4 Political Concepts Ruined by Their Boring Names

[The Straight Story]

4 Political Concepts Ruined by Their Boring Names

Monday, December 27, 2010 Sometimes a policy or concept becomes popular because it acquires a catchy name. The Car Allowance Rebate System, for example, would not have captured the public’s imagination had it not become better known as “Cash for Clunkers.” Here are four concepts in serious need of new names if they are to be taken seriously.

1. Net Neutrality
My eyes automatically glaze over when I hear this term. For those who are not passionate about the issue, net neutrality means that Internet carriers like AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner must allow access to all web sites at an equal speed. Opponents of net neutrality want a two-tiered system that would allow the carriers to charge a fee if you want your site to be accessed faster. Two-tier is a pay-for-play scheme that would increase telecom profits. Two-tier would also allow Internet providers to block access to sites that compete with sites with which they have signed a contract.

On December 21, the FCC passed new rules relating to net neutrality. But only a tiny number of people can explain what those new rules will really do, particularly since the FCC has not yet released the full text of the new guidelines. Proponents of net neutrality would probably gain more attention if they rebranded their cause “Internet First Amendment,” “Internet Equality” or something else that evokes interest and sympathy.

2. Single-Payer
I’m a supporter of the concept of single-payer health care, but usually when I mention it to people, they have no idea what I’m talking about. Yet when I explain it, they are almost always interested.

In the single-payer system, the government pays for everyone’s health care, but you choose your own doctors and you make most of the decisions. In the United States, we already have single-payer systems. They’re called Medicare and Medicaid. If you are at least 65 years old or you are disabled, the government pays for your health care, but, generally speaking, you are free to choose your own doctors and hospitals. A full single-payer system would extend such coverage to Americans who are younger than 65 and not disabled.

Polls show that a majority of Americans find the single-payer system appealing, yet it was not even considered in the Congressional health care reform debate. A full single-payer system would significantly increase government spending, but it would also dramatically decrease the nation’s overall health care spending because the insurance industry charges almost 30% in profits and overhead, whereas the figure for Medicare, as an example, is only 4%.

If this system is ever to gain traction in the national debate, it needs to be renamed “Medicare for All” or “Government Pays, You Choose.”

http://www.allgov.com/Unusual_News/ViewNews/4_Political_Concepts_Ruined_by_Their_Boring_Names_101227

[WinkyDink]

1. The true problem with "Net Neutrality" is that the FCC means nothing of the sort.

http://topnews.us/content/231223-net-neutrality-rules-released-fcc

"the rules to apparently allow for tiered data usage schemes; however, indicating that such systems will be monitored for abuse."

"ABUSE" = "ALLOWED."

[wtmusic]

5. This issue is too important to leave to a 5-member panel

and in short order will be usurped by Congress anyway (as was the Fairness Doctrine). Possibly also by a Supreme Court challenge.

Though big business is obviously pulling for control of the 'net, it's going to be a tough sell to rank-and-file Republicans who like their freedom of speech and Netflix as much as we do.

[liberal N proud]

2. Initiatives where names are opposite of what the name implies

[KansDem]

8. Like the "Healthy Forests Restoration Act?"

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, at 10:40 am EST, President Bush signed into law the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HR 1904). Like the double-speak rhetoric offered by his "Clear Skies Initiative," which relaxes pollution standards for air quality, this legislation leaves homes and communities vulnerable to wildfire, severely limits public participation and does not ensure protections for ancient, old-growth forests or roadless wildlands.

"President Bush has ignored common sense home protection measures and limited citizen participation in order to increase commercial logging on 20 million acres of our National Forests, a stated goal of his administration since day one. You can rest assured that we will do everything in our power to stop projects that don't protect communities or restore our public forests," promised Matthew Koehler with the Native Forest Network in Missoula, Montana.

Andrew George, spokesman for the National Forest Protection Alliance, stated "The Bush administration's reckless plan will not stop wildfires or insect outbreaks in our national forests, and logging big trees and building roads will only make things worse. Commercial logging in national forests is the problem, not the solution."

Lisa Dix with the American Lands Alliance in Washington, D.C. stated, "Under Bush and the leadership of former logging industry lobbyist Mark Rey and former logging industry lawyer Rebecca Watson we have already seen the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management propose massive 'forest health' logging projects in roadless wildlands and ancient, old-growth forests. Unfortunately, this legislation, coupled with a slew of environmental rollbacks from this administration, will make such logging easier than ever."

NativeForest

I suppose if you rip out all the forests, then you can't have any "sick" ones...

[slackmaster]

3. When people hear "government pays", they interpret it as "everybody pays"

For some strange reason.

[NV Whino]

6. Everybody does pay

It would be paid for through taxes. The current problem is, only some pay... for everybody.

[Smarmie Doofus]

4. K and R. The RW has *always* been better at branding.

And framing complex issues dishonestly by deft use of the language.

This is one area in which we need to just shut up, observe, and see how they do it.

[jody]

7. Alexander Hamilton's "federalism" is an instance of a name inconsistent with political objectives.

[unblock]

9. not at the time. we use "federalism" differently today.

at the time, the term "federalism" was meant to describe a two-tiered system whereby the national government had some powers and the states had other powers. it referred to a national organization of largely sovereign states, with somewhat stronger powers at the national level than had existed under the articles of confederation. the federalist papers where in fact essays used to urge ratification of the constitution as a replacement for the articles of confederation, which had very little limited national powers.

today the term has various meanings, in part because modern political forces like to reclaim historical terms for their own present-day purposes. the term "federal" describes specifically the national level, as opposed to the entire system. so the term "federalism" sometimes refers to the powers at that national level. at other times, particularly as used by today's so-called federalists, it's meant to refer to a highly limited national level, leaving states with greater powers. then again, these same people sometimes use it to justify highly intrusive control at the national level.