This blog is mainly about the spectacular train wreck at The Sacramento Bee and its parent company, the McClatchy Company. But I also post about current events, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, politics, anything else that grabs my attention. Take a look around this blog, hope you enjoy it.
I'm a professional journalist, and Fox is one place where you DON'T get both sides of an issue.
There is considerable distortion of the facts and a definite right-wing slant on all Fox programs. To wit: Hannity's Liberal Translation segment.
Fox is openly biased, and that is fine. Just don't claim that they are not. It reflects poorly on your own intelligence.
MSNBC is also biased -- in the opposite direction. People have a choice, which is good. Competition is good.
I find it remarkable that many commentators on this site repeatedly claim that McClatchy and other "Liberal" media got Obama elected -- even as Fox railed against his candidacy.
You can't have it both ways folks. If Fox is the most popular news media company -- and who knows, it might be -- you can't say the liberal media got Obama elected.
Here is why Obama got elected: The economy that the GOP oversaw for 8 years was diving for the bottom of the ocean.
The GOP didn't have any solutions -- save bailing out Wall Street. The GOP still doesn't have any solutions.
The GOP had us mired in two wars. Until the surge, which did work, the administration just kept feeding our brave soldiers and marines into a meat grinder for more than a year.
John McCain ran a poor campaign at best.
Most working Americans saw their wages shrinking while health costs skyrocketed. It is a fact that many hard-working Americans can't afford health care. This is a scandal. We spend more on health care and get less than people in other countries.
Finally, the GOP is in danger of becoming a small, hard-core, right-wing party. That is fine if that is what the party wants to do, but don't expect to win national elections if you don't hold the center.
12:10 and 12:07 are the same poster, so if you are a professional journalist, your Hard Left viewpoints were quite evident in your postings and probably evident in your news reporting, hence the Liberal Media.
FOX is just one outlet that leans to the right compared to 95% of the media that leans to the Left.
McClatchy, NY Times, Washington Post, Newsweek, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSDNC, CNN, etc. are the Liberal Media.
Perhaps you missed today's headlines about The Washington Post in direct collusion with the Obama administration.
12:07 is the idiot of the year. First his claim to authority is being a "professional journalist". A professional hooker has more legitimacy than at professional journalist. At least she has a certificate of health.
Then he spouts several paragraphs of KOS/media matters/moveon propaganda talking points as his basis for fact.
If that is your post of the year, you are a prime example of the stereotypical midtown obamatron.
Isn't it interesting, and revealing, that 12:07's post is one of the very few I've seen on this blog that is articulate and spells out his views and provides reasons without demonizing those who disagree -- and then the responses all make assumptions about his/her politics and call names. Kind of sums up right-wing kneejerk non-think, doesn't it?
Dunno 12:51, I would have agreed if that poster's liberal viewpoints about health care didn't come up at the same time when Obama is pushing his radical Health Care plan.
Coincidence? I think not and considering 12:07 says he's a journalist is very troubling.
And the first 12:44 post was much more reasonable and rational.
If 12:07 were really a journalist he would not have equated Hannity as a journalist. He also would not have listed his talking points in the order he copied them.
1:04: Never in my post did I say Hannity was a journalist.
I didn't cite Move On or any other organization.
I didn't write the 12:10 post. And you folks say journalists are careless with facts! How could anyone say such a thing without solid proof?
If all professional journalists were hookers, than conservatives such as George Will, Brit Hume and others are also working the streets.
Journalists can care about health care! The fact remains that many Americans who get up and go to work each day can't afford to buy health care for their kids. What should we do about this? Is this a good situation? If not, what are possible solutions?
Yes, I am a professional journalist, but I do not cover politics or government. I merely wanted to point out some things that seemed contradictory on this blog.
I believe the article was written by a "Professional Journalist" because it is the same kind of slanted clap trap that appears in the SACBEE. Only we don't call them "Professional Journalists". We call them "Liberal Lackeys". It is interesting to note that everyone is slanted except the "Professional Journalist". I wonder if his newspaper is offering access to the editorial board like the objective "Washington Post" is. Instead of a $25,000 minimum starting price like the Post, the SACBEE could start at $25.00 or a handfull of quarters. We are still working on filling that bucket of quarters as we charge for the Sunday TV section. Even that would be overpriced.
So lets hear more from the "Professional Jouirnalist". We need another laugh. The article is so full of holes it is not worth the effort to point them out.
Flavor today is Fruit Punch Mr. "Professional Journalist". Have 2 glasses. We urge you to keep working so you can be axed as the ship hits the bottom.
I agree that 12:07 made his points in an articulate manner and any discussion should have focused on refuting his/her points.
This blog has been continually attacked by discourteous left-wing trolls. We must not engage in the same behavior when someone from the left show up here to engage in polite and respectful dialog. Show him/her your skills at logic and reason.
