![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 13 of 13. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Racer on October 8, 2006, at 13:20:43
I really hate this feeling.
There are a couple of initiatives on the upcoming ballot here in California that are receiving heavy advertising on television. BOTH strike me as being rather misguided, in one way or another, and the advertising seems -- trying to think of a civil way to put this... Well, in one case, the ads don't tell you what the problem really is at all, they just say, "If this passes, it gives money to Hospital Corporations" without telling anything about how or why this might happen. The other is an energy thing -- and the ads include what comes across to my husband as blackmail on the part of the public safety unions. All I can say is that the second one just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
I haven't read both all the way through, yet, but here's the cheat sheet on 'em:
Proposition 86 is a tax on cigarettes, so you could start off by saying it's regressive and rejecting it from that standpoint straight out of the gate. The money is to be used to help finance the costs incurred by hospitals in treating the uninsured.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of treating the uninsured. Health care in this state is very frightening if you don't have insurance. I was uninsured for about ten years, and I know it's horrible to be in that situation. For one thing, the hospitals and health insurers negotiate lowered rates. The uninsured are charged full price -- sometimes with a surcharge added, because they're self-pay. When I say lowered rates, I can give some examples from my own experience. I had a test done a while back, which cost $2300. My insurance covered about $700 of that -- the rest was written off. Had I been uninsured, I'd have paid more than three times what the insurance company paid!
San Francisco has this new idea to improve health care for the uninsured. The mayor, Gavin Newsom, said he started off trying to figure out how to get health insurance for the uninsured in the City. Then, when he realized that was impossible, he started looking at how to get health CARE for the uninsured, and that turned out to be possible. Sometimes it's about asking the right question, you know? (Political CBT?)
So, instead of a new, regressive tax on cigarettes in order to finance the cost of paying for the uninsured -- how about negotiating lowered fees for qualifying uninsured individuals? If that were done, I might not mind the thought of those new cigarette taxes.
**************************************************************************************************************
Proposition 87 is a tax for oil companies. Right now, California does not tax oil companies. Texas and Alaska do. So far so good, right? BUT then the tax is tied to an appointed commission that's supposed to use it to increase renewable energy. Uh... The proposition is supposed to prohibit the oil companies from passing the cost on to consumers.
The ads against it are pretty outrageous -- rather than offering anything like balanced commentary, they're scare ads. The first of 'em, at least, struck me as a bit funny: a woman standing at a filling pump, next to her LARGE SUV, talking about how petrol prices will go up. "Sorry, Hon, that ain't gonna be nearly so much of a problem for me: my Corolla still gets more tahn 30 miles to the gallon..."
Later ads, though, imply that police and fire services will be cut back because of the increased cost of fuel. One actually sounds as though the speaker is threatening us: it sounds as though he's saying, "If you vote for this, and it passes, we just won't respond to your emergencies."
I am dreading actually reading the whole proposition, because I feel almost duty bound to vote FOR this proposition just because of the way the ads against it are running. That bothers me, because I haven't heard anything about this commission that encourages me. Frankly, I'd prefer the oil companies just be taxed, with the proceeds going into either the educational fund or even the general fund.
Have I mentioned this before? I really hate politics. And I really, really hate political ads.
I'm not fond of push polling calls, either...
Posted by Jost on October 8, 2006, at 14:25:58
In reply to California initiatives -- political ads bug me, posted by Racer on October 8, 2006, at 13:20:43
Racer, you make a good point.
As you know, group plans bargain for lower rates for their members-- they have clout, inasmuch as, as a group that the Insurance Company wants to get their business. As an individual, you have no clout, and don't get the reduced rate that Insurance Companies bargain for.
There are so many ways to get better insurance for all citizens-- but a regressive tax on cigarettes-- well, um, not to be uncivil, but my SigO things that just awful.
You say,"Later ads, though, imply that police and fire services will be cut back because of the increased cost of fuel. One actually sounds as though the speaker is threatening us: it sounds as though he's saying, "If you vote for this, and it passes, we just won't respond to your emergencies.""
What? what does that actually mean? Who is "we" and why won't "we"-- in the name of whatever profits are to be had-- respond to your emergencies? I'm perplexed.
Politics-- sort of like the character on the reality show, whom you love to hate.
(But don't vote for or against the ads-- vote for or against the proposal. Let's face it-- that's what's left later, not the ad.)
Jost
Posted by Racer on October 8, 2006, at 14:50:31
In reply to Re: California initiatives -- political ads bug me, posted by Jost on October 8, 2006, at 14:25:58
>
>
> (But don't vote for or against the ads-- vote for or against the proposal. Let's face it-- that's what's left later, not the ad.)
>
> Jost
>
>
>
Good point, Jost. The problem is with 87 -- because I am in favor of taxing the oil companies for oil they extract from California. I think that's a really good idea.I'm a lot less enthusiastic, though, about that commission for renewable energy sources...
Problem I'm having with it, though, is that I'm afraid if I vote against that commission, no one will consider asking again for taxes from the oil companies. Does that make sense? So, I might end up voting for it, no matter how I feel, because of that.
As for the ads, it's a guy allegedly representing the police and fire unions. I say allegedly only because who knows what the rank and file really think. And I can't quite tell if it's the actual unions that are against it -- or some 527 sort of organization with a misleading name.
Posted by gardenergirl on October 8, 2006, at 20:08:25
In reply to Re: California initiatives -- political ads bug me » Jost, posted by Racer on October 8, 2006, at 14:50:31
It's two or three a night. Hubby and I've have finally learned that we don't "have to" answer the phone. Took us awhile, eh?
