Liberal Media Bias

[GG]

GG: Give me a break. You suggest -- no, you not only suggest you say with sole conviction -- that the U.S. is the only nation in which people have the opportunity to go from rags to riches. You actually write, and I quote -- "Of course people in other lands want to improve their lot in life, but I defy you to find a place other than the US where a person can go from rags to riches as long as he's smart, driven and motivated to succeed."

I point out my story, and now I'm wrong for that? Suddenly, Canada is a mere "exception" as if this somehow this now further proves your point. Don't change the subject here.

 

I know it's difficult on this board to concede anything, because lord knows that would make you look weak. But to argue in the face of you being proven wrong takes that to a level that I thought was above you.

 

And now I'm somehow trashing the U.S. Canada has its many share of flaws. And yet it's not all right to question America, because it is a perfect nation?

Geography certainly plays a role, and yet so does philosophy. Thanks to regulations, the Canadian banking system was not as severely affected by the bursting of the real estate bubble. Jesus.

 

And now you proceed to interpret my meaning of the Bible, as if "Love Thy Neighbor" is full of exceptions. No, it's Love Thy Neighbor, not judge they neighbor, not pity thy neighbor and certainly not look down on thy neigbor because they are down on their luck and, oh well, thems' the breaks.

 

it doesn't take a Jesus Freak or layman or non-believer to understand and appreciate that is essentially a good way to live one's life, without fear of being smitten or smited, whichever may be the case.

 

 

jw

 

So, yes, Canada is the exception to my conviction that US is an exceptional place. But then again. look how it got there. It's the 51st state without the bother of being invaded by American forces 150 yrs ago. Is Canada the way it is because it fought to unshackle the British yoke, or because again it benefited from the ugly neighbor to the south. Canada was an afterthought in my mind, because the country wakes up with 66% of its GDP spoken for by the brute to the south. It's precisely that reliance on the US that allows Canada to put up protectionist gates to keep things "Canadian" yet never needing to compete globally. It's exactly that protectionism that keeps entrenched power among the upper crust. There is way much more concentration of wealth among the upper class in Canada, and definitely more market concentration across any industry. But because it's done to protect the perceived Canadian individuality, it gets a pass from its defenders. I wonder what your reporting compatriots would say if the US had a similar industrial policy that overtly protected national champions. Oh wait, you espoused on that view earlier in this thread.

 

So, while you point to your family's rags to riches story, you bemoan the superwealthy. Well, in your example, the family didn't go from rags to riches, but from rags to middle/upper middle class. I still contend that it's far more cumbersome to get to be superwealthy in Canada than in the US.

 

And where do you get your lines that it's not ok to trash America? Way to miss the point again. The trashing is of a government that's on a verge of a transformation into a more socialized state, which was never the foundation of this country, nor the intention of the writers of the Constitution.

 

And you misinterpret the Bible analogy. If liberals insist on using Judeo Christian values imparted in the Books, then they cannot pick and choose the verses that suit the situation. The Books are a guide to life, with the overarching goal to be one with God. You can live your life in a charitable manner and love thy neighbor, but the neighbor also needs to make God part of his life. And that's where you see the conservative frustration. Yeah, we get it, conservatives are not compassionate. I'm sure I've read that in a paper or two. But the difference is that the conservatives learned from experience that if you truly want to help people, you don't throw them into a government bureaucracy for generations.

[B-Man]

Weekly Standard

 

Party Line:There is such a thing as media bias, and its not good for you.

By CHARLOTTE ALLEN

 

In November 2005, the Quarterly Journal of Economics, published by Harvard University and regarded by academics as one of the four top scholarly journals on economics in America, published the results of a study conducted by Tim Groseclose, a professor of political science and economics at UCLA, and Jeffrey Milyo, then a public policy professor at the University of Chicago and now holder of an endowed chair in social sciences at the University of Missouri. The study, using rigorous quantitative analysis, found that most major American news outlets, including newspapers such as the New York Times and Washington Post, newsweeklies such as Time and Newsweek, network television shows such as CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News, and Internet sites such as the Drudge Report, slanted their news reporting to reflect a distinct liberal bias. That was the outlets news reporting, by the way, not their editorials, columns, book reviews, or opinion pieces, where the writers ideological leanings are an expected part of the package.