Journalists can care about health care! The fact remains that many Americans who get up and go to work each day can't afford to buy health care for their kids. . Spouting the Obama propaganda to the tee. Do you work for ABC?
No, I don't work for ABC. I ask serious questions about a matter that has an impact on every American -- how can working people get affordable health care? This is not propaganda. This is an issue of our times. People need health care. That is a fact.
Or do we just ignore the problem? What about the children who aren't getting health care? Should they just suffer, even though it's not their fault their parents don't have health insurance?
These are my own thoughts that come from living more than 40 years.
As for my supposedly liberal leanings, I imagine I'm about in the middle of the political spectrum.
I own and use firearms. I worked my own way through college, and I'm putting my child through college. I buy American-made products. I believe the government shouldn't run huge deficits. I believe that everyone who has a job deserves respect. I believe that everyone who is still trying to get a job in this economy deserves respect. I believe in hard work -- and having fun when the work week is over. I believe in free speech -- even if I disagree with the speaker. I believe our country stands for many good things and is the hope of the world. I believe in being polite.
Finally, it is foolish to think that people who disagree with you are evil or stupid. Airing -- and listening to -- different opinions with good will is as American as you can get.
MSNBC is also biased -- in the opposite direction. People have a choice, which is good. Competition is good.
And Fox News is kicking the poop out of their competition. More people choose to watch Fox News. What does that tell you? Pick one or more of the following reasons:
1. It's the only place conservatives, who are the largest self-identifying political group in the country, can get news that doesn't resemble Pravda or Granma. All of the sheep are being split evenly between everyone else, or not watching the news at all.
2. They are doing a better job of reporting the news than their competition.
3. People have given up on the MSM for their news.
4. Conservatism is more popular than the left would have you believe.
So, which is it? Either conservatism makes sense and is popular, or the lefty MSM are a bunch of incompetent morons. Or both.
"The fact remains that many Americans who get up and go to work each day can't afford to buy health care for their kids. What should we do about this?"
Why should "we" do anything about this? If you take a look at the data you'll find that our problems with healthcare started when the government got involved with Medicare and Medicaid.
As any system would, once the government started picking up the tab for high risk and irresponsible consumers, costs sky rocketed.
Politicians being the cowards that they are responded by demanding health care planning and instituted absolutely idiotic programs like Certificate of Need and established Health Systems Agencies all designed to curb demand by restricting and controlling supply, in essence making the health care providers the bad guys.
The results were predictable in a capitalist society. Raise demand, restrict supply, prices go up. Third party payers become more involved in the system and people care even less about healthcare costs until it starts impacting their wallets instead of their employers.
If you want cost to go down and health care to improve you need to get the government out of the healthcare business, not deeper in it.
Incidentally, I'm old enough to remember when I got sick as a child and the doctor came to our working class household to care for me and my factory worker father paid the doc out of his pocket.
There's your solution, but "we" don't owe anyone else a solution to their healthcare problems.
how can working people get affordable health care? This is not propaganda. This is an issue of our times. People need health care. That is a fact. . Uh-huh. And you spout your opinion when all the sudden Obama is about to push his health care nonsense?
And you expect us not to believe that is a coincidence? You must work for the Huffington Post, which we now know, is in direct connection with planting questions and answers at the behest of the Obama regime.
I ask serious questions about a matter that has an impact on every American -- how can working people get affordable health care?
Your question proceeds from a possibly-false assumption: "There is such a thing as 'affordable', quality health care."
In Cuba, health care is free. On the other hand, it's often limited to aspirin and bandages. The advanced technologies that we have here, like MRIs and PET scanners, are not available in Cuba -- at least, not to average citizens.
In the US, health care is NOT free, but you can get whatever your insurance will cover. The problem is that all of those MRIs and PET scanners and advanced medical technologies are EXPENSIVE to develop and to use -- and that's not going to change. Who is going to pay the bills?
The fundamental problem with ALL health insurance is that people tend to use it, a lot more frequently than car insurance or homeowner's insurance. The more people are actually using their insurance, the higher the premiums will go, until eventually the cost of the insurance equals the cost of the services received -- at which point, insurance becomes a useless concept.
If you want "affordable" health care in this country that doesn't SUCK like it does in Cuba, Canada, or the United Kingdom, the first thing you need to do is have tort reform. The second thing you need to do is to stop threatening doctors' salaries.
1:57: And, yet, Obama got elected by a very comfortable margin. The senate and house gained Democratic seats.
What does all this mean? I wish I knew.
I return to the point of my original post, which is that Fox does not always report both sides of the issue. Fox is conservative, MSNBC is liberal and that is fine. People can watch the programs they wish to watch. My original post simply said that you can't claim Fox is unbiased -- in the sense the both sides of an issue are always presented -- when are not.
Everyone is steering away from health care. I still ask -- what are your solutions?
My lunch hour is over -- I have to get back to work!
