August 3, 2011 at 2:33 pm
>>Both sides of the political spectrum simply make stuff up and report it as news<<
Exactly. People complain about FOX but ever notice how ABC is pro-democrat?
Back when our dear President was running for the office, ABC used shows like Boston Legal to promote the democratic agenda. And, after he got elected, they felt they didn't need to promote it until after his approval rating went to an all-time low..... And, now, they are back to promoting the democratic agenda......
In the 1960's when newmen like Walter Croncite were on the air, the news could be counted on as the TRUTH. But, today... the news is a business that shades the news to make the highest profit possible.... But, heck, we Americans once said "It must be true if its on the TV news or in newspapers..."
August 3, 2011 at 2:50 pm
Dan.Humphries (8/3/2011)
Nevyn (8/3/2011)
cengland0 (8/3/2011)
GSquared (8/3/2011)
Government's role in human civilization is application of force. So, the moment it moves outside of defense against force, it turns into a problem, not a solution. Simple as that.Exactly right. Too much government control makes us into a socialist country. Socialism has been proven to fail by looking at countries like England and Canada. Since healthcare is provided to everyone, try go see a doctor when you get a heart attack and hope you get seen within their 3 hour limit. There's no incentive to be a doctor in those countries so you have a shortage.
:facepalm:
Watch much Fox News?
You ask "Watch much Fox News" and you are the one with :facepalm:???????
The Problem is hardley contained to Fox News. Both sides of the political spectrum simply make stuff up and report it as news. Case in point Keith Olberman and Bill Mahr. Although in the case of the latter. He is given a pass by Democrats to say the most vile things imaginable about any Rep. That goes doble if they are female.
Since both his side of the spectrum and the fact that he had been woefully misinformed were both evident, it was a fairly simple conclusion.
This is not to say that any other media source are angels, just that they aren't the particular ones that led this particular person to such a poor understanding of the facts.
August 3, 2011 at 2:50 pm
billiam904 (8/3/2011)
>>Both sides of the political spectrum simply make stuff up and report it as news<<Exactly. People complain about FOX but ever notice how ABC is pro-democrat?
Back when our dear President was running for the office, ABC used shows like Boston Legal to promote the democratic agenda. And, after he got elected, they felt they didn't need to promote it until after his approval rating went to an all-time low..... And, now, they are back to promoting the democratic agenda......
In the 1960's when newmen like Walter Croncite were on the air, the news could be counted on as the TRUTH. But, today... the news is a business that shades the news to make the highest profit possible.... But, heck, we Americans once said "It must be true if its on the TV news or in newspapers..."
Boston Legal is the news?
August 3, 2011 at 3:01 pm
Nevyn (8/3/2011)
Dan.Humphries (8/3/2011)
Nevyn (8/3/2011)
cengland0 (8/3/2011)
GSquared (8/3/2011)
Government's role in human civilization is application of force. So, the moment it moves outside of defense against force, it turns into a problem, not a solution. Simple as that.Exactly right. Too much government control makes us into a socialist country. Socialism has been proven to fail by looking at countries like England and Canada. Since healthcare is provided to everyone, try go see a doctor when you get a heart attack and hope you get seen within their 3 hour limit. There's no incentive to be a doctor in those countries so you have a shortage.
:facepalm:
Watch much Fox News?
You ask "Watch much Fox News" and you are the one with :facepalm:???????
The Problem is hardley contained to Fox News. Both sides of the political spectrum simply make stuff up and report it as news. Case in point Keith Olberman and Bill Mahr. Although in the case of the latter. He is given a pass by Democrats to say the most vile things imaginable about any Rep. That goes doble if they are female.
Since both his side of the spectrum and the fact that he had been woefully misinformed were both evident, it was a fairly simple conclusion.
This is not to say that any other media source are angels, just that they aren't the particular ones that led this particular person to such a poor understanding of the facts.
I find it unfair though to lump Fox news as a whole into that. Not all of fox news is so slanted just like not all of msnbc are slanted. I also have to point out that it would be very easy to come to such an oppinoin with out ever watching a minute of Fox news.
Dan
If only I could snap my figures and have all the correct indexes apear and the buffer clean and.... Start day dream here.
August 3, 2011 at 3:14 pm
No, Boston Legal was not news but if you ever watched it, you know that most of their 'cases' and the legal arguments of Alan Shore (James Spader) were prodemocratic or negative against the Republicans. Even so, I loved the show and just chose to let some things go in one ear and out the other. Maybe we should all do that and make informed decisions of own own without believing everything we hear in the media.