 

In other words, what conservatives had been complaining about for decadesthe prejudices of mainstream mediawas actually true: The media not only skewed left in terms of the political leanings of their personnel, but they could not report about a controversial issuewhether the issue was George W. Bushs tax cuts, global warming, partial-birth abortion, or the effects of affirmative action on college-campus demographicswithout loading the piece in ideological ways that made it a completely different story from that which a conservative, or even a centrist, might tell. The Groseclose-Milyo study devastatingly undercut the prevailing wisdom, held dear by the press and its apologists, that yes, most reporters (actually, nearly all of them) may pull the Democratic lever in the voting booth, but they bend over backwards to frame their news stories in a nonpartisan and evenhanded fashion that disguises their personal ideological leanings.

 

{snip}

 

Such findings comport with other studies of newsroom homogeneity. An October 2008 survey of 62 contributors and editors at the online magazine Slate, for example, revealed that of those who planned to vote for the two major-party candidates, 98.2 percent (that is, 55 out of 56) said that they were voting for Barack Obama rather than John McCain. A 2004 survey by PoliticalMoneyLine (now CQ MoneyLine) found that the ratio of journalists who donated to John Kerrys presidential campaign over those who donated to George W. Bushs campaign was 93:1. That suggests, as Groseclose points out, that the average newsroom is not only far more liberal than the American electoratewhich favored Obama by 53 percent in 2008 and Bush by 51 percent in 2004but also more liberal than Ted Kennedy. Even such stereotypically liberal enclaves as Berkeley, California, and Cambridge, Massachusetts, proved to be less liberal in their 2008 presidential votes than an average newsroom. Voters in those cities gave McCain 10 percent and 14 percent of their votes, respectively. Groseclose writes that if you read a newspaper article or watch a television news clip, then almost surely it will have been written or produced by a liberal.

.

 

.

Edited January 10, 2012 by B-Man

[Delete This Account]

So, yes, Canada is the exception to my conviction that US is an exceptional place. But then again. look how it got there. It's the 51st state without the bother of being invaded by American forces 150 yrs ago. Is Canada the way it is because it fought to unshackle the British yoke, or because again it benefited from the ugly neighbor to the south. Canada was an afterthought in my mind, because the country wakes up with 66% of its GDP spoken for by the brute to the south. It's precisely that reliance on the US that allows Canada to put up protectionist gates to keep things "Canadian" yet never needing to compete globally. It's exactly that protectionism that keeps entrenched power among the upper crust. There is way much more concentration of wealth among the upper class in Canada, and definitely more market concentration across any industry. But because it's done to protect the perceived Canadian individuality, it gets a pass from its defenders. I wonder what your reporting compatriots would say if the US had a similar industrial policy that overtly protected national champions. Oh wait, you espoused on that view earlier in this thread.

 

So, while you point to your family's rags to riches story, you bemoan the superwealthy. Well, in your example, the family didn't go from rags to riches, but from rags to middle/upper middle class. I still contend that it's far more cumbersome to get to be superwealthy in Canada than in the US.

 

And where do you get your lines that it's not ok to trash America? Way to miss the point again. The trashing is of a government that's on a verge of a transformation into a more socialized state, which was never the foundation of this country, nor the intention of the writers of the Constitution.

 

And you misinterpret the Bible analogy. If liberals insist on using Judeo Christian values imparted in the Books, then they cannot pick and choose the verses that suit the situation. The Books are a guide to life, with the overarching goal to be one with God. You can live your life in a charitable manner and love thy neighbor, but the neighbor also needs to make God part of his life. And that's where you see the conservative frustration. Yeah, we get it, conservatives are not compassionate. I'm sure I've read that in a paper or two. But the difference is that the conservatives learned from experience that if you truly want to help people, you don't throw them into a government bureaucracy for generations.

America lost the war of 1812.

 

does part of that 66 percent GDP figure include all the drugs Americans go north to purchase because they're cheaper (sorry, couldn't resist )

 

i'd argue that Canadian individuality needs not to be so stringently protected because i believe there is a strong enough sense in and of Canada to make it distinct.

