While our “leaders” in Congress debate expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, the voters of Oregon have resoundingly rejected a similar effort in their state. Per the WSJ:
Oregon voters passed judgment Tuesday on a plan that would have made their state children’s health insurance program “universal” … the referendum took a major shellacking, with voters siding three to two against.
Which begs the following question: If the advocates of “universal” health care can’t get it done in a place as “progressive” as Oregon, where can they get it done?
Comments 32
The actual ballot question was whether or not to fund children’s health care with a tobacco tax. There was no question on whether or not to have children’s universal health insurance. So, all the public there said is “don’t pay for it with a tobacco tax”. Interesting that you would suffer from the folly of thinking this meant anything else.
Posted 08 Nov 2007 at 12:09 pm ¶It has to be paid for by someone - and if Oregonians are unwilling to stick smokers - who are shunned and derided already - with the bill, who do you imagine they would be willing to tax to pay for the program?
Posted 08 Nov 2007 at 3:03 pm ¶David never lets the facts get in the way of a good argument. As the NYT says:
The defeat of the Oregon children’s health measure “is a testament … to the shamelessness of the nation’s big tobacco companies,” which “spent an obscene amount of money on deceptive television ads designed to protect their profits, even at the expense of poor children,” according to a Times editorial. Tobacco companies “did not win by disputing the urgent health care needs the initiative was meant to address or the benefits higher cigarette taxes would bring by deterring smoking,” the editorial continues. Instead, they “sought to hide behind a benign-sounding front group called Oregonians Against the Blank Check” and encouraged “doubts that the funds raised would actually be used for children’s health care,” the Times writes.
Posted 08 Nov 2007 at 5:17 pm ¶David’s interpretation notwithstanding, the voters voted.
Are you suggesting the the first ammendment rights of those that oppose the bill, for whatever reason, be limited?
Posted 08 Nov 2007 at 9:14 pm ¶‘Are you suggesting the the first ammendment rights of those that oppose the bill, for whatever reason, be limited?’
Do you think it is acceptable for tobacco companies to hide behind a bogus ‘front group’ and tell lies to the electorate? That’s what they were doing here. Theie ads were pulled from some TV stations.
And generally do you think that tobacco companies should have unfettered access to media, say targeting teenagers?
Posted 09 Nov 2007 at 4:48 am ¶Of course it has to paid for by someone, I would say the people of Oregon have foresight, “unwilling to stick it to smokers” doesn’t really surmize a thinking persons assessment of it. 1 it is a conflict of interest, how could you ever undergo a public health campaign to decrease smoking when you use the taxes from smoking to pay for public health? (it would be like using money from strip clubs to support churches). 2 tobacco use and abuse is on the wane, the health care budget is likely to increase no matter how we pay for it, how could you justify taxing an ever shrinking population to cover an ever rising cost? I would say, unlike many politicians, they possess forsight.
Posted 09 Nov 2007 at 6:47 am ¶‘Of course it has to paid for by someone’
Surely the voters have a right to know, when the ads are aired, that they were really paid for by RJ Reynolds and Philip Morris.
‘it is a conflict of interest, how could you ever undergo a public health campaign to decrease smoking when you use the taxes from smoking to pay for public health?’
Some of tobacco tax has been used for many years to fund health services the world over. In itself, a higher cigarette price is a major public health measure; in this case surely a direct hypothecation is about the most transparent way of going about it.
‘how could you justify taxing an ever shrinking population to cover an ever rising cost’
Clearly this is not sustainable for many years to come. But given that Americans resist higher universal taxation then who is going to fund these kids in the short/medium term?
Posted 09 Nov 2007 at 8:01 am ¶“And generally do you think that tobacco companies should have unfettered access to media, say targeting teenagers?”
No. As it stands, they are limited in their ability to advertise, as it is a publich health issue that has been legislated. But that is separate and distinct from their ability to engage in political speech.
But like them, you have the right to raise money and buy airtime for political speech, and you can likewise attempt to influence voters.
The TV stations also exercised their rights to accept or reject advertising. Some chose to pull the ads, others did not. The voters are free to do their own research and draw their own conclusions. You might disagree with me, of course, if you hold the voting public in contempt and think they need their decisions made for them, as many socialists do.
“Do you think it is acceptable for tobacco companies to hide behind a bogus ‘front group’ and tell lies to the electorate?”
