Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I know we have talked about this whole debate in numerous threads, but with the recent developments I have only found more questions.

So far, the New York Times seems to have the best information, but I have found plenty of interesting punditry, and not so punditry because they also talk about other stuff and etc... etc... etc... Here is a great article from the times, and it is well worth the read.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/26/opinion/26wed3.html?scp=4&sq=health%20care%20reform&st=cse

NYT Editorial/World’s Best Health Care wrote:The bottom line was unmistakable. The analysts found no support for the claim routinely made by politicians that American health care is the best in the world and no hard evidence of any particular area in which American health care is truly exceptional.

Here is a direct link to the list of their articles and the like. Even if you are not interested in this whole debate, I would highly recommend looking through at least a few of these pieces.
http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch?query=health+care+reform&more=past_1

This is a very good article that gets to the core of this whole thing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/26/business/economy/26leonhardt.html

Real Choice? It’s Off Limits in Health Bills wrote:Health insurers often act like monopolies — like a cable company or the Department of Motor Vehicles — because they resemble monopolies. Consumers, instead of being able to choose freely among insurers, are restricted to the plans their employer offers. So insurers are spared the rigors of true competition, and they end up with high costs and spotty service.

I would appreciate a bit of clarification on some of the main points in this debate, mainly what is it that the Democrats are trying to push now... is it some ind of banana? It looks like a carrot to me... wait, it could be a train to the future... seriously though folks, a frakking train to the future.

Here is the answer basically with a bit of spin. Just because Obama seems to be... wait, no he just doubled back hardcore... he was playing cards against us. All he seems to want is another term based on more conservative reform, and perhaps a solid economy, and a, hmmm, how about a snickers bar? Yeah a snickers bar would be nice, we should subsidize that too... wait, the sugar industry said what? Oh, man this cannot end well, here is the clip.






"We have trains, they are futuristic... they have lasers too, and funny shiny bits that you look at... and stuff... because you know that this is way too shiny to pass up, so you just get a ticket... and you ride the freaking train. Just ride it, like a wave and stuff... in Hawaii, yeah I know how to make a funny too."

-Illegitimate Quote from Obama on his vacation... and stuff, like working and thinking and stressing and... oh right, a beer... and walking on the beach talking on the phone and eating food, and thinking a bit more, then reading bills for like three or four days with only 4 hours of sleep. Yeah that is the stuff.

You guys need to do something.

The current system leaves out too many from anything approaching safe care... and the ones who get excellent care pay too much for it.

Pensions and health care will make up 100% of the US budget within 20 years when all the baby boomers break down and their fatty, diabetic kids follow them to hospital.

At least he is looking to do something...

While I generally respect the NY Times' reporting, I don't put much stock in Opinion articles Wrex. Also, I can't read them because I don't have a NYT account. As far as the rest of your post, what are the points of the reform? I have no freaking clue. I hear that the public option is out, but now it is back in, but maybe out. I don't really understand what the hell is going on. Two things that need to be dealt with now is to limit the ambulance chasing lawyers and their frivolous lawsuits. I agree that some doctors deserve to get sued, but not nearly the amount that are getting sued now. This is just ridiculous, but the democrats won't try and touch that since trial lawyers are MAJOR contributors to their party. Another thing that needs to happen is to start trust busting some of these insurance companies. This will make the market more competitive and cheaper. Taking action on these two major things will help to bring down the cost of health care significantly. If I had to pick only one of these things to reform it would definitely be the malpractice lawsuits thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:You guys need to do something.

The current system leaves out too many from anything approaching safe care... and the ones who get excellent care pay too much for it.

Pensions and health care will make up 100% of the US budget within 20 years when all the baby boomers break down and their fatty, diabetic kids follow them to hospital.

At least he is looking to do something...