12:01, watch out, the black helicopters are coming to take you to the concentration camps for dissenters and Christians that the Clintons established at closed military bases around the country.
And, yet, Obama got elected by a very comfortable margin. The senate and house gained Democratic seats.
Well, there's no accounting for taste... or stupidity... or gullibility. Obama's not the only politician ever to ride a huge wave of popularity into office in what ultimately turned out to be a gigantic mistake.
Going back to your original post, yes FOX leans to the right but of 95% of the news media leans to the Left, hence the Liberal Media - NY Times, NPR, CNN, NY Times, McClatchy, etc.
Care to tell us where you work?
Oh, and 2:06, looking at DHS report asking to place military veterans into detention centers, the Obama regime looks more and more like 1984.
Wow, now 2:03pm, that's the post of the year . . . or at the least, post of the day.
Assuming you're being serious, thanks.
We CAN have "affordable" health care. In fact, we have it NOW: You can get whatever you can afford.
We CAN have quality health care. In fact, we have it NOW: Any medical technology that's available, you can get it here in the US.
BUT there is probably no such thing as "affordable" quality healthcare, if you define "affordable" as "I don't have to pay anything for it" and "quality" as "the most advanced medical technology will be available to me simply for the asking".
Obama's health care plan is nothing more than a Communist health system: Everyone gets whatever they need (as long as we haven't used up our quota yet) and EVERYONE shares the bill. Those of us who are naturally healthy are going to end up paying to cover the poor health of others, and that's a load of crap.
The proper solution starts with government staying the hell out of the health care business. No one, and I mean no one has a "right" to health care.
I'm back. My lunch was over, and I had some work to do. It's weird seeing that some of you wish I were unemployed -- and none of you know me at all. Anyway, back to health care. I agree that tort reform is needed -- and the quicker the better. I do believe that people in our modern age -- especially as we hold life sacred from the moment of conception -- are entitled to some level of health care. I especically believe that children are entitled to health care. If children are entitled to life, than we adults must admit that they're also entitled to health care that will allow them to keep their life. Picture a teen mother foregoing an abortion and having her baby -- but the baby not getting any medical care after birth. That is what is happening right now. So.... where does that leave us? Any health care system is one of rationing. I appreciate John's recollection of his father paying his doctor. Those days are long gone. I had my appendix out several years ago, and the surgeon's bill for this fairly simple procedure was $11,000. There were other bills for anesthesia, antibiotics and a 14-hour hospital stay. The total bill was about $16,000. I make about $55,000 a year. I can only imagine the financial impact of cancer, heart disease or even a child born with special needs. Looking at the latest figures, more than 40 million Americans can't afford medical insurance. Companies are losing tons of revenue -- and a competitive edge over overseas companies -- over employee health care. This health care dilemma will not go away -- even if some of us wish it would. I have met too many people who have lost their life savings to a car accident or cancer or some other medical emergency. We, as a society, cannot talk about the sanctity of unborn life -- and then deny many people health care. Life is important from conception to the very end. Thanks for listening....
The issue is why are those days gone and how can we retrieve them and my point is that government is the reason our health care costs so much, not an avenue to lowering those costs.
Another recollection I have is of John Major bragging that they had gotten things so streamlined in England that you could get your heart surgery done in just six months. Six months! and he thought that was good, and it probably was for their crappy system.
Are there problems under the current system? Yes, most of them caused by the government.
WIll the government solve the problem of the family in the auto accident? Maybe, maybe not. What we do know is that a lot of people with very solvable problems are going to die waiting for services to find out. Lots of folks who are very irresponsible are going to cause someone else who has been very responsible to die because our healthcare will be determined by a government agency with all of the compassion of the IRS and the efficiency of the post office. Thanks, but no thanks.
Looking at the latest figures, more than 40 million Americans can't afford medical insurance.
This is incorrect. More than 40 million Americans don't have health insurance, but not necessarily because they can't afford it. Some choose not to buy it; some are just between jobs and will get it again as soon as they get a new job; some (many) are illegal aliens who shouldn't be here in the first place and who for damn sure should not be insured by any taxpayer-funded system.
Tort reform will never happen as long as the congress is full of failed attorneys. Starting at the top! They will never take money away from the John Edwards type ambulance chasers. Attorneys make money fighting the pharmaceutical companies as the bad guys, and yet who brings us the cures for cancer, diabetes, and other super-expensive healthcare expenses? Now the Democrats say they want Government funds to fund medical science at colleges. Good grief, that will be taxpayers’ money down the drain. I think a good look at the public school system ought to be more than enough reason to keep the government out of healthcare.
There is a good study out about why some working people do not have health insurance. It is because they are on the ‘Cafeteria Plan’ and they choose what they want for their benny package, and a long vacation trumps health insurance.
Also, Obama may be counting the illegal aliens as people without health insurance. Emergency rooms are closing because illegal aliens are using them instead of a family doctor.
