ABC & NBC refuse to run nat'l ad opposing healthcare plan

[The Poojer]

ran it locally, but are hesitant to run it nationally

[VABills]

It's fox news. Therefore it must be a lie.

[Booster4324]

It's news. Therefore it must be a lie.

 

Fixed

[Magox]

ran it locally, but are hesitant to run it nationally

shocking

[PastaJoe]

"The 33-second ad by the League of American Voters, which features a neurosurgeon who warns that a government-run health care system will lead to the rationing of procedures and medicine"

 

"It tells the truth and it really highlights one of the biggest vulnerabilities and problems with this proposed legislation, which is it rations health care and disproportionately will decimate the quality of health care for seniors."

 

These are not facts, there are no proposals in any of the bills that have come out of the committees that call for rationing. Therefore they were perfectly right to turn down this ad that lies about the proposals. They might as well have included death panels in the ad, since it's just as misleading.

[kegtapr]

These are not facts, there are no proposals in any of the bills that have come out of the committees that call for rationing. Therefore they were perfectly right to turn down this ad that lies about the proposals. They might as well have included death panels in the ad, since it's just as misleading.

 

Yet they handed the keys to the network over to Obama, everything presented that day was perfectly truthful.

 

It's not very hard to see the unintended consequences from this bill. If you don't know what '"unintended consequences" means, ask your parents.

 

"The ABC Television Network has a long-standing policy that we do not sell time for advertising that presents a partisan position on a controversial public issue,"

 

Riiiiiiiiiight. Which is why my tv is always littered with union sponsered partisan political ads. ABC can choose not to run it, but at least be honest.

[KD in CA]

"The 33-second ad by the League of American Voters, which features a neurosurgeon who warns that a government-run health care system will lead to the rationing of procedures and medicine"

 

"It tells the truth and it really highlights one of the biggest vulnerabilities and problems with this proposed legislation, which is it rations health care and disproportionately will decimate the quality of health care for seniors."

 

These are not facts, there are no proposals in any of the bills that have come out of the committees that call for rationing. Therefore they were perfectly right to turn down this ad that lies about the proposals. They might as well have included death panels in the ad, since it's just as misleading.

 

Translation: Pasta Joe firmly believes in censorship just as long as it's people he doesn't agree with being censored.

 

How the hell do you know that procedures and medicine will not be rationed? Because it's not in the bill?

[Magox]

"The 33-second ad by the League of American Voters, which features a neurosurgeon who warns that a government-run health care system will lead to the rationing of procedures and medicine"

 

"It tells the truth and it really highlights one of the biggest vulnerabilities and problems with this proposed legislation, which is it rations health care and disproportionately will decimate the quality of health care for seniors."

 

These are not facts, there are no proposals in any of the bills that have come out of the committees that call for rationing. Therefore they were perfectly right to turn down this ad that lies about the proposals. They might as well have included death panels in the ad, since it's just as misleading.

how can you deal with facts when the proposals are dealing with the future?

 

Did you not read the Cardiologists complaint in the last thread?

 

That would be a form of rationing

 

Also, there is no freaking way that you can significantly cut costs without lessoning the quality, that is economics 101.

[kegtapr]

how can you deal with facts when the proposals are dealing with the future?

 

Did you not read the Cardiologists complaint in the last thread?

 

That would be a form of rationing

 

Also, there is no freaking way that you can significantly cut costs without lessoning the quality, that is economics 101.

 

It's hard for his ilk to understand

 

PastaJoe

[Fastback]

Translation: Pasta Joe firmly believes in censorship just as long as it's people he doesn't agree with being censored.

 

How the hell do you know that procedures and medicine will not be rationed? Because it's not in the bill?

 

Pasta knows because he read the bill and uncovered the little discussed section authorizing funding for research and development of "instant doctor juice" that would fill the shortage of doctors necessary to cover the additional 15 million uninsured.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Fixed

No, its a Faux Spews thing, therefore it must be a lie! It was correct the first time... Not that the others don't Faux Spews is just more blatant about... them and Wolf Blitzer...

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

how can you deal with facts when the proposals are dealing with the future?

 

Did you not read the Cardiologists complaint in the last thread?

 

That would be a form of rationing

 

Also, there is no freaking way that you can significantly cut costs without lessoning the quality, that is economics 101.