August 3, 2011 at 5:47 pm
Freddie-304292 (8/3/2011)
Sorry, I'm not having that. Our NHS here in England is fantastic. Not only will you get seen instantly with a heart attack, but you don't get asked if you have insurance before you get treated.
That's not what I hear from the documentaries I've watched. They do patient stacking in England to get around the 3 hour limit. They keep the patient in the ambulance until the hospital can see them within that 3 hours and then they will remove them from the ambulance and put them in the hospital.
Here is a single article of hundreds of examples:
A&E patients left in ambulances for up to FIVE hours 'so trusts can meet government targets'
August 3, 2011 at 5:48 pm
Ninja's_RGR'us (8/3/2011)
3 HOURS for hear attack? Where the heck did you get that info? 99.9999% of the time when there's an emergency like that you get treated immediatly. And P.S. you don't get stuck with the bill either way !
You do get stuck with the bill. Your tax rate is much higher because you're paying for everybody's healthcare and not just your own.
August 3, 2011 at 5:53 pm
Freddie-304292 (8/3/2011)
Sorry, I'm not having that. Our NHS here in England is fantastic. Not only will you get seen instantly with a heart attack, but you don't get asked if you have insurance before you get treated.
Here's a link specifically addressing the scandal for NHS in England:
http://leatherheadblog.com/2008/02/17/the-scandal-of-government-targets/
August 3, 2011 at 7:48 pm
billiam904 (8/3/2011)
No, Boston Legal was not news but if you ever watched it, you know that most of their 'cases' and the legal arguments of Alan Shore (James Spader) were prodemocratic or negative against the Republicans. Even so, I loved the show and just chose to let some things go in one ear and out the other. Maybe we should all do that and make informed decisions of own own without believing everything we hear in the media.
Granted, but I would first say that it is very different to have a dramatic fictionalized program espouse a viewpoint than an opinion based political program on a network that bills itself as 24 hour news (even if the bulk of its programming is not news).
I would further add that my problem with Fox News is not the espousing of a particular political viewpoint, but rather the misinformation, talking points, and half truths presented as fact by those "opinion" people in support of their views. This is particularly galling for my as I have fairly conservative views on some issues and feel the cheap assume-the-audience-is-stupid treatment that fox gives them actually takes away from the legitimate reasons for having such views.
That doesn't make other networks or programs blameless. I've never watched MSNBC but my understanding is that they intentionally went to a leftist slant to copy Fox's successful business model. As such I wouldn't expect them to be any better. Other news outlets may feature commentators with a personal bias (or there may be mild editorial bias at work), but most of them aren't driven to promote a particular agenda. Programs like Bill Maher are agenda-based (I'm not a fan), but they are also on entertainment networks and a mix of comedic and political content.
Its also worth noting that while the dialogue could be better represented from all sides, studies consistently find the viewership of Fox News to be the most ill informed of the major news network audiences.
August 3, 2011 at 8:00 pm
Dan.Humphries (8/3/2011)
I find it unfair though to lump Fox news as a whole into that. Not all of fox news is so slanted just like not all of msnbc are slanted. I also have to point out that it would be very easy to come to such an oppinoin with out ever watching a minute of Fox news.
But that's what is so insidious about it. They have a little bit of mostly legit news reading, a little blurring the edges round table where talking points are recycled and erroneous facts rehashed, and then multiple opinion/pundit shows which feel zero obligation to be at all fact based. And they all refer to one another, so once a Bill O'Reilly cites a wildly inflated estimate of the cost of say, a presidential trip, the other outlets refer to that report.
If they did a better job delineating their fact based reporting from their ideological based programming, there would be little problem. And if they picked their ideologists based on ability to make a compelling and well thought out argument rather then sensationalism and controversy, they'd actually have themselves a heck of a network.
August 4, 2011 at 2:12 am
cengland0 (8/3/2011)
Freddie-304292 (8/3/2011)
Sorry, I'm not having that. Our NHS here in England is fantastic. Not only will you get seen instantly with a heart attack, but you don't get asked if you have insurance before you get treated.Here's a link specifically addressing the scandal for NHS in England:
http://leatherheadblog.com/2008/02/17/the-scandal-of-government-targets/
That's not my experience of the NHS. If you have something serious, such as a heart attack, you will be seen pretty damn quick. You may need to wait around for something minor, although I think the longest I've waited recently was about an hour for a sprain. Probably less. My Dad had a fall last year and was taken in very quickly and seen before I got there in a cab behind him.
However, I'll give you this, the last Governments obsession with targets did have a lot of unintended consequences, such as this, not only for health, but education and other areas of public service too. The current lot are trying to address it but are a bunch of incompetent right wingers (not that I'm saying those two things are mutually inclusive, the last lot weren't much better and they were supposed to be left wing.)