We have seen many times already the that the Democrats will tax and spend the people in the USA until it is no longer the country we knew, the national debt will put us asunder. Socialism defined: Everyone is equally poor!
I would like to point out two leftie talking points on this thread. The first one is that healthcare is broken and we have to do "something". Of course that will mean that we turn over a huge part of the economy to the government bureaucracy, jack up our taxes and screw up our existing system. More than that, the lefties will expect to pass a monstrosity of a bill without reading it or making it public. Do you think that even ONE of the lefties read the cap and trade legislation before voting in favor? If health care is so important, its important to think carefully about the change and have a wide ranging debate, not Pelosi and Reid jamming an unread, ill considered bill down our throats.
The second of the liberal talking points is that Fox is conservative and MSNBC is liberal. Of course they are trying to position NPR, NY Time, WAPO, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MNI and the LA Times as mainstream arbiters of truth and reason. this is a load of crap that all of us to read or watch any of these outlets knows to be false.
I do NOT want to pay for Obama's health insurance policies for illegals! With 20 million or so illegals in the country and probably more, almost half of the uninsured are illegals.
***Of course they are trying to position NPR, NY Time, WAPO, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MNI and the LA Times as mainstream arbiters of truth and reason. this is a load of crap that all of us to read or watch any of these outlets knows to be false.***
It's only "a load of crap" if you have a closed right-wing mind that has swallowed the Republican political strategy of demonizing the alleged "liberal media" to try to discredit reporting they don't like. Naturally, they don't mention that Faux is available for anyone who likes that slant.
5:50 PM Get used to it. The dictator and his minions are planning on forcing you to buy their insurance or pay a 1000 dollar fine that they hope will earn them 36 billion dollars.
Can you say, United Soviet States of America, because it is official, you're now considered property of the State.
PROOF THAT THE LIBERAL MEDIA IS COLLUDING WITH LAWMAKERS TO PASS OBAMA'S HEALTHCARE PLAN!
"U.S. Rep. Jim Cooper's office said Thursday that the Tennessee Democrat got an invitation this week to attend a dinner on July 21 at the house of Post Publisher Katharine Weymouth. Sen. Olympia J. Snowe, a Maine Republican, was also among those asked to attend.
Cooper accepted, believing the dinner would be a low-key chance to exchange ideas about healthcare and other public policy matters, according to his staff."
***Naturally, you don't mention that FOX is just one media outlet with little reach compared to 95% of the Liberal Media outlets.***
If Faux has "little reach," why is that? Maybe the majority of viewers and readers want their news without a right-wing slant. The market rules, right?
10:54 pm, people have access to all those channels equally, so none of them has an advantage over Faux. People must be choosing the other channels for a reason. Maybe because the others are more fair and balanced than Faux, despite Faux's laughable advertising slogan?
You can't compare network and cable news channels. Network news has a much larger potential audience, although the Big Three are sinking fast in viewership and revenue. Fox is the most successful cable news channel by a mile and the only one making money. MSNBC is on the rocks financially and CNN needs serious reprogramming - like retiring that old fart Larry King! The core liberal is uneducated and poor (minorities, illegals) and they don't watch or care about politics or news.
Those of you who keep calling it "Faux News" need to grow the **** up. Typical liberal BS that if you can't find a legitimate complaint, you resort to name-calling. It's really f'ing pathetic.
***Those of you who keep calling it "Faux News" need to grow the **** up. Typical liberal BS that if you can't find a legitimate complaint, you resort to name-calling. It's really f'ing pathetic.***
Those of you who keep calling it the "liberal media" need to grow the **** up. Typical right-wing BS that if you can't find a legitimate complaint, you resort to false labeling and name-calling. It's really f'ing pathetic.
54 comments:
Of course their ratings are soaring. It is the only place left that you can get both sides of an issue.
A new "Fairness Doctrine" or its equivalent will take care of that. The Big O and his minions will eliminate anyone who doesn't parrot the party line.
I'm a professional journalist, and Fox is one place where you DON'T get both sides of an issue.
There is considerable distortion of the facts and a definite right-wing slant on all Fox programs. To wit: Hannity's Liberal Translation segment.
Fox is openly biased, and that is fine. Just don't claim that they are not. It reflects poorly on your own intelligence.
MSNBC is also biased -- in the opposite direction. People have a choice, which is good. Competition is good.
I find it remarkable that many commentators on this site repeatedly claim that McClatchy and other "Liberal" media got Obama elected -- even as Fox railed against his candidacy.
You can't have it both ways folks. If Fox is the most popular news media company -- and who knows, it might be -- you can't say the liberal media got Obama elected.
Here is why Obama got elected:
The economy that the GOP oversaw for 8 years was diving for the bottom of the ocean.
The GOP didn't have any solutions -- save bailing out Wall Street. The GOP still doesn't have any solutions.