Ok, we need to do something, but what? I haven't heard any good, sustainable solutions coming from either the President or Congress. Living in a state where illegal immigrants are forcing the closure of hospitals and their emergency rooms everywhere makes me less inclined to support this. If our country could get a grip on its illegal immigration problem and maintain control of our borders I would be more willing to extend cover to all, but as is no way. There are too many illegals who DON'T pay taxes and leech off the system to make this viable. And if the word gets out that there is guaranteed health care for all then I promise more people will come. As far as the fatties I have to agree. To many Americans do nothing to try and control their childrens' eating habits or teach them how to live a healthy lifestyle. Its disgusting and I don't know how to fix it without invading a families right to privacy. Any suggestions?

Thing is, if your car insurance company operated a policy of sending you bill after bill for your co-payments on each individual part of your car repair, you would stop using that car insurance company. You would ring around and find a company that didn't have such inefficient accounting, and you would no doubt find those companies much cheaper as a result of the lower overheads.

Right now I'm with a private insurer called Medibank Private. When I did my knee I went to my doctor and he said I'll need surgery, I contacted my private insurer from his office. It was 6.30 on Friday, but they have a 24 hour service, and they confirmed straight up that my injury was covered with any surgeon I wanted in the area. I had no excess to pay on this surgery, because when I decided to take out private insurance I was given a whole range of customising options, including whether or not I wanted an excess. They do these things because if they didn't I would take my business to another private insurer, or I would say stuff it to either of them and settle with public care.

There is more competition in my 'socialised' system than you guys have.

Now, actual universal care is a really hard thing to achieve. It'd take a decade or so of steady progress to actually built the infrastructure needed. But you could change the law tomorrow to decouple health insurance from employers, and then you could watch how a competitive market actually does increase efficiency.

Here is a hi-frakking-larious clip from fox... god bless you media matters .




DO NOT LISTEN TO ME, USE GOOGLE FFS!!! , so true, so very very true...

Sebster wrote:There is more competition in my 'socialised' system than you guys have.

Now, actual universal care is a really hard thing to achieve. It'd take a decade or so of steady progress to actually built the infrastructure needed. But you could change the law tomorrow to decouple health insurance from employers, and then you could watch how a competitive market actually does increase efficiency.

This seems to be the case in most if not all countries where they have implemented such reforms and infrastructure to manage this issue of healthcare. One thing I am not sure of is how much of a role the insurance companies had to do with the problems to begin with; after all most socialized systems have been solidly in place for numerous decades. This is where I start to get a bit offended at some of the Rep. talking points about no government... and that is basically their talking point. I have absolutely no doubts that things like Social security and Medicare/Medicaid are entirely necessary to the sustaining of the U.S. and the integral pillars that create a real community, no matter how many people are in it.

I have been working out a few possibilities here and they all return to Obama, who I believe is pulling some sort of strange Mctwist maneuver way too complicated for anyone to fully understand... including Obama. It is true that this maneuver could stand to provide a major face-plant to the Prez's agenda, but this has yet to be seen it's full scope. The face plant could involve huge sums of money, or even political backing that I couldn't even comprehend. After these next few months I am sure that we will know in full what, where, why, how, and boop-a-de-doop because we want to know etc...

Whats so funny Wrex? They are absolutely right. The rules for the Senate have been in place since its inception, and I don't think we should just throw out 200+ years of procedure for one issue. Can you clarify your meaning?

There is nothing wrong with what they said, it was just funny how clearly he asserted the fact that they are basically still pushing the same agenda no matter what.

FOX business interestingly enough seems to take a very rational albeit monetary and quite conservatively based perspective on this debate; I would recommend taking a quick look at their stuff on YouTube if you have a chance.

JEB_Stuart wrote:As far as the fatties I have to agree. To many Americans do nothing to try and control their childrens' eating habits or teach them how to live a healthy lifestyle. Its disgusting and I don't know how to fix it without invading a families right to privacy. Any suggestions?