Thankfully, even thought the Government nominally runs the NHS, it's the staff there that matter, and they are, on the whole, dedicated health workers who run everything to the best of their abilities. Most people in the UK don't feel the need to buy private health insurance, which I think says a lot.
August 4, 2011 at 2:21 am
cengland0 (8/3/2011)
Ninja's_RGR'us (8/3/2011)
3 HOURS for hear attack? Where the heck did you get that info? 99.9999% of the time when there's an emergency like that you get treated immediatly. And P.S. you don't get stuck with the bill either way !You do get stuck with the bill. Your tax rate is much higher because you're paying for everybody's healthcare and not just your own.
You are not paying for just your own health care, that's not how insurance works. In fact the section of our taxes that goes on health care is called National Insurance, as it works very similarly. The money you spend on insurance goes to treat everyone on your plan. If it's cheaper it's only because poor people and people with "pre-existing" conditions are screened out and left to care for themselves (I don't know if it is actually cheaper. I suspect that on average our system is cheaper. It's probably more expensive for me, but I'm on an above average salary, so I can live with that. People on average salaries or less probably pay less then you.)
Personally, one of the reasons I could never live in the States, much as I love visiting there, is you're health system. Here I know that if I get made redundant and fall ill before I get another job, I'm covered, if I get an illness that means I have to quit work, I'm covered. I know I never have to worry that if I develop a chronic illness I won't be able to get health insurance. I know that my retired parents won't have to face huge medical bills or worry about insurance as they face the illnesses that come with age. I know that all my friends who are out of work during this recession (and there are a few) are covered if they fall ill. I'm happy to pay for that peace of mind through my taxes.
Not saying the NHS is perfect, but I still think it's damn good. We're very critical of it's failings over here, because we do feel a real sense of ownership of it, and we want it always to get better. But whenever any politician from the right suggests anything that might mean moving towards an insurance based healthcare system, and they have, a few times, you get demos in the streets.
Oh, and I've seen Nurse Jackie, you can't tell me Americans get seen straight away when they go to casualty with a twisted ankle.
August 4, 2011 at 2:29 am
Granted, but I would first say that it is very different to have a dramatic fictionalized program espouse a viewpoint than an opinion based political program on a network that bills itself as 24 hour news (even if the bulk of its programming is not news).
I think it's probably fair to say, definitely over here in the UK, and from what I've seen of US media, that straight News Media tends to be more to the right, and documentaries tend to be more left wing, and fiction is very left wing (or liberal as you say over there.) I think we're all exposed to a lot of both so get an overall balanced picture from which you can make up your own mind. And I do think fiction is just as powerful as news in influencing your overall political stance.
The problem with Fox is that everything I've seen on it seems to be extremely right wing. Glenn Beck (I know he's recently left) is basically the Howard Beale character from Network come to life, and he's a mainstream success. That's a bit scary. They also went to court to be allowed to lie to you which is just ridiculous.
The left are known to distort as well, mind. I'm a great admirer of Michael Moore, but he does have a tendency to exaggerate the truth which annoys me. Especially as when it gets out it dilutes his message, and the truth is powerful enough without his added theatrics.
August 4, 2011 at 3:48 am
Freddie-304292 (8/4/2011)
cengland0 (8/3/2011)
Ninja's_RGR'us (8/3/2011)
3 HOURS for hear attack? Where the heck did you get that info? 99.9999% of the time when there's an emergency like that you get treated immediatly. And P.S. you don't get stuck with the bill either way !You do get stuck with the bill. Your tax rate is much higher because you're paying for everybody's healthcare and not just your own.
You are not paying for just your own health care, that's not how insurance works. In fact the section of our taxes that goes on health care is called National Insurance, as it works very similarly. The money you spend on insurance goes to treat everyone on your plan. If it's cheaper it's only because poor people and people with "pre-existing" conditions are screened out and left to care for themselves (I don't know if it is actually cheaper. I suspect that on average our system is cheaper. It's probably more expensive for me, but I'm on an above average salary, so I can live with that. People on average salaries or less probably pay less then you.)
Personally, one of the reasons I could never live in the States, much as I love visiting there, is you're health system. Here I know that if I get made redundant and fall ill before I get another job, I'm covered, if I get an illness that means I have to quit work, I'm covered. I know I never have to worry that if I develop a chronic illness I won't be able to get health insurance. I know that my retired parents won't have to face huge medical bills or worry about insurance as they face the illnesses that come with age. I know that all my friends who are out of work during this recession (and there are a few) are covered if they fall ill. I'm happy to pay for that peace of mind through my taxes.