The GOP had us mired in two wars. Until the surge, which did work, the administration just kept feeding our brave soldiers and marines into a meat grinder for more than a year.
John McCain ran a poor campaign at best.
Most working Americans saw their wages shrinking while health costs skyrocketed. It is a fact that many hard-working Americans can't afford health care. This is a scandal. We spend more on health care and get less than people in other countries.
Finally, the GOP is in danger of becoming a small, hard-core, right-wing party. That is fine if that is what the party wants to do, but don't expect to win national elections if you don't hold the center.
12:07pm may have the post of the year. Well said.
12:10 and 12:07 are the same poster, so if you are a professional journalist, your Hard Left viewpoints were quite evident in your postings and probably evident in your news reporting, hence the Liberal Media.
FOX is just one outlet that leans to the right compared to 95% of the media that leans to the Left.
McClatchy, NY Times, Washington Post, Newsweek, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSDNC, CNN, etc. are the Liberal Media.
Perhaps you missed today's headlines about The Washington Post in direct collusion with the Obama administration.
Just another example of the Liberal Media.
12:07 is the idiot of the year. First his claim to authority is being a "professional journalist". A professional hooker has more legitimacy than at professional journalist. At least she has a certificate of health.
Then he spouts several paragraphs of KOS/media matters/moveon propaganda talking points as his basis for fact.
If that is your post of the year, you are a prime example of the stereotypical midtown obamatron.
Isn't it interesting, and revealing, that 12:07's post is one of the very few I've seen on this blog that is articulate and spells out his views and provides reasons without demonizing those who disagree -- and then the responses all make assumptions about his/her politics and call names. Kind of sums up right-wing kneejerk non-think, doesn't it?
Dunno 12:51, I would have agreed if that poster's liberal viewpoints about health care didn't come up at the same time when Obama is pushing his radical Health Care plan.
Coincidence? I think not and considering 12:07 says he's a journalist is very troubling.
And the first 12:44 post was much more reasonable and rational.
If 12:07 were really a journalist he would not have equated Hannity as a journalist. He also would not have listed his talking points in the order he copied them.
Journalist my backside.
There is no "competition" between Fox News and MSNBC - Fox clobbers them in the ratings. Not even close.
The reason Fox is winning the ratings war is because their viewers have a grasp of English.
I'm sure he's a journalist and a McClatchy journalist at that.
After spewing Far Left talking points, he will then criticize and make fun of your dead father.
Earlier posts missed two more VERY liberal media outlets - PBS and NPR.
1:04: Never in my post did I say Hannity was a journalist.
I didn't cite Move On or any other organization.
I didn't write the 12:10 post. And you folks say journalists are careless with facts! How could anyone say such a thing without solid proof?
If all professional journalists were hookers, than conservatives such as George Will, Brit Hume and others are also working the streets.
Journalists can care about health care! The fact remains that many Americans who get up and go to work each day can't afford to buy health care for their kids. What should we do about this? Is this a good situation? If not, what are possible solutions?
Yes, I am a professional journalist, but I do not cover politics or government. I merely wanted to point out some things that seemed contradictory on this blog.
Good day to all!
RE 12:07 PM
I believe the article was written by a "Professional Journalist" because it is the same kind of slanted clap trap that appears in the SACBEE. Only we don't call them "Professional Journalists". We call them "Liberal Lackeys". It is interesting to note that everyone is slanted except the "Professional Journalist". I wonder if his newspaper is offering access to the editorial board like the objective "Washington Post" is. Instead of a $25,000 minimum starting price like the Post, the SACBEE could start at $25.00 or a handfull of quarters. We are still working on filling that bucket of quarters as we charge for the Sunday TV section. Even that would be overpriced.
So lets hear more from the "Professional Jouirnalist". We need another laugh. The article is so full of holes it is not worth the effort to point them out.
Flavor today is Fruit Punch Mr. "Professional Journalist". Have 2 glasses. We urge you to keep working so you can be axed as the ship hits the bottom.
Finally, using stereotypes is a good sign of a second-rate, closed mind.
Using stereotypes in a discussion is just like crying and walking off the playground with your ball.
I'm still a journalist!
I agree that 12:07 made his points in an articulate manner and any discussion should have focused on refuting his/her points.
This blog has been continually attacked by discourteous left-wing trolls. We must not engage in the same behavior when someone from the left show up here to engage in polite and respectful dialog. Show him/her your skills at logic and reason.
I'm still a journalist!
You need to find another line of work. You're very poor at it.
Journalists can care about health care! The fact remains that many Americans who get up and go to work each day can't afford to buy health care for their kids.
.
Spouting the Obama propaganda to the tee. Do you work for ABC?
No, I don't work for ABC.
I ask serious questions about a matter that has an impact on every American -- how can working people get affordable health care? This is not propaganda. This is an issue of our times. People need health care. That is a fact.