Wait... Jeb Stewart.. like John Stewart... apple pie? What does that mean?

Anyway, I think that there are very clear options to combat these issues, but they practically cut our junk food economy into bits. Not that I care mind you, sodas should not exist in my view (NO SODA FOR YOU ), the whole energy drink craze scares me quite a bit. If there was regulation (oh no, bad word) in terms of what kind of serving people could get at restaurants, part of the cost to provide more expensive and healthier food would be taken care of. The main problem I see now is the instant access to sugar and cholesterol in nearly every quick meal... which actually turn into a regular diet for some people. I have eaten fast food, don't get me wrong I understand that urge for grease and sugar. There are very primitive reasons for people to get so instantly hooked onto unhealthy diets, mainly the fact that fruit and incredibly sweet (or greasy I guess) foods just push that "I love you" button for most people.

I am not sure why people like fast food so much, mainly because it actually makes you physically ill after eating it most of the time. Your body is rejecting that junk, you get zits the next day FFS, like instant fat and grossness that just sticks onto you like an irresistible leech.

Yuck... Another thing that we sorely need is a modification of our agricultural subsidies and our approach to feeding the citizens of this nation. At one point or another we forgot that time moves forwards and development of our infrastructure and direction in technology has peaked in terms of practical entertainment products like HD tv's and the like. More promotion of sustainability is necessary to find a plausible economy that we can use effectively to deal with all of these problems. Health care insurance is obviously tied quite intricately into many other industries, but it needs no voice besides a small portion of our population to make a lasting argument, which hinges itself on the acceptance of the necessity for that kind of bloodsucking competition. The same competition that contributed so greatly to this recession that causes people to go bankrupt losing the house they could not afford, and you have all heard the horror stories before. What I see for the future of this country is mass hysteria amidst logical and perfectly coherent conversation with people in your community. The President talked about this, and all his other points aside, he is 100% correct on this one.

I hope we can gain a bit of knowledge from this thread, and we can keep on each others good sides. (derp-da-derp-derp-derrrrrp ranting inc.)

I will. Just a question: are you supporting Fox's standpoint on this or are you just pointing out their position?

Just poking at them... it is a pretty fun hobby .

Like I said FOX business is actually worth the occasional watch... somehow the rational approach there has hit FOX NEWS over the head with a smacking stick. You know the guy with the big stick and the huge grin? Yeah that is FOX business running up behind FOX NEWS about to smack FOX NEWS into the last decade in terms of relevance to the debate.

Wait... nope FOX NEWS is actually the one with the stick and the grin now, it seems that the whole debate is actually going to be promoted at least in some way by... etc... etc... Here is the AARP, you don't want to listen to me. Rhyme, I made a rhyme.




Whaddya' know the SF Chronicle (Become a pure E-zine already... geez) has a pretty insightful and slightly controversial article that most MSM aren't touching with a ten foot stick... for the time being that is. This is actually an *opinion* article or however you would put it, interesting point nonetheless; it also appears to be from the San Diego Union-Tribune. Are they the same company? Help me out here JEB-stuart, I know you know a bit about knowing about this journalism thing.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/25/ED8419DGO2.DTL

SFgate wrote:While it's true that illegal immigrants use emergency rooms, they do so because most of them lack health insurance. And why is that? It's because their employers don't provide it. Those are the same employers who often make a hefty gain from using cheap illegal immigrant labor. When those employers do well, the rest of us do well. And when they don't, we don't. The pieces of the economy may seem separate, but they are all interlocked.

So don't tell me that illegal immigrants don't pay their way in this economy. They do, paying all sorts of taxes - property, sales, etc. And they also act as a stimulus by benefiting employers.

This is the main reason I have no problem with the migrant workers who happen to take some if not all of the work I could have right now, skilled labor of course. I know for a fact that they contribute huge amounts of money to the local economy, even if they decide to be really smart consumers by spending the majority of their money at the mexican owned places in the Bay Area (which astoundingly enough, there is a large proportion of, go figure).