 

while i'd agree there might be more "superwealthy" in the United States, i'd say there are far more people far better off in Canada than here.

 

it's about time the U.S. caught up to the rest of the world by attempting to introduce socialized reforms (GG: we will never agree on this)

 

in my interpretation, there are no exceptions to the Bible. people are people. the concent of the "pearly gates" (if that's what they might be) are open to all, rich, poor, athiests, muslims, buddhists, the inuit, whomever.

 

that's not what i see from conservatives today, or at least those pretenders in the Republican Party, which currently is attempting to run on a plank of protecting the rich, and neglecting just about everyone else, country included.

 

jw

[birdog1960]

Birddog requoting me....with no reply at all....no reply at all. Sing it! Ohhh ohh no reply at all.

 

EDIT:

 

Oh, NOW you have something to say?

 

Yes, and there are a ton of people that try to get into the IT business, and many of whom either quit or get tossed out. So what? The reason I am still in it, and I imagine most docs are still in their business, is that despite all of the daily horseshit, we actually like doing our jobs and helping people who are in deep trouble.That doesn't mean I like how my business runs currently. More importantly, it definitely means that I will do everything in my power to keep the government out of my business completely.

 

And, your response doesn't explain why so many Canadian docs leave for the US. Or, why all of the ones I have met hate their system. So, again, I ask where are you hiding the practicing Canadian MDs that like and will openly defend their system?

 

Birddog, birddog, thank you for making my point for me. I am arguing that BOTH massive bureaucracies fail. If the Canadian system is just as bad as the insurance companies....then how in the F is it "better"? How it is something we should aspire to?

 

Why should we replace one terrible system with another terrible system? How about we do what I wrote last time this came up? Drive everything back down to the counties, where it belongs, and let them do what is right for their people. You aren't seriously suggesting that what is right for Erie county, is right for Steuben, and also Nassau are you? Then why are we running Medicare/Medicaid the same way in all 3?

i'm really beginning to question the logic in continuing the argument with you. the flight of ideas and rambling lead me to the conclusion that its pointless....but i find it hard not to take the bait. so...

 

concerning your point on knowing disgruntled canadian doctors, i would suggest that if you met those that now practice in the us, your sample is not representative of the whole. many (especially in specialities) leave because they can make more in the us. it's no great mystery. if pay equalized, i suspect you'd see many fewer coming. i hear colleagues complain about the current us system all the time. on it's own standing, i dont see that as an indictment of the system (although there is plenty of other evidence that does proves its failure). people complain in every field and seemingly at every opportunity. my reference to the competiveness of admissions to canadian medical schools illustrates the fact that the presence of a socialist system does not disuade potential doctors. quite possibly it helps select for those who seek the job out of altruism. in my view, that's a very good thing.

 

your point that patients can't act like a kid in a candy store and pick tests and treatments thus somehow rendering both systems as failures, is just absurd. no health system is sustainable without limitations on care. there are finite resources and, in your perfect model, infinite demand. i think your and others real concedrn in this issue is your own ability to access the care you desire. by including those currently not able to afford care, you will likely have more restrictions on what healthcare goods and services you get reimbursed for. and you're right, you almost certainly will. i see that as a necessary consequence of treating all americans humanely. i see that as a worthy, honorable and morally mandated goal. you obviously don't.

Edited January 10, 2012 by birdog1960

[GG]

does part of that 66 percent GDP figure include all the drugs Americans go north to purchase because they're cheaper (sorry, couldn't resist )

 

Again, part of Canadian protectionism. Drug makers accept Canada's price controls because the US market subsidizes the R&D for the rest of the world. If drug makers introduced flat pricing across the world, that little Peace Bridge valium arbitrage would go away overnight.

 

i'd argue that Canadian individuality needs not to be so stringently protected because i believe there is a strong enough sense in and of Canada to make it distinct.

 

Then why is the government so afraid to let foreigners in?

 

while i'd agree there might be more "superwealthy" in the United States, i'd say there are far more people far better off in Canada than here.