They have as much right to put up a front group as any one else (i.e. Media Matters, MoveOn.org, you name it). They also have as much right to lie as any one else - pick a politician or political front group (Media Matters, MoveOn.org, any number of “environmental” organizations, etc).
DrMatt - Yes they have foresight. They no that eventually the smokers will not be able to cover the bill, and someone else will have to. If they believed it wa the right thing, they would let it pass, and deal with the declining tax revenue when it became a problem. They chose not to.
Posted 09 Nov 2007 at 10:03 am ¶Just look at other ballot measures around the country. The message was “No new taxes.” Then just like typical liberals, they say “Well, the voters were confused or didn’t understand what they were voting for.” This is a great illustration of who Democrats are and of the contempt and condescension with which they view average Americans who do not vote in such ways that allow Democrats to do what they want to do.
Posted 09 Nov 2007 at 2:46 pm ¶Do you think that the real organisations/funders should be disclosed during the ads?
Posted 09 Nov 2007 at 2:48 pm ¶Well, how far do you go?
First, you have to include all ads, unless you specifically mean political ads. Then you have to define “political ad” and task someone to make that determination. If you do not, Pepsi ads would be 2 seconds about pepsi, and 28 seconds about why they cannot list the entire board of directors.
If you created an organization that had an opposing viewpoint, and called it “Citizens for Socialized Medicine” what hoops would you have to go through to disclose the same information? Just who is “Citizens for Socialized Medicine?” It is funded by individuals? Who are they? What are their other interests? Is it funded by corporations? Which ones? Of those corps, how many are owned in part by other corps? Which ones? You get the idea. Or are corporations the only ones that need to be disclosed? What about exceedingly wealthy individuals? Do MoveOn.org ads include a disclosure about the involvement of George Soros? Do MediaMatters ads have a disclosure about the Clintons?
Posted 09 Nov 2007 at 3:06 pm ¶Rich,
Posted 09 Nov 2007 at 3:08 pm ¶this is the problem I have with anyone making any particular arguement. You really believe that you Know what tens of thousands of people were thinking? My point was the only conclusion that can be drawn is the answer to the actual ballot. Do you want to fund children’s health care with a cigarette tax? PERIOD, all other conclusions are assumptions! including yours, I only intend to point to the fact that nobody really knows, pro universal will say “it was because tobacco advertising” and the anti universals will say “look, nobody really wants it” That is the exact formula required for no movement on a monumenatlly important issue. Let’s talk about what we KNOW, not what we think, believe or………..yes, ASSUME
marc, just because other have used tobacco tax to fund health care doesnt mean it is a good idea, and sesibly if you market to decrease or get rid of smoking all together you are eroding your own budget, it just doesnt make sense. We as a society must first decide what we want from health care, then get together and decide the best most cost efficient way to get it. Anything rushed through is likely to end up a mess sooner or later.
Posted 09 Nov 2007 at 3:17 pm ¶And another point - do you think there should be a limit or balance between what can be spent on political advertising - as in Oregon the tobacco companies spent about $15 million on this one vote.
Posted 09 Nov 2007 at 3:18 pm ¶There should not be a limit on how much one can spend on political speech (McCain-Feingold not withstanding). This is America. It’s my money, and my political speech. If the media outlets don’t want my money, they don’t have to take it. But the government has no place limiting it.
What if the proposal were to pay for this healthcare plan with a tax on cola? An advertising campaign, financed by Pepsi and Coca-Cola spends 15M on advertising to defeat the measure, and to do so they create an organization, “Better Oregon Now.” Do you feel the same way about their spending on political speech? How much of your feeling that they should not be allowed to spend money on political speech is motivated by the fact that they are tobacco companies?
Should my hypothetical “Citizens for Socialized Medicine” also be limited on how much they can spend on political advertising?
DrMatt - You are, of course, entirely correct, it is an assumption. I do not know what they were thinking. But I do have confidence that they know what they are doing. In my state, NJ, the pols are “surprised” that the voters rejected proposals for funding stem cell research. Their conclusion: The voters were confused and did not understand the question. Rubbish.
Which reminds me that both the pro-embryonic stem cell research and anti-embryonic stem cell research crowds spent a small fortune advertising on this issue. Should either side have been limited in this case?
Posted 09 Nov 2007 at 8:04 pm ¶‘Let’s talk about what we KNOW, not what we think, believe or………..yes, ASSUME’
We know that advertising works. If you don’t believe this then you’ve not been living in America.