Color me naive, but I figure if all of these migrant workers that take so many jobs that we all would ever so love to have (like cleaning puke up for instance, what a joy that would be) payed taxes on their wages and contributed to the taxes we so crucially need, a lot of problems would be solved immediately. Sure I would not mind having the option to be a janitor or a dish-washer, but the abrupt fact remains that these cats have a pressing need for such careers, while I have no particular desire or need for those options. At some point I am sure there are pure logistical implications for such changes, but I do think that it remains the clearest and most direct fix to many problems that the U.S. faces.

Combining this political/economic tactic could prove to change California into a veritable wonderland... well, not really, you would need to tax pot as well before that happened .

I was thinking about the cost, and from what I can tell the fairest numbers I can quickly average out would be a cost of 2 trillion over ten years, with a population averaging to roughly 350 million people or so.

So that works out to a total around 5700 dollars per person if I am not mistaken (too many zeroes, going crazy slowly, slowly insane ), and that is not even counting the cost we will save by streamlining the current insurance reform to provide massively better coverage for existing insurance with private companies. I think the 2/3 cost thing failed to factor in that pretty obvious extra trillion dollars, so we are basically left with a saved cost of roughly 1/6 of the health insurance dollar flow... think about the number here, there is a conspiracy afoot...

around 1/6 of the economy is based in health care
around 1/6 of the cost of reform can be gained through industry reform
around 1/6 of the population is without insurance

"The number are there, you just have to add them up. Wait... these numbers are the work of the DEVIL!!!"

- Illegitimate Glenn Beck quote, from when he was on the crazy... a new report, Glenn Beck is actually still on the crazy.

Here is an up to date and clear mini-debate on the subject of healthcare reform in the U.S. and the impact that Teddies death has had on it.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1227109719&play=1

Here is a TYT clip basically laying down the framework that this debate is working in. I can honestly say that at this point, if the Blue Dogs push backwards with the Republicans there is just no way that problems will be fixed. Regardless of minor reform, we will still need a major overhaul that takes care of the issues with our U.S. Healthcare insurance. Overall, if and when this bill passes we will be able to see exactly what the Dems had in mind from the start, and I will personally spend every vote I have for the progressives out of pure spite (and rationality really, no Republican votes for Wrex). I have no doubts that a hefty proportion of U.S. citizens feel exactly the same way.



This has to be some sort of strange plan... it is just way too obvious, perhaps the Republicans are so determined and focused that the Dems are going to just trip them running. Like this clip... yeah, I see a very obvious plan, but I also cannot tell who the Dems are trying to entice. Their are plenty of contributions from the industry on both sides, so in reality I think it is a bit of a moot point. After all, there is no way that this can continue for very long, people just won't put up with it regardless of their political affiliation.




Here is an interesting PR clip from the fellas and gals up north there.... eh... sorry had to say it, eh.




Woah there Dr. Danielle Martin... 31 cents of every dollar.... really, that sounds a teency bit hyberbolic. Seriously though, we would not have an insurance health care industry if they charged that. The number I have heard range from about 10-15 cents on the dollar, with Medicare/Medicaid running about 1-3 cents on the dollar for administrative costs.

Man... 31 cents, what a joke. Is there a single insurance company stupid enough to try and get away with that? Rhetorical question... don't answer .

"Note"
How would you spell eh? As in that is one big freaking moose A... or damn this beer is totally frozen A.

Options= Ay, Eh, A, Ei, Ey, Eeyore... and piglet too.