 

The floor is a lot higher in Canada, but society is a lot more homogeneous, because historically Canada has had a much stronger immigration policy. Let's see what Canada looks like a generation from now when you factor two generations of assimilated immigrants in Toronto & Vancouver.

 

that's not what i see from conservatives today, or at least those pretenders in the Republican Party, which currently is attempting to run on a plank of protecting the rich, and neglecting just about everyone else, country included.

jw

 

I wonder if you read that POV in the MSM rags, because that's not the conclusion you would reach if you studied the situation. It's a popular line to tow though that the evil rich don't want pay their share. Yet, if you independently do the math, you'll recognize that the runaway fiscal problem that many are screaming about will not be fixed with a millionaires tax that hits people making over $200K. But if it rouses up the electorate base, than more power to the POTUS without any clothes on.

[Delete This Account]

Then why is the government so afraid to let foreigners in?

sorry, i didn't explain myself properly. what i meant to write is that i agree Canada is overly protective of its identity, something that might have been necessary 30 and 40 years ago, but no longer. Canada has reached a point of maturity where I think it can mostly stand alone without protective crutches. of course, an exception needs to be made for Quebec, which is ultra protective of its culture and would very much likely balk at any chance of this happening.

 

but i agree with you on this point.

 

The floor is a lot higher in Canada, but society is a lot more homogeneous, because historically Canada has had a much stronger immigration policy. Let's see what Canada looks like a generation from now when you factor two generations of assimilated immigrants in Toronto & Vancouver.

 

Vancouver hasn't been homogeneous for a very long time, though the last bastion on royal ties continues to want to hang on there. In the 12 years I lived there, Vancouver was well on its way to becoming one of the continent's most diversified communities, with a large cross-section of Asians, Indians and Arabs living there already.

i don't foresee that having an impact. had that been the case, we'd already see signs of fracturing.

 

 

 

I wonder if you read that POV in the MSM rags, because that's not the conclusion you would reach if you studied the situation. It's a popular line to tow though that the evil rich don't want pay their share. Yet, if you independently do the math, you'll recognize that the runaway fiscal problem that many are screaming about will not be fixed with a millionaires tax that hits people making over $200K. But if it rouses up the electorate base, than more power to the POTUS without any clothes on.

i read that recently, in Esquire perhaps. i think it was Marche's column. i like his point of view. and yes, it seems that POV is de rigeur these days. but i've always questioned it's mythical state.

 

i won't argue that there isn't truth and the avenue for that potential. and yet, i'll also say many of my inner city school friends i grew up with in Windsor have enjoyed similar rises from lower to middle class as i.

 

i will maintain that's easier to get from Point A to Z if you get a head start at, say M, than, perhaps D, no?

 

jw

[Jim in Anchorage]

 

 

 

 

Vancouver hasn't been homogeneous for a very long time, though the last bastion on royal ties continues to want to hang on there. In the 12 years I lived there, Vancouver was well on its way to becoming one of the continent's most diversified communities, with a large cross-section of Asians, Indians and Arabs living there already.

i don't foresee that having an impact. had that been the case, we'd already see signs of fracturing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

jw

Fracturing? Is that like hockey riots?

[Delete This Account]

Fracturing? Is that like hockey riots?

nah, as i noted somewhere -- can't remember where -- a day after the riots, this was essentially the result of over-privileged suburban yahoos spoiling to make trouble and unable to handle their alcohol. it was no different than in 1994, when there was a riot in Vancouver after the Canucks lost Game 7 to the NY Rangers.

 

from everything that i saw, and heard from friends back there, this had nothing to do with ethnicity or anything else, but mere drunk-filled foolery.

 

jw

[Bigfatbillsfan]

OC, I've never been much for watching a cat play with a near-dead mouse, so I think that I will just post some more articles on the the actual theme of the thread....................and leave you to deal with Johnnie-one note.

 

 

Liberal Media bias

(warning: contents are opinion, not to be confused with mainstream news articles)

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

Hey, why don't you just take it to the next level and just blow him?

[3rdnlng]

Hey, why don't you just take it to the next level and just blow him?

 

 

My guess is that he has higher standards than you.

[OCinBuffalo]

i'm really beginning to question the logic in continuing the argument with you. the flight of ideas and rambling lead me to the conclusion that its pointless....but i find it hard not to take the bait. so...