Not saying the NHS is perfect, but I still think it's damn good. We're very critical of it's failings over here, because we do feel a real sense of ownership of it, and we want it always to get better. But whenever any politician from the right suggests anything that might mean moving towards an insurance based healthcare system, and they have, a few times, you get demos in the streets.
Oh, and I've seen Nurse Jackie, you can't tell me Americans get seen straight away when they go to casualty with a twisted ankle.
My original comment about socialism not working was not just limited to health care.
Capitalism or free-enterprise allows each individual to set their own prices for their products and/or services. In socialism, there is a lack of a free-price system and then workers get a fixed price for their services. Why should one professional advance their education if they are going to get the same pay as all the others in their field? You need incentive for people to work hard and to succeed in their profession.
Talking to my Doctor, he's worried about our healthcare system becoming socialized because that will cause graduates to seek out other advanced education instead of becoming doctors because the government will then dictate how much they can charge for their services and that will significantly reduce their earning potential. We will then have fewer doctors in the field causing a shortage and then the problems will compound.
At least right now, I can decide for myself (instead of the government making the decisions for me) where I want to spend my money. If I want healthcare, I can either pay the doctor directly or I can get health insurance. If I don't want healthcare, I don't have to pay for it and keep the extra money for something else I might want instead.
To make it even better, I get to select which doctor I want to take care of me. Some doctors charge more than others. Do I want a good one and pay extra or an inexperienced one to save money? Well, that's my decision to make and not the government's.
August 4, 2011 at 4:16 am
Capitalism or free-enterprise allows each individual to set their own prices for their products and/or services. In socialism, there is a lack of a free-price system and then workers get a fixed price for their services. Why should one professional advance their education if they are going to get the same pay as all the others in their field? You need incentive for people to work hard and to succeed in their profession.
Not all doctors get paid the same over here. That's not socialism, that's communism, there is a huge difference. We do have private health care over hear as well, and the NHS has to compete with that for the doctors, so they are very well paid. There is no shortage of people wanting to become doctors over here, or any lack of dedication in doctors here. They all want to advance and become consultants, partly because they'll get paid more at that level. It's the same in education. We're now offering teachers more to teach in deprived areas where they need highly skilled people.
I'm not anti-capitalism. I wouldn't want the local supermarket privatised, but some things are best run for the people by the people, and I think health care and education are two prime examples of them. We privatised the railways over here and they've gone downhill drastically, as there is no competition. You can't choose what train you get to work, they're natural monopolies. However, we privatised the phone system and now it's much better, as people do have a choice and can take their money elsewhere. Socialism works best for some industry, and capitalism works best for others, the difficult part is working out which industries the Government should be involved in.
I believe everyone has a right to good health care and education. I believe it's better for society as a whole to have a healthy and well educated population, and I think it's better for the economy. Industry losing good staff because they can't afford to pay for health care when they're ill is bad for everybody. Plus I think those of us who can afford to do so have a duty to care for those less fortunate then ourselves.
Talking to my Doctor, he's worried about our healthcare system becoming socialized because that will cause graduates to seek out other advanced education instead of becoming doctors because the government will then dictate how much they can charge for their services and that will significantly reduce their earning potential. We will then have fewer doctors in the field causing a shortage and then the problems will compound.
Hasn't happened over here. The Government still has to compete with other industries to attract professional staff such as doctors and teachers. So the salaries stay high, it's still a very attractive job, with a high social standing as well as good pay. Socialism works best when it's working side by side with private industry as it does here. It fails when it goes to the extreme and becomes communism, where there is no incentive to better yourself or work efficiently. That's why Russia failed.
At least right now, I can decide for myself (instead of the government making the decisions for me) where I want to spend my money. If I want healthcare, I can either pay the doctor directly or I can get health insurance. If I don't want healthcare, I don't have to pay for it and keep the extra money for something else I might want instead.
But then what happens if you get Cancer. Do you just die? What about the people who literally can't afford healthcare, do you just leave them to die.
I'll grant you that our choices in the NHS are limited, but successive Goverments are always looking at ways to improve that. It's not a perfect system, but I do think it's better then yours.
To make it even better, I get to select which doctor I want to take care of me. Some doctors charge more than others. Do I want a good one and pay extra or an inexperienced one to save money? Well, that's my decision to make and not the government's.
It's your decision if you have the money. If you're on Welfare, or in a low paid job, perhaps just starting out in your career, then it's not. You have to go with the cheapest. I think healthcare is too important for people to have to accept sub-quality care because they're not especially rich.
Viewing 15 posts - 151 through 165 (of 238 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply