H/T to And so it goes in Shreveport
The traditional media is dying and I think few would argue with that. With the advent of the internet dawned an era of nearly countless possibilities for new media innovation. I’m excited to see how new media innovations are being used on the right in recent days. After the left was handedly credited as the self proclaimed internet technology innovators in the 2008 elections, it appears that the right has been rapidly responding.
CNN has already conceded twitter as a conservative medium. However, it looks as though several congress members are taking advantage of opencongress.org via amplify.com. Through this medium, Republican congress members are able to comment and post on specific portions of Pelosi’s gigantic 1,900 page bill. The result is likely to cause needed scrutiny on specific section hidden within a behemoth bill.
For example:
SECTION 223: BUREAUCRATS IN CHARGE OF DECISIONS THAT SHOULD BE MADE BY PATIENTS
John Boehner says:
Despite what congressional Democrats claim, H.R. 3962 would put government bureaucrats in charge of decisions that should be made by patients, their families, and their doctors.
Pages 111-116; Section 223 – The bill establishes a Health Benefits Advisory Committee to make determinations about health care services that will be available to Americans...
Traditional media has largely ignored and marginalized the Republican message in favor of projecting the Obama sponsored “Party of No” template. Whether you are on the left or right, this is a great political innovation, because it allows for the open discourse of ideas without the third party ideological spin that comes with traditional media. It is politicians taking their case directly to the people.
8 comments
That website sounds useful.
November 5, 2009 at 10:16 AMI can’t help but think, though, the core problem of people nervous about bureaucrats making healthcare decisions is that the people in question have no money. As far as control over healthcare decisions goes, the differences between a public plan (which I don’t support) and private insurance contract are minor. In both cases people will feel nervous unless they read the contract, be prepared to use the courts to enforce it, take charge of their life, and have a little bit of money set aside for when things don’t go according to plan.
People who debate whether they’re better off turning over their lives to a gov’t plan or a corporation are missing the point. Neither one of those works. You have stay on top of things for yourself. No matter what insurance law is passed, the people most likely to get the care they want are those with their acts together.
I know I'm off topic. I just don't care about the particulars of this bill b/c I don't think it matters. No matter how good the gov't plan is, people who want top care will NOT rely solely on it for their healthcare needs.
Good post. And I love your heading:
November 5, 2009 at 1:06 PMThe debate is open to all and all voices will be heard, but not all will be right.
rally in DC today..yay!!
November 5, 2009 at 4:44 PMCJ - I agree, but keep in mind you are also wishing deep down that government ran more logically...like a business. I agree with your overall point though, in the end, people need more control over their health care decisions.
November 5, 2009 at 7:55 PMRight - thanks! I almost took it down actually, but my wife convinced me that it was one of my least cheesiest puns ever and I should keep it up as proof.
WHT - Were you there?
Apparently the right has over-taken the left in technology and media because it seems the masses on the right are so much more informed! Are or we just paying more attention?
November 6, 2009 at 12:05 AM@ CJ - No matter how good the gov't plan is, people who want top care will NOT rely solely on it for their healthcare needs.
November 6, 2009 at 12:49 AMIt's not supposed to be for people who want top care. It will wind up being a basic service that ensures every American can see a doctor. What happens now is people go to the doctor, and then they say, oh yea, I can't pay for it. By law a doctor is require to treat a patient. So when a patient bails, the hospital has to foot the bill. The hospital's insurance company, if they're lucky, pays a small fraction of the costs. Usually the insurance company says, "tough break."
A public option would eliminate this because doctors are guaranteed to be paid for treating patients. But the public option is not the be all/end all to your meidcal needs. you'll find that it probably won't cover a lot of stuff. Thus you would *need* private insurance anyway, but if you ever lost your insurance for any reason, you can still get your medication and see your regular doctor, as the public option doesn't discriminate against doctor choice. I'm really not sure why anyone is opposed to it, truth be told...
@ everyone else, republicans really seemed to gravitate towards twitter early on. I think they tweeted at inappropriate times (like a joint session speech...) and the notoriety gained from that made tweeting popular in the GOP. It's about time the right use technology though. Obama's mastery of internet campaining is proof positive of the powerful effects of the web!
Your married to a smart woman!
November 6, 2009 at 3:43 PMtL - "but if you ever lost your insurance for any reason, you can still get your medication and see your regular doctor, as the public option doesn't discriminate against doctor choice. I'm really not sure why anyone is opposed to it, truth be told"
November 6, 2009 at 9:44 PMcheck out the articles on the doctor fix being out of the health care bill. If doctors are choosing not to accept medicare, they may also reject the public option. I think the "why people are against" is a really long discussion.
Right - she is indeed.
Post a Comment