Wrexasaur wrote:Here is an up to date and clear mini-debate on the subject of healthcare reform in the U.S. and the impact that Teddies death has had on it.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1227109719&play=1

Here is a TYT clip basically laying down the framework that this debate is working in. I can honestly say that at this point, if the Blue Dogs push backwards with the Republicans there is just no way that problems will be fixed. Regardless of minor reform, we will still need a major overhaul that takes care of the issues with our U.S. Healthcare insurance. Overall, if and when this bill passes we will be able to see exactly what the Dems had in mind from the start, and I will personally spend every vote I have for the progressives out of pure spite (and rationality really, no Republican votes for Wrex). I have no doubts that a hefty proportion of U.S. citizens feel exactly the same way.



This has to be some sort of strange plan... it is just way too obvious, perhaps the Republicans are so determined and focused that the Dems are going to just trip them running. Like this clip... yeah, I see a very obvious plan, but I also cannot tell who the Dems are trying to entice. Their are plenty of contributions from the industry on both sides, so in reality I think it is a bit of a moot point. After all, there is no way that this can continue for very long, people just won't put up with it regardless of their political affiliation.




Here is an interesting PR clip from the fellas and gals up north there.... eh... sorry had to say it, eh.




Woah there Dr. Danielle Martin... 31 cents of every dollar.... really, that sounds a teency bit hyberbolic. Seriously though, we would not have an insurance health care industry if they charged that. The number I have heard range from about 10-15 cents on the dollar, with Medicare/Medicaid running about 1-3 cents on the dollar for administrative costs.

Man... 31 cents, what a joke. Is there a single insurance company stupid enough to try and get away with that? Rhetorical question... don't answer .

"Note"
How would you spell eh? As in that is one big freaking moose A... or damn this beer is totally frozen A.

Options= Ay, Eh, A, Ei, Ey, Eeyore... and piglet too.

Not gonna lie, I really don't respect TYT. His efforts are not journalistic, in reality he takes snippets and clips and twists them. He is also incredibly biased, which I believe journalism should not be. As far as your other question concerning the newspapers, no they are not owned by the same company. San Francisco Chronicle is owned by the Hearst Corporation and the San Diego Union-Tribune is an independently owned newspaper.

Its coming out now, that uner the proposed regulation, all tax form information is given out to the states and other agencies. Goodby tax filing and income privacy.

JEB_Stuart wrote:He is also incredibly biased, which I believe journalism should not be.

I've never really understood this. I understand that journalism is about the relation of factual information, but certainly there is a degree of bias implicit in deciding which information to relate.

I biased journalist is not going to provide information. they are going to provide propaganda with a few facts.

Frazzled wrote:I biased journalist is not going to provide information. they are going to provide propaganda with a few facts.

What's the difference between propaganda and information you don't like?

sigh I am going away now.

Frazzled wrote:sigh I am going away now.

So you don't know. That's cool. I'll answer the question for you. Propaganda is any form of information spread with the intent to damage an institution. Propaganda isn't necessarily bad, as it isn't necessarily false. Information you don't like is most likely any propaganda which is targeted against the institutions you value, where institutions may be anything from religious convictions to the Constitution; regardless of the legitimacy of any critique levied. Its very easy to dismiss something because its propaganda simply because you don't like what it questions.

Also, Republicans will be denied healthcare. Tell the people!

dogma wrote:

JEB_Stuart wrote:He is also incredibly biased, which I believe journalism should not be.

I've never really understood this. I understand that journalism is about the relation of factual information, but certainly there is a degree of bias implicit in deciding which information to relate.

While you are correct in your assertion that news is at least somewhat biased, because of what we call "the gatekeepers" who decide what is printed and what isn't, it should not be. My point is that as a journalist I strive to maintain that age old standard of being a watchdog. I don't care who is doing something wrong, or right, it is my duty and responsibility as a journalist to inform the public. TYT is not a journalist, he is a pundit, and a rather idiotic one at that. The problem with a biased media is that it stops reporting the facts on everything as it should. For example, the media widely publicized the Jack Abramoff scandal, but they have not largely publicized the news that Rep. Rangel from New York has committed tax evasion to the tune of millions, or that Rep. Davis out of Louisiana was arrested and arraigned for collecting millions in bribes from lobbyists. Both were black democrats and were largely glossed over, despite the severity of their crimes. Another example would be how it took Matt Drudge to break the story of the Lewinski scandal because the major media outlets were extremely hesitant to criticize the president.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:sigh I am going away now.

