current US health ins system...pencil pushing admins make life altering decisions about who will and will not get care.

I personally know of one incident recently where it was the case that someone without insurance got a bad infection, could NOT get any type of care from any local dr., and ended up have both her arms and legs amputated. I know the family and this is first hand info...not some drivel on the news or spouted by some loud mouthed show host on TV.

In the second case which happened this weekend to a friend...he got something stuck in his throat and could not get it out. He went to the ER...he could breathe but it was difficult...he now has been told by his insurane company that he has to pay $8000 for the ER bill because of a preexisting condition. what is the condition??? he had something stuck in his throat 4 years ago and had no follow up treatment, no medicine etc for that incident since. there is NO condition...yet his insurance company has decided there is...the medical world did not make this decision.

if the govt can initiate some sort of reform so these types of situations dont happen...i will be thrilled...and i dont care if it takes the form of a govt ins program or another type of reform. people need to realize that currently the folks making decisions about your healthcare are those who stand to make a profit...the ins co's/ their decisions reflect their agenda which is to make money...not to keep people healthy and treat the sick. if the govt were in charge in some way...at least they would not be a for profit group deciding who gets to live or die...as the system is now.

btw...if you dont believe this is what ins companies do...check out who owns most of the tallest bldgs in each city in the US....yep...its an insurance company...nice to know they are making big bucks off the loss of life and pain they inflict.

I don't see any tyranny being exercised in England, France, Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands...

Everybody rations health care. There is no place in the world where insurance, government or private, pays for everything anybody wants or needs. There is also no place in the world where people who are rich enough can't buy as much health care as they want. In this country, people die or go into bankruptcy because they've reached their coverage lifetime limit, because the drug or treatment they need is deemed "experimental" or "not cost-effective", or because the fight over what is and isn't covered went on just a bit too long. In those other countries, there are no lifetime limits and no bankruptcies, and their better life-expectancy numbers indicate that people, in the aggregate, are getting more and better care than they do here.

Again, somebody is *already" controlling your health care here in the USA, and it's *not* you. The free market in health insurance in this country is not producing lower costs, better care, or more freedom of choice.

Some but not all of those other countries I mentioned have single-payer systems. They all get better results because they eliminate some amount of administrative redundancy and because they set high, and enforceable, standards for practitioners.

There is actually a competitive market in health insurance in Switzerland, where the government mandates that everybody be covered with more or less the same plan. In Switzerland, insurance companies regard health insurance as kind of a loss-leader. They compete on the efficiency and responsiveness of their health plans because they believe it entices customers to buy their more profitable insurance products like homeowners and life insurance.

This issue needs to be decided on the basis of fact, not fear. By all means, bring on the stats to dispute my points. But emotionally-laden buzzwords aren't going to cut it.

You do realize that cancer survival rates for all kinds of cancer are higher in the US than anywhere else the world. The other things you mentioned can be fixed much better with free market solutions than by the government using force, most of them are caused by the government meddling in the first place.