The big lie you are telling is that you are neglecting the fact there is already rationing and these bills may actually lessen the current rationing.

 

Eg. I can't get proper neurological help for my son in this area without paying out of pocket. It is dubious that I can afford. Someone with even less means couldn't. This by definition is rationing.

 

So you are just repeating something that is already happening and people are already complaining about. Cardiologists... what do cardiologists know about rationing. They are having trouble living on $250,000 per year salary.... Please, stop the misrepresentation of the facts and so called future facts which are happening right now under the current system.

 

What are you taking lessons from Pelosi on how to whine!

[Magox]

The big lie you are telling is that you are neglecting the fact there is already rationing and these bills may actually lessen the current rationing.

 

Eg. I can't get proper neurological help for my son in this area without paying out of pocket. It is dubious that I can afford. Someone with even less means couldn't. This by definition is rationing.

 

So you are just repeating something that is already happening and people are already complaining about. Cardiologists... what do cardiologists know about rationing. They are having trouble living on $250,000 per year salary.... Please, stop the misrepresentation of the facts and so called future facts which are happening right now under the current system.

 

What are you taking lessons from Pelosi on how to whine!

I'm lying, really? Show me where I lied.

 

Idiot

[blzrul]

Seems to me FAUX News refused to broadcast an Obama national address and it was considered to be within the networks' rights.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Seems to me FAUX News refused to broadcast an Obama national address and it was considered to be within the networks' rights.

 

Yeh I know Faux Spews has refused to broadcast a number of Obama things, well within their rights, but why not cry about the liberal media... whatever.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

I'm lying, really? Show me where I lied.

 

Idiot

 

Down boy, the lie or misrepresentation in the deal is that by stating there will be rationing (how can you say this when you are talking about something in the future) ignores the fact currently there already is rationing and choices being made. This statement is non-sequitor or at best selfishly motivated by cardiologists. Also by your reasoning the same could be said about our school systems or anything else, lets just throw money at it, that will fix it, which is what we have been doing without reciprocal benefit. A little belt tightening can't hurt anyone or anything especially when there other priorities to deal with.

[Magox]

Down boy, the lie or misrepresentation in the deal is that by stating there will be rationing (how can you say this when you are talking about something in the future) ignores the fact currently there already is rationing and choices being made. This statement is non-sequitor or at best selfishly motivated by cardiologists. Also by your reasoning the same could be said about our school systems or anything else, lets just throw money at it, that will fix it, which is what we have been doing without reciprocal benefit. A little belt tightening can't hurt anyone or anything especially when there other priorities to deal with.

"How can I say this when you are talking about something in the future?"

I said "That would be a form of rationing" in other words, if it plays out the way the Cardioligists believe it will, then it would be. Key word would.

 

In regards to the Cardioligists being selfishly motivated, of course you would say that, they oppose your masta's plan.

 

Like I've said before, if you can't beat'em, demonize'em. That's straight out of the Liberal Locotoads handbook.

 

And you are going to lecture me about the government and how a little "belt tightening" wouldn't be a bad idea.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

"How can I say this when you are talking about something in the future?"

I said "That would be a form of rationing" in other words, if it plays out the way the Cardioligists believe it will, then it would be. Key word would.

 

In regards to the Cardioligists being selfishly motivated, of course you would say that, they oppose your masta's plan.

 

Like I've said before, if you can't beat'em, demonize'em. That's straight out of the Liberal Locotoads handbook.

 

And you are going to lecture me about the government and how a little "belt tightening" wouldn't be a bad idea.

 

My masta plan yeh right, not likely, I just like the idea of adding some competition into the mix. Of course Cardiologists, rightfully so are only protecting their own self interest, but the claim that the sky will fall is disingenuous, but a common and sometimes successful political tactic. Dems use it all the time on the Social Security issue.

 

P.S. Demonizing is also part of politics 101, if you can't deal get out of the kitchen. I suggest you read http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Growth-Politi...e/dp/0877225621 a great read on how opposing sides use extreme tactics to fight the opposing view.

 

Finally, I worked for Clinton and some conservative Dems who were the primary reason that the budget got balanced in the 90s. We cut 30,000 employees at USDA down to 90,000. Under Bush USDA grew to over 130,000. So I think I might know a thing about belt tightening politically speaking. Clinton may have been a lot of things, but on fiscal government issues he and Tom Delay ® were a one two punch. Drove pork barrel politicians on both sides up the wall.