So you don't know. That's cool. I'll answer the question for you. Propaganda is any form of information spread with the intent to damage an institution. Propaganda isn't necessarily bad, as it isn't necessarily false. Information you don't like is most likely any propaganda which is targeted against the institutions you value, where institutions may be anything from religious convictions to the Constitution; regardless of the legitimacy of any critique levied. Its very easy to dismiss something because its propaganda simply because you don't like what it questions.

Also, Republicans will be denied healthcare. Tell the people!

Translation: Its Friday afternoon and I don't feel like getting that deep today with less thean 3 hours to go before the big drive home.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
While you are correct in your assertion that news is at least somewhat biased, because of what we call "the gatekeepers" who decide what is printed and what isn't, it should not be.

My contention would be that it can only ever be biased, as there is literally only so much time in the day to relate a concept. Until we have the ability to directly download information into our brains, bias is inevitable. Now that isn't to say there aren't limits, but it isn't as simple as saying biased media is bad.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
My point is that as a journalist I strive to maintain that age old standard of being a watchdog. I don't care who is doing something wrong, or right, it is my duty and responsibility as a journalist to inform the public.

But say there are two wrongs, or two rights, which one do you report on? You can only choose one, as you only have so much time in the day, what guides the choice? It certainly isn't objectivity. Though even if it is objectivity, and all journalists strive to be objective, you end up with intrinsically biased coverage as every journalist focuses on covering the same objectively relevant stories; leaving 'lesser' information to fade into the background.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
TYT is not a journalist, he is a pundit, and a rather idiotic one at that.

Personally, I've always used pundit as a term of respect (it does mean 'learned man' after all) so I'm not sure that's what you want to use here (yes, its pedantic, but I'm taking it back damn it!). Though I do agree with you about TYT, he is an idiot.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
The problem with a biased media is that it stops reporting the facts on everything as it should.

How can the media ever report facts on everything? Or, for that matter, when has the media ever reported facts on everything? Part of being a journalist is deciding what is, and isn't, relevant to a given issue. If that wasn't the case every newspaper article would be 200 pages long. Personally, I feel its better to recognize one's bias in the construction of an article. At the very least that gives the reader a better chance at accounting for it in reading.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
For example, the media widely publicized the Jack Abramoff scandal, but they have not largely publicized the news that Rep. Rangel from New York has committed tax evasion to the tune of millions, or that Rep. Davis out of Louisiana was arrested and arraigned for collecting millions in bribes from lobbyists.

The Abramoff scandal had significantly more legs (as it involved multiple administrations, and several charges) than either the matter with Davis, or Rangel (both of whom were reported on in the New York Times).

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Both were black democrats and were largely glossed over, despite the severity of their crimes. Another example would be how it took Matt Drudge to break the story of the Lewinski scandal because the major media outlets were extremely hesitant to criticize the president.

I would be to. Its a pretty significant accusation, and if it turned out to be false the fallout could be exceedingly damaging to one's credibility. Drudge had a name to make, so a gamble seems like a better deal. The major media outlets have names already, so the gamble isn't so attractive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Translation: Its Friday afternoon and I don't feel like getting that deep today with less thean 3 hours to go before the big drive home.

Well, you could have just said that. Then I wouldn't have to feel like an ass for being snarky.

I'd offer you some chocolate but the girls in the office ate it all. Ok thats a lie. ME and the girls ate it all tee hee.

dogma wrote:My contention would be that it can only ever be biased, as there is literally only so much time in the day to relate a concept. Until we have the ability to directly download information into our brains, bias is inevitable. Now that isn't to say there aren't limits, but it isn't as simple as saying biased media is bad.