There's a huge difference between choosing not to argue with me, and being unable to effectively. Your posts usually fall on the latter side, but thankfully not as much as wawrow's

concerning your point on knowing disgruntled canadian doctors, i would suggest that if you met those that now practice in the us, your sample is not representative of the whole. many (especially in specialities) leave because they can make more in the us. it's no great mystery. if pay equalized, i suspect you'd see many fewer coming. i hear colleagues complain about the current us system all the time. on it's own standing, i dont see that as an indictment of the system (although there is plenty of other evidence that does proves its failure). people complain in every field and seemingly at every opportunity. my reference to the competiveness of admissions to canadian medical schools illustrates the fact that the presence of a socialist system does not disuade potential doctors. quite possibly it helps select for those who seek the job out of altruism. in my view, that's a very good thing.

Keep your assumptions to yourself. I am talking practicing doctors(and didn't I say so above?).

 

Apparently the concept of being a doctor, in terms of "what is the best way for a Canadian who wants to emigrate to the US to actually get here as quickly as possible?", hasn't occurred to you.

 

In fact, that's what I also heard from the Canadian doctors: "all the kids are just marking time until they can get their walking papers". Of course my "sample" is not scientific, or statistically relevant. However, the stat that says I have met 0 Candian doctors who like the socialist system, or consider it superior to ours in any way, is relevant. At least if I had met 1, you might have a point. Until I do, you have no point.

 

And, I have been told by tons of doctors from lots of places, that trying to be a doctor based on money alone = FAIL. You have like caring for people or you will probably quit and/or never make it through. Again, I've met 0 who say otherwise. Again, not a good sample, but are you, of all people, trying to tell me that's wrong too?

your point that patients can't act like a kid in a candy store and pick tests and treatments thus somehow rendering both systems as failures, is just absurd. no health system is sustainable without limitations on care. there are finite resources and, in your perfect model, infinite demand. i think your and others real concedrn in this issue is your own ability to access the care you desire. by including those currently not able to afford care, you will likely have more restrictions on what healthcare goods and services you get reimbursed for. and you're right, you almost certainly will. i see that as a necessary consequence of treating all americans humanely. i see that as a worthy, honorable and morally mandated goal. you obviously don't.

I am not the one selling universal socialist health care as the candy store within which 30 million uninsured people can suddenly have free and unlimited access to health care....

 

....you are. Or, you are supporting the politicians who are blowing this smoke.

 

See the difference here? I am not claiming that Obamacare solves these problems, you are. I am not saying that the insurance companies are a viable solution either. Again, I remind you, I spent a year and a half working at all levels of a 10k employee Blue Shield franchise, and I also clearly remember them intentionally impeding my F'ing work. The system I designed would process claims "too efficiently"(direct quote). A Senior VP literally said with a shiteating grin: " you are great at what you do, but I can't let you do it. Why don't you come work for us?" F'er tried to buy me off with a dopey client-side director's job, in trade for dumbing down my designs. As if that's worth it.

 

So, please, spare me, of all people, the "you are for the insurance companies" utter horseshit. If I was for those clowns, I'd be CIO at that place right now, making $300k+ for a job that basically requires no better than a empty suit whore/moron. You don't know me, or why I am saying what I am. It's far past time you started dealing with that.

 

What's it gonna take for you to understand that not everybody who disagrees with you does so because we disagree with your motives? Instead, most of us merely think your methods are patently retarded. And that's only because....they are. Why can't you seem to get the difference? Why is it so hard for you to dislocate Obamacare, the retarded method, from caring for people that need it, the perfectly reasonable and important motive?

 

I don't see how screwing the majority of us out of what we currently pay top dollar for, for the purpose of delivering a half-assed system nobody, including and especially the currently uninsured, can rely on, is....moral? honorable? Seriously, WTF are you talking about? Do you even know what those words mean?

 

When's the last time you went to Baltimore? What is Moral or Honorable about that retatta? Why do you think signing us all up to be beholden to those clowns, is better than signing us up to be beholden to the clowns at the insurance company?