I just love the ads for Ohio's issue 3 (I think it's 3). It's for education! Surely you're for education, right? It's actually for allowing gambling in Ohio. A portion of the revenues will go to the state education funds. But um....it's not an education initiative. Grrrrrrrrr.
gg
Posted by Dinah on October 9, 2006, at 1:24:10
In reply to I'm so sick of phone surveys and campaigns, posted by gardenergirl on October 8, 2006, at 20:08:25
Oh, but it's so much fun to tease those poor souls.
In the midst of my deepest postpartum depression, I had a moment of pure joy questioning the supposed volunteer who was calling me to ask me to vote for her candidate.
We were both rolling on the floor by the end of the call. :)
And really, all I did was inquire with interest into the nature of the position being sought and the unique qualifications of her candidate.
Posted by Jost on October 9, 2006, at 5:26:14
In reply to I'm so sick of phone surveys and campaigns, posted by gardenergirl on October 8, 2006, at 20:08:25
Yeah, education, my foot.
Like the money that otherwise was going to education is still going to educaton, and all the revenue from gambling will be added to it-- so a net gain for education... right.
Instead, it's --great, we can cover education with the money from gambling and give a tax break to the top 5 % of the population for return on investment, or take away the estate tax permanenty,
On election week, I can imagine how many phone calls I'll be getting day and night to suport people. These lovely, endless recorded paeons in praise of people whom I either am voting for-- in which case I don't need to hear it-- or am not voting for them, in which case I really don't want to hear it. Esp. 5-6 times a day.
Jost
Posted by Dinah on October 9, 2006, at 8:20:57
In reply to Re: I'm so sick of phone surveys and campaigns, posted by Jost on October 9, 2006, at 5:26:14
I hate the recorded ones. :( Apart from the zero chance of engaging in productive dialog, it always occurs to me that if someone wants to bother me at home, the least they can do is spend their own time doing it.
Posted by Racer on October 10, 2006, at 0:29:14
In reply to Re: I'm so sick of phone surveys and campaigns » Jost, posted by Dinah on October 9, 2006, at 8:20:57
> I hate the recorded ones. :( Apart from the zero chance of engaging in productive dialog, it always occurs to me that if someone wants to bother me at home, the least they can do is spend their own time doing it.
I have a strict policy that I won't vote for anyone whose campaign uses recorded messages like that. In fact, if I get a recorded message, I'll contact that campaign to let them know that I will not vote for that candidate for that reason. (In some cases, I'm pretty sure it wasn't an entirely authorized call, but you know what? Shows lousy leadership in that case...)
Then again, I'm a self-righteous pain in the @$$ about some things...
Posted by Jost on October 10, 2006, at 20:59:13
In reply to Re: I'm so sick of phone surveys and campaigns » Dinah, posted by Racer on October 10, 2006, at 0:29:14
RACER!!!! come on. Are you being rhetorical?? :)
I definitely would never vote for a candidate based on whether s/he makes recorded phone calls. I'll hang up on them, I'll scream at the phone-- but that's just epiphenomenal.
If Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde (no relation to the legislator of the same name) are both running for a seat in congress, and Dr. Jeckyl's campaign calls me and asks me in loud mechanical tones, to "get out the vote" or whatever for kind Dr. Jeckyl, and Mr. Hyde's campaign doesn't, I'm still going to vote for Jeckyl.
Somebody may have told Jeckyl that he doesn't have a snowball's chance in h*;; of getting elected if he doesn't look under every cabbage leaf (or shout under them) and Hyde may have bazillions of dollars of campaign contributions from EvilCorporation, Inc. -- who knows?
(ps, forgive me EvilCorp, Inc, for calling you EvilCorp. I didn't mean to offend you.)
Jost
Posted by Racer on October 10, 2006, at 22:02:33
In reply to Re: I'm so sick of phone surveys and campaigns, posted by Jost on October 10, 2006, at 20:59:13
> RACER!!!! come on. Are you being rhetorical?? :)
>
> I definitely would never vote for a candidate based on whether s/he makes recorded phone calls. I'll hang up on them, I'll scream at the phone-- but that's just epiphenomenal.
>lol In this case, it's very easy for me to stand on principle: I've never yet received a recorded call from someone I'd have voted for...
In fairness, I do exempt the recordings from names like Clinton, Feinstein, etc -- those people will not call me personally, so the only way the candidates can get their voices on my telephone are via recorded messages.
By the way, unless the law has changed, in California it is illegal to use recorded messages like that. The calls using national names probably come from out of state, in which case it's sadly legal for them to call into California. The local candidates who use recorded messages, though, are breaking the law. Another reason not to vote for them, eh?
;-)
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 16, 2006, at 0:32:23
In reply to Re: California initiatives -- political ads bug me, posted by Jost on October 8, 2006, at 14:25:58
> BOTH strike me as being rather misguided ... and the ads include what comes across to my husband as blackmail
>
> The ads against it are pretty outrageous -- rather than offering anything like balanced commentary, they're scare ads.
>
> One actually sounds as though the speaker is threatening us
>
> Racer> well, um, not to be uncivil, but my SigO things that just awful.
>
> JostPlease be sensitive to the feelings of others (such as those in favor of those initiatives). Even if you're quoting someone else.
But please don't take this personally, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're bad people.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please first see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Racer on October 16, 2006, at 2:03:21
In reply to Re: please be civil » Racer » Jost, posted by Dr. Bob on October 16, 2006, at 0:32:23
I was only talking about the ads for them -- the initiatives themselves are a different matter, to my mind.
If that didn't come across, and someone was offended by my comments, I am truly sorry. I really didn't intend that.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 16, 2006, at 10:01:05
In reply to I didn't think I was talking about the initiatives » Dr. Bob, posted by Racer on October 16, 2006, at 2:03:21
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.