Or do we just ignore the problem? What about the children who aren't getting health care? Should they just suffer, even though it's not their fault their parents don't have health insurance?
These are my own thoughts that come from living more than 40 years.
As for my supposedly liberal leanings, I imagine I'm about in the middle of the political spectrum.
I own and use firearms.
I worked my own way through college, and I'm putting my child through college.
I buy American-made products.
I believe the government shouldn't run huge deficits.
I believe that everyone who has a job deserves respect.
I believe that everyone who is still trying to get a job in this economy deserves respect.
I believe in hard work -- and having fun when the work week is over.
I believe in free speech -- even if I disagree with the speaker.
I believe our country stands for many good things and is the hope of the world.
I believe in being polite.
Finally, it is foolish to think that people who disagree with you are evil or stupid. Airing -- and listening to -- different opinions with good will is as American as you can get.
MSNBC is also biased -- in the opposite direction. People have a choice, which is good. Competition is good.
And Fox News is kicking the poop out of their competition. More people choose to watch Fox News. What does that tell you? Pick one or more of the following reasons:
1. It's the only place conservatives, who are the largest self-identifying political group in the country, can get news that doesn't resemble Pravda or Granma. All of the sheep are being split evenly between everyone else, or not watching the news at all.
2. They are doing a better job of reporting the news than their competition.
3. People have given up on the MSM for their news.
4. Conservatism is more popular than the left would have you believe.
So, which is it? Either conservatism makes sense and is popular, or the lefty MSM are a bunch of incompetent morons. Or both.
"The fact remains that many Americans who get up and go to work each day can't afford to buy health care for their kids. What should we do about this?"
Why should "we" do anything about this? If you take a look at the data you'll find that our problems with healthcare started when the government got involved with Medicare and Medicaid.
As any system would, once the government started picking up the tab for high risk and irresponsible consumers, costs sky rocketed.
Politicians being the cowards that they are responded by demanding health care planning and instituted absolutely idiotic programs like Certificate of Need and established Health Systems Agencies all designed to curb demand by restricting and controlling supply, in essence making the health care providers the bad guys.
The results were predictable in a capitalist society. Raise demand, restrict supply, prices go up. Third party payers become more involved in the system and people care even less about healthcare costs until it starts impacting their wallets instead of their employers.
If you want cost to go down and health care to improve you need to get the government out of the healthcare business, not deeper in it.
Incidentally, I'm old enough to remember when I got sick as a child and the doctor came to our working class household to care for me and my factory worker father paid the doc out of his pocket.
There's your solution, but "we" don't owe anyone else a solution to their healthcare problems.
how can working people get affordable health care? This is not propaganda. This is an issue of our times. People need health care. That is a fact.
.
Uh-huh. And you spout your opinion when all the sudden Obama is about to push his health care nonsense?
And you expect us not to believe that is a coincidence? You must work for the Huffington Post, which we now know, is in direct connection with planting questions and answers at the behest of the Obama regime.
I ask serious questions about a matter that has an impact on every American -- how can working people get affordable health care?
Your question proceeds from a possibly-false assumption: "There is such a thing as 'affordable', quality health care."
In Cuba, health care is free. On the other hand, it's often limited to aspirin and bandages. The advanced technologies that we have here, like MRIs and PET scanners, are not available in Cuba -- at least, not to average citizens.
In the US, health care is NOT free, but you can get whatever your insurance will cover. The problem is that all of those MRIs and PET scanners and advanced medical technologies are EXPENSIVE to develop and to use -- and that's not going to change. Who is going to pay the bills?
The fundamental problem with ALL health insurance is that people tend to use it, a lot more frequently than car insurance or homeowner's insurance. The more people are actually using their insurance, the higher the premiums will go, until eventually the cost of the insurance equals the cost of the services received -- at which point, insurance becomes a useless concept.
If you want "affordable" health care in this country that doesn't SUCK like it does in Cuba, Canada, or the United Kingdom, the first thing you need to do is have tort reform. The second thing you need to do is to stop threatening doctors' salaries.
1:57: And, yet, Obama got elected by a very comfortable margin. The senate and house gained Democratic seats.
What does all this mean? I wish I knew.
I return to the point of my original post, which is that Fox does not always report both sides of the issue. Fox is conservative, MSNBC is liberal and that is fine. People can watch the programs they wish to watch.
My original post simply said that you can't claim Fox is unbiased -- in the sense the both sides of an issue are always presented -- when are not.
Everyone is steering away from health care. I still ask -- what are your solutions?
My lunch hour is over -- I have to get back to work!
Wow, now 2:03pm, that's the post of the year . . . or at the least, post of the day.
12:01, watch out, the black helicopters are coming to take you to the concentration camps for dissenters and Christians that the Clintons established at closed military bases around the country.
And, yet, Obama got elected by a very comfortable margin. The senate and house gained Democratic seats.