‘How much of your feeling that they should not be allowed to spend money on political speech is motivated by the fact that they are tobacco companies?’
You’re missing all the points. The main issue is transparency - as far as I know, yours is the only western country that allows disguised political advertising. I don’t care if it’s Coca Cola or RJ Reynolds - if they are paying for ads then that must be stated. And of course these companies have enormous marketing budgets. What you’re admitting is not only huge general commercial clout but also allowing them to subvert the democratic process. There is only one word for this: corruption.
Posted 10 Nov 2007 at 2:38 pm ¶‘We as a society must first decide what we want from health care, then get together and decide the best most cost efficient way to get it. ‘
I agree, Drmatt, but hell might freeze over first. Doing nothing is not an option that will help kids.
Posted 10 Nov 2007 at 2:39 pm ¶“…allowing them to subvert the democratic process.”
Not really. They don’t drag voters to the polls and put a gun to their heads. They are merely using the media to express a point of view. Something those with “opposing” views are also allowed to do.
Unless, of course, you don’t believe that the voters can think for themselves, and have to be told what is best for them or how to vote. Common liberal ideology.
Posted 11 Nov 2007 at 7:52 pm ¶‘They are merely using the media to express a point of view.’
No, ‘they’ are corrupting the democratic process. Who are they? That is the point. As I said, no other western democracy would allow such disguised political advertising.
Posted 12 Nov 2007 at 4:17 am ¶Rich, I don’t blame the voter’s in NJ for voting against funding stem cell research, it doesn’t mean they are against it, just that they don’t want to pay for it. In our economy, if it were completely legal, some genius would find a great cure for a common disease through this process, then the public would pay for it at purchase, however the way our funding works, if they paid for the research they would still have to pay for the end product and thus would be paying for it twice. I agree with them.
Marc, I have no doubt that marketing effects people’s decisions, but only if there is question. What I mean is, if your position is weak no amount of marketing would sway the public. In Oregon using tobacco tax to fund health care was week, the tobacco companies exploited that. Any good position and/or good argument can stand up to criticism of all types. See Dubner’s book “freakonomics” and the section on political candidates and what they spent on elections, it is suprising. To take it to an extreme, if we undertook a massively expensive advertising campaign to execute everyone over 65 it wouldnt matter, no one would go for it. The problem with marketing now is that the standards to which they are held are poor, there is a very great difference between “the truth” and a “fact” i.e. General custard was a murderer? General custard was a hero? depends really if you were an indian or a settler, fact, he killed a lot of indians. I personally believe marketing standards need work, if we forced more transparency and “truthfulness” we wouldn’t have to worry.
Posted 12 Nov 2007 at 6:55 am ¶As the NYT says:
‘The referendum said a lot about the power of money in any election, and not much about what the public thinks about the issue if given accurate and balanced information. ‘
That really sums it up.
Posted 12 Nov 2007 at 8:24 am ¶Matt -
Embryonic stem cell research is completely legal. There are no federal dollars for it, however. Still, no genius has developed any great cure. Pharamceutical and biotech companies spend billions researching all kinds of things without government money, when they believe it will have results that will eventually bring profit. If they believed there was profit to be had, you can bet there would be ample private money for embryonic stem cell research.
Marc,
Repeating the statement that they are corrupting the process is not convincing. Just how is the democratic process corrupted?
Posted 12 Nov 2007 at 8:28 am ¶I don’t see anyone kept from or dragged kicking and screaming to the polls. Nor do I see anyone being denied the right to use to media to put forth an opposing viewpoint.
Rich, no genius has found it “yet”, but as you say, why would the voters want to support it if it will be supported by private industry and they will ultimately pay for the findings?
Marc, I personally agree that marketing contorts facts and sways decisions, but I agree with rich as well, it is part of our society/democracy we purposely protected the right to pretty much say what you want, unless undue harm could be reasonably forseen or expected. Though our right to freedom of speech is often contorted to favor the powerful, that is where the true issue lies, we all need to know that marketers of FOS and thus should find our own answers………..imagine it “free thought”
Posted 12 Nov 2007 at 9:57 am ¶the contortion to the powerful works like this, the airwaves were owned by the public (technically public airways) sold to a very select group of media outlets for pennies really (compared to what they are worth) who inturn charge exorbanant amounts of money to advertise on them. The true question over freedom of speech in “cable TV” society is, “are financial barriers to speak in a way that can be heard a true subversion of freedom of speech?” I believe so being that the airwaves by all rights belong to the public, by definition a public forum must be open to all view points “equally” financial barriers are as real as someone with a nightstick stopping you from expressing your viewpoint in an othewise public forum. But, it is doubtful that the organizations who now control the majority of all media are going to give that up without a fight (if you read Noam Chomsky’s work you will see almost all the media can be traced back to five very large and rich organizations).