 

I believe in a lean, responsive and effective government as an ideal, not that it will ever be reached, but something always worth working for.

[Magox]

My masta plan yeh right, not likely, I just like the idea of adding some competition into the mix. Of course Cardiologists, rightfully so are only protecting their own self interest, but the claim that the sky will fall is disingenuous, but a common and sometimes successful political tactic. Dems use it all the time on the Social Security issue.

 

P.S. Demonizing is also part of politics 101, if you can't deal get out of the kitchen. I suggest you read http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Growth-Politi...e/dp/0877225621 a great read on how opposing sides use extreme tactics to fight the opposing view.

 

Finally, I worked for Clinton and some conservative Dems who were the primary reason that the budget got balanced in the 90s. We cut 30,000 employees at USDA down to 90,000. Under Bush USDA grew to over 130,000. So I think I might know a thing about belt tightening politically speaking. Clinton may have been a lot of things, but on fiscal government issues he and Tom Delay ® were a one two punch. Drove pork barrel politicians on both sides up the wall.

 

I believe in a lean, responsive and effective government as an ideal, not that it will ever be reached, but something always worth working for.

In regards to adding some competition to the mix, let me ask you this.

 

If the profit margin is below 3.5% for the private health insurers, how would added competition lower the premiums without taking away from the quality? http://biz.yahoo.com/p/522qpmd.html

http://biz.yahoo.com/p/sum_qpmd.html

 

MP: As the table above of Profit Margins by Industry shows (click to enlarge, data here for the most recent quarter), the industry "Health Care Plans" ranks #86 by profit margin (profits/revenue) at 3.3%. Measured by profit margin, there are 85 industries more profitable than Health Care Plans (included Cigna, Aetna, WellPoint, HealthSpring, etc.).

 

And isn't one reason for a lack of competition that competition for health insurance across state lines is prohibited, creating in effect 50 state health insurance "cartels."

 

I provided a study done by BlueCross BlueShield to KTFBD and showing their profit margins and total costs and where the waste was going. The majority of the "waste" was for "Claims" . "Claims" accounted for more than the entire profit margin in the Health insurance industry. That means that if we had an effective Tort Reform, that would do more good than just about anything else.

 

In that study, they calculated that there was many unnecessary tests and procedures that doctors were offering to their patients because of the fear of being sued. That wasn't even part of the "claims". Why are the Liberals so adament in ignoring Tort Reform? If there is more excess money that is being wasted on mal practice suits and defense costs then the profit margins, then shouldn't that be where the focus is?

I think you know the answer to that.

 

So in regards to added competition, that would not be the logical solution, considering the profit margins.

 

As far as Clinton knowing how to balance the books. Don't get me started. Most of the years that he was in office he was operating with a deficit. It wasn't until the end of his second term that he had a surplus.

 

The dot-com bubble provided a huge economic stimulus during his presidency, which allowed the Social Security Administration to increase their revenues through Social Security taxes, leaving SSA with a surplus.

 

The Social Security Administration is legally required to purchase government securities with surplus funds, which results from having more funds than required to pay out Social Security checks. This resulted in a transfer of funds from Social Security, government holdings, to the Treasury Deparment, which Clinton used to pay down the national debt.

 

Clinton relied on the dot-com bubble by funneling funds through the SSA, which allowed him to create a surplus by disguising the source of his funds.

So when the dot-com bubble burst, and Social Security was left in debt, the federal government couldn't give the SSA its surplus back. The money had been put towards the deficit. By that time, Clinton was gone, and of course G.W inherited his mess.

 

The Internet bubble was caused by overspeculation with the Internet start up companies, which of course was funded by low interest rates set by the Federal Reserve, giving investors a surplus of capital which to invest in these 'pipe dream' Internet companies. Government and Fiscal policy contributed to the unsustainable dot-com bubble which the government took advantage of to temporarily reshuffle its debt to give the appearance of a budget surplus to win political points.