Well, there's no accounting for taste... or stupidity... or gullibility. Obama's not the only politician ever to ride a huge wave of popularity into office in what ultimately turned out to be a gigantic mistake.
2:06 here: The comment should have been directed to 2:01, not 12:01. Sorry for the typo.
Going back to your original post, yes FOX leans to the right but of 95% of the news media leans to the Left, hence the Liberal Media - NY Times, NPR, CNN, NY Times, McClatchy, etc.
Care to tell us where you work?
Oh, and 2:06, looking at DHS report asking to place military veterans into detention centers, the Obama regime looks more and more like 1984.
Hopefully, our "professional journalist" here worked for the Cincinnati Enquirer.
'Cincinnati Enquirer' Share of Gannett Layoffs: 100
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003990389
Wow, now 2:03pm, that's the post of the year . . . or at the least, post of the day.
Assuming you're being serious, thanks.
We CAN have "affordable" health care. In fact, we have it NOW: You can get whatever you can afford.
We CAN have quality health care. In fact, we have it NOW: Any medical technology that's available, you can get it here in the US.
BUT there is probably no such thing as "affordable" quality healthcare, if you define "affordable" as "I don't have to pay anything for it" and "quality" as "the most advanced medical technology will be available to me simply for the asking".
Obama's health care plan is nothing more than a Communist health system: Everyone gets whatever they need (as long as we haven't used up our quota yet) and EVERYONE shares the bill. Those of us who are naturally healthy are going to end up paying to cover the poor health of others, and that's a load of crap.
The proper solution starts with government staying the hell out of the health care business. No one, and I mean no one has a "right" to health care.
No one.
I'm back. My lunch was over, and I had some work to do.
It's weird seeing that some of you wish I were unemployed -- and none of you know me at all.
Anyway, back to health care.
I agree that tort reform is needed -- and the quicker the better.
I do believe that people in our modern age -- especially as we hold life sacred from the moment of conception -- are entitled to some level of health care. I especically believe that children are entitled to health care. If children are entitled to life, than we adults must admit that they're also entitled to health care that will allow them to keep their life.
Picture a teen mother foregoing an abortion and having her baby -- but the baby not getting any medical care after birth. That is what is happening right now.
So.... where does that leave us?
Any health care system is one of rationing.
I appreciate John's recollection of his father paying his doctor. Those days are long gone.
I had my appendix out several years ago, and the surgeon's bill for this fairly simple procedure was $11,000. There were other bills for anesthesia, antibiotics and a 14-hour hospital stay. The total bill was about $16,000. I make about $55,000 a year.
I can only imagine the financial impact of cancer, heart disease or even a child born with special needs.
Looking at the latest figures, more than 40 million Americans can't afford medical insurance. Companies are losing tons of revenue -- and a competitive edge over overseas companies -- over employee health care.
This health care dilemma will not go away -- even if some of us wish it would.
I have met too many people who have lost their life savings to a car accident or cancer or some other medical emergency. We, as a society, cannot talk about the sanctity of unborn life -- and then deny many people health care. Life is important from conception to the very end.
Thanks for listening....
And how much is Obama paying you for your propaganda pieces?
The issue is why are those days gone and how can we retrieve them and my point is that government is the reason our health care costs so much, not an avenue to lowering those costs.
Another recollection I have is of John Major bragging that they had gotten things so streamlined in England that you could get your heart surgery done in just six months. Six months! and he thought that was good, and it probably was for their crappy system.
Are there problems under the current system? Yes, most of them caused by the government.
WIll the government solve the problem of the family in the auto accident? Maybe, maybe not. What we do know is that a lot of people with very solvable problems are going to die waiting for services to find out. Lots of folks who are very irresponsible are going to cause someone else who has been very responsible to die because our healthcare will be determined by a government agency with all of the compassion of the IRS and the efficiency of the post office. Thanks, but no thanks.
Looking at the latest figures, more than 40 million Americans can't afford medical insurance.
This is incorrect. More than 40 million Americans don't have health insurance, but not necessarily because they can't afford it. Some choose not to buy it; some are just between jobs and will get it again as soon as they get a new job; some (many) are illegal aliens who shouldn't be here in the first place and who for damn sure should not be insured by any taxpayer-funded system.
Tort reform will never happen as long as the congress is full of failed attorneys. Starting at the top! They will never take money away from the John Edwards type ambulance chasers. Attorneys make money fighting the pharmaceutical companies as the bad guys, and yet who brings us the cures for cancer, diabetes, and other super-expensive healthcare expenses? Now the Democrats say they want Government funds to fund medical science at colleges. Good grief, that will be taxpayers’ money down the drain. I think a good look at the public school system ought to be more than enough reason to keep the government out of healthcare.
There is a good study out about why some working people do not have health insurance. It is because they are on the ‘Cafeteria Plan’ and they choose what they want for their benny package, and a long vacation trumps health insurance.