I will concede the point that because of our own physical limitations, there must be an inherent bias to the selection of "news." I will however continue to strive to eliminate as much bias as possible.

dogma wrote:But say there are two wrongs, or two rights, which one do you report on? You can only choose one, as you only have so much time in the day, what guides the choice? It certainly isn't objectivity. Though even if it is objectivity, and all journalists strive to be objective, you end up with intrinsically biased coverage as every journalist focuses on covering the same objectively relevant stories; leaving 'lesser' information to fade into the background.

Well in the world of journalism you rarely have multiple stories to be covered and reported on the same day. And if you do, they tend to be smaller and easier to write. Me, personally, I am a damn good writer and can crank out a print ready story in a period of 20 minutes or so. I have been told by both professors and editors that my comprehension (I don't take a whole bunch of notes) and my speed are very impressive.

dogma wrote:Personally, I've always used pundit as a term of respect (it does mean 'learned man' after all) so I'm not sure that's what you want to use here (yes, its pedantic, but I'm taking it back damn it!). Though I do agree with you about TYT, he is an idiot.

Very well you overly pedantic individual! Honestly, I will say that i appreciate your pedantic nature because I am generally a pedantic person myself, even if I don't always write in online forums that way. If you would prefer me to not use pundit, I will instead refer to him instead as a sniveling, bloviating, arrogant, little SOB (you know what this is), with a webcam, a three day suit and cheap, greasy haircut. No, I did not have to think about a title, I really do find him repulsive. And yes, I am incredibly arrogant, with a vocabulary and ego that probably rivals your own Dogma.

dogma wrote:How can the media ever report facts on everything? Or, for that matter, when has the media ever reported facts on everything? Part of being a journalist is deciding what is, and isn't, relevant to a given issue. If that wasn't the case every newspaper article would be 200 pages long. Personally, I feel its better to recognize one's bias in the construction of an article. At the very least that gives the reader a better chance at accounting for it in reading.

Aw that nasty breath of realism to tear my idealism asunder! I will concede TWO points to you Dogma! While I think that your tendency toward hyperbole is a bit outlandish, it does contain a valid point. We journalists intentionally limit our time and space in an article. You know, its like a bikini: short enough to keep in interesting, long enough to cover everything.

dogma wrote:The Abramoff scandal had significantly more legs (as it involved multiple administrations, and several charges) than either the matter with Davis, or Rangel (both of whom were reported on in the New York Times).

While they were in fact reported in the NYT, and several other newspapers, lets be honest: newspapers are not the leading source of information anymore. Also, the Rangel story did NOT make it into the national section or the front page. His sudden finding of quite a bit of money and adding it to his tax returns nearly two years later is made even more appalling as he is the Chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee. Come on Dogma, you have to admit this is major news and should be everywhere.

dogma wrote:I would be to. Its a pretty significant accusation, and if it turned out to be false the fallout could be exceedingly damaging to one's credibility. Drudge had a name to make, so a gamble seems like a better deal. The major media outlets have names already, so the gamble isn't so attractive.

It is true that Drudge had a name to make, but the story wasn't a rumor. Newsweek, which was the first major media outlet to get the story, would not publish it despite good evidence and sources. I can't imagine why...

dogma wrote:Well, you could have just said that. Then I wouldn't have to feel like an ass for being snarky.

Don't feel bad, Frazzled is old, and therefore crotchety...

JEB_Stuart wrote:
While they were in fact reported in the NYT, and several other newspapers, lets be honest: newspapers are not the leading source of information anymore.

Well, if we trust this Pew Report about 41% of the nation reads some form of newspaper. Compare to 34% for cable news (where the majority of national news is covered) and 29% for online sources.