 

Why are you forcing us to choose between one set of clowns or another? Why must we have clowns at all? Or, if we have to have clowns, why can't with limit their existence to clowns we can fire/ clowns we can vote out of office in county elections?

[Bigfatbillsfan]

There's a huge difference between choosing not to argue with me, and being unable to effectively. Your posts usually fall on the latter side, but thankfully not as much as wawrow's

 

Keep your assumptions to yourself. I am talking practicing doctors(and didn't I say so above?).

 

Apparently the concept of being a doctor, in terms of "what is the best way for a Canadian who wants to emigrate to the US to actually get here as quickly as possible?", hasn't occurred to you.

 

In fact, that's what I also heard from the Canadian doctors: "all the kids are just marking time until they can get their walking papers". Of course my "sample" is not scientific, or statistically relevant. However, the stat that says I have met 0 Candian doctors who like the socialist system, or consider it superior to ours in any way, is relevant. At least if I had met 1, you might have a point. Until I do, you have no point.

And, I have been told by tons of doctors from lots of places, that trying to be a doctor based on money alone = FAIL. You have like caring for people or you will probably quit and/or never make it through. Again, I've met 0 who say otherwise. Again, not a good sample, but are you, of all people, trying to tell me that's wrong too?

 

I am not the one selling universal socialist health care as the candy store within which 30 million uninsured people can suddenly have free and unlimited access to health care....

 

....you are. Or, you are supporting the politicians who are blowing this smoke.

 

See the difference here? I am not claiming that Obamacare solves these problems, you are. I am not saying that the insurance companies are a viable solution either. Again, I remind you, I spent a year and a half working at all levels of a 10k employee Blue Shield franchise, and I also clearly remember them intentionally impeding my F'ing work. The system I designed would process claims "too efficiently"(direct quote). A Senior VP literally said with a shiteating grin: " you are great at what you do, but I can't let you do it. Why don't you come work for us?" F'er tried to buy me off with a dopey client-side director's job, in trade for dumbing down my designs. As if that's worth it.

 

So, please, spare me, of all people, the "you are for the insurance companies" utter horseshit. If I was for those clowns, I'd be CIO at that place right now, making $300k+ for a job that basically requires no better than a empty suit whore/moron. You don't know me, or why I am saying what I am. It's far past time you started dealing with that.

 

What's it gonna take for you to understand that not everybody who disagrees with you does so because we disagree with your motives? Instead, most of us merely think your methods are patently retarded. And that's only because....they are. Why can't you seem to get the difference? Why is it so hard for you to dislocate Obamacare, the retarded method, from caring for people that need it, the perfectly reasonable and important motive?

 

 

Can you give us actual data from actual Canadian doctors from a peer reviewed source or journal? If not all you're doing giving us your personal opinion. And that don't' mean ****.

[OCinBuffalo]

Can you give us actual data from actual Canadian doctors from a peer reviewed source or journal? If not all you're doing giving us your personal opinion. And that don't' mean ****.

Yes, as I already explained, the only relevant thing here is: I have NEVER heard a Canadian doctor say the Canadian system is better, and, I have never heard any doctor in general say that they are in it for the money.

 

Now, if you can produce either, I'd be glad hear what they have to say, but, you can't, can you?

 

It's like aliens, sure we have to account for the possibility that they exist, but I have never seen one, have you?

 

 

EDIT: And, perhaps you'd like to take a shot at explaining why Obamacare shouldn't be repealed and replaced with something that might actually solve the major problems in health care.

 

Oh, don't think can? or is it that you lack the ability?

Edited January 11, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[....lybob]

Yes, as I already explained, the only relevant thing here is: I have NEVER heard a Canadian doctor say the Canadian system is better, and, I have never heard any doctor in general say that they are in it for the money.

 

Now, if you can produce either, I'd be glad hear what they have to say, but, you can't, can you?

 

It's like aliens, sure we have to account for the possibility that they exist, but I have never seen one, have you?

 

 

EDIT: And, perhaps you'd like to take a shot at explaining why Obamacare shouldn't be repealed and replaced with something that might actually solve the major problems in health care.

 

Oh, don't think can? or is it that you lack the ability?