Also, Obama may be counting the illegal aliens as people without health insurance. Emergency rooms are closing because illegal aliens are using them instead of a family doctor.
We have seen many times already the that the Democrats will tax and spend the people in the USA until it is no longer the country we knew, the national debt will put us asunder.
Socialism defined:
Everyone is equally poor!
I would like to point out two leftie talking points on this thread.
The first one is that healthcare is broken and we have to do "something". Of course that will mean that we turn over a huge part of the economy to the government bureaucracy, jack up our taxes and screw up our existing system. More than that, the lefties will expect to pass a monstrosity of a bill without reading it or making it public. Do you think that even ONE of the lefties read the cap and trade legislation before voting in favor? If health care is so important, its important to think carefully about the change and have a wide ranging debate, not Pelosi and Reid jamming an unread, ill considered bill down our throats.
The second of the liberal talking points is that Fox is conservative and MSNBC is liberal. Of course they are trying to position NPR, NY Time, WAPO, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MNI and the LA Times as mainstream arbiters of truth and reason. this is a load of crap that all of us to read or watch any of these outlets knows to be false.
I do NOT want to pay for Obama's health insurance policies for illegals! With 20 million or so illegals in the country and probably more, almost half of the uninsured are illegals.
***Of course they are trying to position NPR, NY Time, WAPO, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MNI and the LA Times as mainstream arbiters of truth and reason. this is a load of crap that all of us to read or watch any of these outlets knows to be false.***
It's only "a load of crap" if you have a closed right-wing mind that has swallowed the Republican political strategy of demonizing the alleged "liberal media" to try to discredit reporting they don't like. Naturally, they don't mention that Faux is available for anyone who likes that slant.
5:50 PM Get used to it. The dictator and his minions are planning on forcing you to buy their insurance or pay a 1000 dollar fine that they hope will earn them 36 billion dollars.
Can you say, United Soviet States of America, because it is official, you're now considered property of the State.
****Naturally, they don't mention that Faux is available for anyone who likes that slant.****
Naturally, you don't mention that FOX is just one media outlet with little reach compared to 95% of the Liberal Media outlets.
PROOF THAT THE LIBERAL MEDIA IS COLLUDING WITH LAWMAKERS TO PASS OBAMA'S HEALTHCARE PLAN!
"U.S. Rep. Jim Cooper's office said Thursday that the Tennessee Democrat got an invitation this week to attend a dinner on July 21 at the house of Post Publisher Katharine Weymouth. Sen. Olympia J. Snowe, a Maine Republican, was also among those asked to attend.
Cooper accepted, believing the dinner would be a low-key chance to exchange ideas about healthcare and other public policy matters, according to his staff."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-washington-post3-2009jul03,0,6537672.story
***Naturally, you don't mention that FOX is just one media outlet with little reach compared to 95% of the Liberal Media outlets.***
If Faux has "little reach," why is that? Maybe the majority of viewers and readers want their news without a right-wing slant. The market rules, right?
****If Faux has "little reach," why is that?****
Because it's just one network/channel. You must be bad at math since you're a MSDNC worshipper.
///Because it's just one network/channel.///
And what's stopping people from watching that channel if they choose to do so, rather than switching to ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, or CNN?
****And what's stopping people from watching that channel if they choose to do so, rather than switching to ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, or CNN?****
You're comparing one cable channel to three broadcast channels and two cable channels, which BTW, all happen to be Left Wing?
Get it? 5 vs. 1
10:54 pm, people have access to all those channels equally, so none of them has an advantage over Faux. People must be choosing the other channels for a reason. Maybe because the others are more fair and balanced than Faux, despite Faux's laughable advertising slogan?
You can't compare network and cable news channels. Network news has a much larger potential audience, although the Big Three are sinking fast in viewership and revenue. Fox is the most successful cable news channel by a mile and the only one making money. MSNBC is on the rocks financially and CNN needs serious reprogramming - like retiring that old fart Larry King!
The core liberal is uneducated and poor (minorities, illegals) and they don't watch or care about politics or news.
Well, 8:27, if Faux is doing so well, and the others are doing so poorly, and you have access to Faux, you have nothing to complain about, do you.
Those of you who keep calling it "Faux News" need to grow the **** up. Typical liberal BS that if you can't find a legitimate complaint, you resort to name-calling. It's really f'ing pathetic.
***Those of you who keep calling it "Faux News" need to grow the **** up. Typical liberal BS that if you can't find a legitimate complaint, you resort to name-calling. It's really f'ing pathetic.***
Those of you who keep calling it the "liberal media" need to grow the **** up. Typical right-wing BS that if you can't find a legitimate complaint, you resort to false labeling and name-calling. It's really f'ing pathetic.
You are the one that's pathetic. FOX is one right-leaning channel while the rest are liberal, hence the LIBERAL MEDIA.
Get it now?
Post a Comment