‘Just how is the democratic process corrupted?’
I’ve already told you this.
1. The voters are denied knowledge on screen of who is behind the ads. That’s about as basic a level of deception as you can get.
2. Big business can outspend the public health authorities and their supporters by many times.
Posted 12 Nov 2007 at 10:49 am ¶It’s remarkable how much contempt the NYT has for the voting public, and how easily they believe the public is duped.
Of course, the NYT ALWAYS gives accurate and balanced information…
Posted 12 Nov 2007 at 12:03 pm ¶Rich, you have hit on something that has always mystified me. Why do rank-and-file “progressives” continue to side with the NYT even though the Grey Lady’s editors obviously consider them to be a bunch of morons?
Posted 12 Nov 2007 at 1:19 pm ¶Marc,
You have no idea who I am, and yet you have spent considerable energy arguing with me. You have not asked for any disclosures before expending you energy, either.
Likewise, I may not know who is behind this or that political ad, the arguments stand or fall on their own merits. But I am still free to band together with enought concerned citizens, corporations, or other organizations to raise money to present my own advertising.
Perhaps if the “public health authorities” (who really have little to do with the legislation or its presence on the ballot - it’s legislators) have a string enough case, they will have ample support. See, for example, any public voting on environmental issues. Big business, in spite of their resources, tend to lose on these issues (Open space issues, clean air regs, etc.)
Matt, the public may own the airwaves, but they do not own the equipment and resources necessary to utilize them. Similarly, we all have the right to pursue good health, but we do not usurp YOUR labor or posessions, wholesale, to make the available to anyone who wants it. Not yet, anyway.
Posted 12 Nov 2007 at 4:27 pm ¶David,
Einstein said:
“The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility.”
He also said:
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the the universe.”
Posted 12 Nov 2007 at 4:31 pm ¶Smart dude, that Einstein feller.
Posted 12 Nov 2007 at 6:32 pm ¶Usurp? doesn’t really apply being that I noted that it is the “access” to public airways that is blocked by financial barriers, I said nothing for the equipment, use of equipment or manpower used to access the airways. Please tell me how much it would cost to get a 1 minute spot on the PUBLIC airways? now tell me that this dollar amount represents a fair and equitable charge for the use of the equipment? USURP: seize and take control without authority and possibly with force; take ones right or possession. Who has really been usurped here? seems like you have had your right to access the public airways usurped? Don’t forget, it is not just money, the owners of such airways do not have to broadcast anything even if you pay for it. public airways? freedom of speech? hmmmm
Einstein also said; The ideals which have lighted my way, and time after time have given me new courage to face life cheerfully, have been Kindness, Beauty, and Truth. The trite subjects of human efforts, possessions, outward success, luxury have always seemed to me contemptible.
None of which I have seen on this blog
Posted 13 Nov 2007 at 6:44 am ¶I am not certain I understand your point, really. Access to public highways is also limited by financial barriers - sure they are lower, but to some people they are equally insurmountable.
If the provider of the equipment and services necessary to access the airways can get $1 more from someone else for the same time than you are willing to pay, then $1 more than you are willing to pay is the fair and equitable value. Freedom of speech is not a guarantee of an audience.
Posted 13 Nov 2007 at 9:40 am ¶First, public access to highways can only be barred completely in a state of national emergency, broadcasters may deny you access to the airways if they dont like your message no matter how much you pay them. Secondly, it is actually illegal to charge for profit anything that “belongs” to the public. It happens, but it is not legal. i.e. if there is a concert in the public park and they charge admission, it is technically illegal. Really, when was the last time any organization stopped you from using the highway?
Posted 13 Nov 2007 at 11:26 am ¶secondly, when defining “financial barriers” one must take into consideration what cost would be exorbanant for most of the population for which access was intended? (not average, but two standard deviations above the mean). the “financial barriers” to use the public highway hardly reach that criteria.
Post a Comment