Admittedly the number for television is 60% when considering local broadcasts.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Also, the Rangel story did NOT make it into the national section or the front page. His sudden finding of quite a bit of money and adding it to his tax returns nearly two years later is made even more appalling as he is the Chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee. Come on Dogma, you have to admit this is major news and should be everywhere.

Representatives are rarely given the same level of national media scrutiny as Senators, at least not until the allegations against them affect national issues (see Barney Frank and the financial crisis), or action is taken by the Ethics Committee.

As far as Rangel goes: his Ways and Means committee created a few loopholes from which he directly benefited. Conflict of interests? Sure, but not something so blatant as to attract national coverage. This is the type of thing that should be published in his district, so his constituency can decide how they want to vote. Which is exactly what happened.

Incidentally, he didn't cheat on his taxes, he failed to report certain investments on his financial disclosure forms. That doesn't make it anymore ethical, but its an important distinction to make.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
It is true that Drudge had a name to make, but the story wasn't a rumor. Newsweek, which was the first major media outlet to get the story, would not publish it despite good evidence and sources. I can't imagine why...

Even if its not a rumor there is little incentive for a major source to take a risk on breaking the story, an act which carries implicit accusatory connotations. Its a much better bet for them to wait for an independent to break the story, and then leverage their superior resource base (which was probably mobilized as soon as they received the information) to flesh out the issue. That way they can still carry an authoritative tone, while avoiding any allegations of yellow journalism in the event that the initial information proves false.

Really, this all works out quite well for everyone. People like Drudge get journalistic props (because no one outside the world of journalism cares who broke a story), and publications like Newsweek don't inadvertently popularize lies.

Apparently the main guy from TYT is trying to get a slot on MSNBC... kinda funny really. They are not the greatest program, but they put the effort that most do not, and I have a bit of respect for that... but I am pretty sure they are being paid by Sirius or something, so it really is no big whoop.

Funny how the thread is about TYT now... or journalism and not journalism now .

Here is an interesting documentary type deal, sound is kinda wonky though.

Here is another interesting clip about our "two-party" system, rather our political climate.

Rachel Maddow on the climate of todays politics... it is sunny!




Fox Business is pretty funny, I like the rather inspired spin on the stories most of the time. Less like a cave-man and more like an impala running away from a cave-man... and the cave-man is just too slow... poor slow cave-man.




This among the mass of unnoticed Health Care Reform clips on YouTube is quite insightful and direct.

A.) Private insurance thrives on the goal of a profit based motive. To maintain this goal they take pretty much any action needed.
B.) There is plenty of evidence against the current private insurance industry in the U.S. to form a practical opinion based on general disdain, distaste, and distrust. You can rant about the 12% increase in P.I. satisfaction and etc... but it will not change the fact that a number like that can easily be accounted for in this kind of situation. So people are indecisive and etc... go eat a cracker.

C.) Please explain to me how a fantasy co-op of non-profit sectioned pieces of a real public option would work. There is no way I see that making any sense at all, it just does not add up to real change. Compromise does not need to lead to appeasement regardless of what people like to think. A+B= whatever the hell a good manager feels like dishing out to be totally frank, and our freaking manager cannot make up his mind to snipe serious facts at the competition.




Oh snizzap... A look into the eye of the beast for sure.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
A couple interesting articles.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/01/AR2009090101027.html

...The first is to take the perspective of the country as a whole....

...Seen from this perspective, the question vanishes: Of course we can afford it. The $100 billion doesn't disappear; it flows to insurance companies, then health-care providers -- and they are people, too. The relevant question is whether this is a productive use of resources. A strict free-market argument is that only unregulated markets produce optimal resource allocation, because then prices settle at levels at which all choices maximize welfare; that is, if someone isn't buying health insurance, that's because it's worth less to him than the other things he can buy with the money...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/health/policy/31drug.html

...“However,” it said, “beneficiaries’ spending on prescription drugs apart from those premiums would fall, on average, as would their overall prescription drug spending (including both premiums and cost-sharing).”...