[GG]

i won't argue that there isn't truth and the avenue for that potential. and yet, i'll also say many of my inner city school friends i grew up with in Windsor have enjoyed similar rises from lower to middle class as i.

 

i will maintain that's easier to get from Point A to Z if you get a head start at, say M, than, perhaps D, no?

 

jw

 

And yet we're talking about a system that's been in place for nearly two generations that is supposed to start everybody at M, and it still fails. And that's the whole point of the argument - after 40 years of great society, why hasn't the lowest quintile benefited? Isn't it time to look at solutions other than throwing more money at it and declaring it job done?

[Delete This Account]

There's a huge difference between choosing not to argue with me, and being unable to effectively. Your posts usually fall on the latter side, but thankfully not as much as wawrow's

 

Keep your assumptions to yourself. I am talking practicing doctors(and didn't I say so above?).

 

Apparently the concept of being a doctor, in terms of "what is the best way for a Canadian who wants to emigrate to the US to actually get here as quickly as possible?", hasn't occurred to you.

 

In fact, that's what I also heard from the Canadian doctors: "all the kids are just marking time until they can get their walking papers". Of course my "sample" is not scientific, or statistically relevant. However, the stat that says I have met 0 Candian doctors who like the socialist system, or consider it superior to ours in any way, is relevant. At least if I had met 1, you might have a point. Until I do, you have no point.

 

And, I have been told by tons of doctors from lots of places, that trying to be a doctor based on money alone = FAIL. You have like caring for people or you will probably quit and/or never make it through. Again, I've met 0 who say otherwise. Again, not a good sample, but are you, of all people, trying to tell me that's wrong too?

 

I am not the one selling universal socialist health care as the candy store within which 30 million uninsured people can suddenly have free and unlimited access to health care....

 

....you are. Or, you are supporting the politicians who are blowing this smoke.

 

See the difference here? I am not claiming that Obamacare solves these problems, you are. I am not saying that the insurance companies are a viable solution either. Again, I remind you, I spent a year and a half working at all levels of a 10k employee Blue Shield franchise, and I also clearly remember them intentionally impeding my F'ing work. The system I designed would process claims "too efficiently"(direct quote). A Senior VP literally said with a shiteating grin: " you are great at what you do, but I can't let you do it. Why don't you come work for us?" F'er tried to buy me off with a dopey client-side director's job, in trade for dumbing down my designs. As if that's worth it.

 

So, please, spare me, of all people, the "you are for the insurance companies" utter horseshit. If I was for those clowns, I'd be CIO at that place right now, making $300k+ for a job that basically requires no better than a empty suit whore/moron. You don't know me, or why I am saying what I am. It's far past time you started dealing with that.

 

What's it gonna take for you to understand that not everybody who disagrees with you does so because we disagree with your motives? Instead, most of us merely think your methods are patently retarded. And that's only because....they are. Why can't you seem to get the difference? Why is it so hard for you to dislocate Obamacare, the retarded method, from caring for people that need it, the perfectly reasonable and important motive?

 

I don't see how screwing the majority of us out of what we currently pay top dollar for, for the purpose of delivering a half-assed system nobody, including and especially the currently uninsured, can rely on, is....moral? honorable? Seriously, WTF are you talking about? Do you even know what those words mean?

 

When's the last time you went to Baltimore? What is Moral or Honorable about that retatta? Why do you think signing us all up to be beholden to those clowns, is better than signing us up to be beholden to the clowns at the insurance company?

 

Why are you forcing us to choose between one set of clowns or another? Why must we have clowns at all? Or, if we have to have clowns, why can't with limit their existence to clowns we can fire/ clowns we can vote out of office in county elections?

you continue to prove yourself as a cherry-picking fraud, basing arguments on unstable and biased assumptions that fly in the face of reason or facts.

you've "not heard" a doctor support Canada's health care system, and yet you acknowledge your sample is not scientific. and then you proceed to blabber on about "tons" of doctors who said something about something or other, belaboring us with tangental arguments that pretend to prove your point.

 

who here has brought up the flawed health-care system proposed by the current administration but you? changing the subject to seemingly make a point that no one here appears to be debating. and yet you gobble on, exposing yourself as nothing but another in a long line of superior-sounding mouth-breathers who provide nothing in the way of substance except for another heaping helping of blah-blah baloney and the occasional emoticon.

 

jw

Edited January 11, 2012 by john wawrow

[Delete This Account]

And yet we're talking about a system that's been in place for nearly two generations that is supposed to start everybody at M, and it still fails. And that's the whole point of the argument - after 40 years of great society, why hasn't the lowest quintile benefited? Isn't it time to look at solutions other than throwing more money at it and declaring it job done?

the U.S. system of social governance is absolutely and irreperably (man, i can't spell that word) flawed. i will agree to that. from what i can make of it, it's centralized government shoveling off its responsibilities to states and counties and essentially washing its hands of it. i needs to be blown up, but i can't see how that happens, given the polarizing debate and the fiefdoms these programs have created.

 

moving forward is not really the option, and Obama's program is proof of that, because the minefield is too large, and there are far too many constituents -- HMOs, drug companies, liberals, conservatives, politicians who get their money from HMOs and drug companies -- with too much to lose to change the system that's rigged to their benefit.

 

i might be wrong, but that's what happened from the beginning when Nixon first floated his health-care plan.

there are systems that work far better than what's here, though none are perfect. there's no moral courage, i think, to address the flaws, which leaves everyone throwing money at it not in a bid to fix it, but to show they're "attempting" to do something, while otherwise lining the pockets of the rich getting richer.

 

jw

[birdog1960]

Can you give us actual data from actual Canadian doctors from a peer reviewed source or journal? If not all you're doing giving us your personal opinion. And that don't' mean ****.

heres some actual data from the National Physicians Survey 2007 done by the canadian govt on 70000 docs and med students:

 

current professional life:

very satisfied 29%

somewhat satisfied 46%

neutral 7.9%

somewhat dissatisfied 7.9

very dissatisfied 9.5%

 

looks like oc met only docs from the bottom 16.5%...and 30 of them consecutively!!! that's statistically rather improbable. btw, i've seen satisfaction surveys for us docs with very similar numbers.

[3rdnlng]

heres some actual data from the National Physicians Survey 2007 done by the canadian govt on 70000 docs and med students:

 

current professional life:

very satisfied 29%

somewhat satisfied 46%

neutral 7.9%

somewhat dissatisfied 7.9

very dissatisfied 9.5%

 

looks like oc met only docs from the bottom 16.5%...and 30 of them consecutively!!! that's statistically rather improbable. btw, i've seen satisfaction surveys for us docs with very similar numbers.

 

I hate to get between you and OC but it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to tell the difference between a survey about how a group feels regarding their professional life and a system. Did you really think you could get away with that?

 

the U.S. system of social governance is absolutely and irreperably (man, i can't spell that word) flawed. i will agree to that. from what i can make of it, it's centralized government shoveling off its responsibilities to states and counties and essentially washing its hands of it. i needs to be blown up, but i can't see how that happens, given the polarizing debate and the fiefdoms these programs have created.

 

moving forward is not really the option, and Obama's program is proof of that, because the minefield is too large, and there are far too many constituents -- HMOs, drug companies, liberals, conservatives, politicians who get their money from HMOs and drug companies -- with too much to lose to change the system that's rigged to their benefit.

 

i might be wrong, but that's what happened from the beginning when Nixon first floated his health-care plan.

there are systems that work far better than what's here, though none are perfect. there's no moral courage, i think, to address the flaws, which leaves everyone throwing money at it not in a bid to fix it, but to show they're "attempting" to do something, while otherwise lining the pockets of the rich getting richer.

 

jw

 

Our Constitution, as written does not call for a "centralized government", responsible for everything under the sun. Quite the opposite actually.

[Delete This Account]

I hate to get between you and OC but it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to tell the difference between a survey about how a group feels regarding their professional life and a system. Did you really think you could get away with that?

 

i hate to get between you and birdog, but given that someone's actually provided an actual study versus OC's claims -- which he even considers to be questionable -- that he's spoken to "tons" (how much does the average doctor weigh, anyhow?) of people, of course you've sided with heresay as opposed to actual numbers.

 

jw