 

Clinton wrote in to law the Repeal of the GS act which is argued by many of being a big contributor to the Financial mess we just went through, presided as president through the internet bubble fiasco (and won political points for it), was largely responsable for helping push financing for homes from lower income individuals and missed out on the opportunity to get Bin Laden, which very well could of changed the events of 9/11, Afghanistan/Iraq war.

 

So please, spare me the B.S of Clinton knowing how to "Tighten the belt" and save that for the masses who really don't know how it played out.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

In regards to adding some competition to the mix, let me ask you this.

 

If the profit margin is below 3.5% for the private health insurers, how would added competition lower the premiums without taking away from the quality? http://biz.yahoo.com/p/522qpmd.html

http://biz.yahoo.com/p/sum_qpmd.html

 

MP: As the table above of Profit Margins by Industry shows (click to enlarge, data here for the most recent quarter), the industry "Health Care Plans" ranks #86 by profit margin (profits/revenue) at 3.3%. Measured by profit margin, there are 85 industries more profitable than Health Care Plans (included Cigna, Aetna, WellPoint, HealthSpring, etc.).

 

And isn't one reason for a lack of competition that competition for health insurance across state lines is prohibited, creating in effect 50 state health insurance "cartels."

 

I provided a study done by BlueCross BlueShield to KTFBD and showing their profit margins and total costs and where the waste was going. The majority of the "waste" was for "Claims" . "Claims" accounted for more than the entire profit margin in the Health insurance industry. That means that if we had an effective Tort Reform, that would do more good than just about anything else.

 

In that study, they calculated that there was many unnecessary tests and procedures that doctors were offering to their patients because of the fear of being sued. That wasn't even part of the "claims". Why are the Liberals so adament in ignoring Tort Reform? If there is more excess money that is being wasted on mal practice suits and defense costs then the profit margins, then shouldn't that be where the focus is?

I think you know the answer to that.

 

So in regards to added competition, that would not be the logical solution, considering the profit margins.

 

As far as Clinton knowing how to balance the books. Don't get me started. Most of the years that he was in office he was operating with a deficit. It wasn't until the end of his second term that he had a surplus.

 

The dot-com bubble provided a huge economic stimulus during his presidency, which allowed the Social Security Administration to increase their revenues through Social Security taxes, leaving SSA with a surplus.

 

The Social Security Administration is legally required to purchase government securities with surplus funds, which results from having more funds than required to pay out Social Security checks. This resulted in a transfer of funds from Social Security, government holdings, to the Treasury Deparment, which Clinton used to pay down the national debt.

 

Clinton relied on the dot-com bubble by funneling funds through the SSA, which allowed him to create a surplus by disguising the source of his funds.

So when the dot-com bubble burst, and Social Security was left in debt, the federal government couldn't give the SSA its surplus back. The money had been put towards the deficit. By that time, Clinton was gone, and of course G.W inherited his mess.

 

The Internet bubble was caused by overspeculation with the Internet start up companies, which of course was funded by low interest rates set by the Federal Reserve, giving investors a surplus of capital which to invest in these 'pipe dream' Internet companies. Government and Fiscal policy contributed to the unsustainable dot-com bubble which the government took advantage of to temporarily reshuffle its debt to give the appearance of a budget surplus to win political points.

 

Clinton wrote in to law the Repeal of the GS act which is argued by many of being a big contributor to the Financial mess we just went through, presided as president through the internet bubble fiasco (and won political points for it), was largely responsable for helping push financing for homes from lower income individuals and missed out on the opportunity to get Bin Laden, which very well could of changed the events of 9/11, Afghanistan/Iraq war.

 

So please, spare me the B.S of Clinton knowing how to "Tighten the belt" and save that for the masses who really don't know how it played out.

 

While I understand that a lot of the waste is on administrative costs, we can debate the causes and who is at fault. The idea of Tort Reform has some merit, however the problem a lot of folks have with it is not necessarily the money, but the tight circle and code of silence Doctor's and the medical industry exhibits when it screws up. Unfortunately, most folks don't think Doctors should go to jail for a long time when they are negligent, rather that they should pay. I would like to see this reversed with a full disclosure requirement and some sort of public documents rule similar to a FOIA request in order for me to back Tort Reform in the manner you suggest. Though generally, I am not against the idea of Tort Reform caps as some have suggested, but I want tougher criminal penalties and full disclosure when there is a screw up.

 

That being said, I understand settlements and actual lawsuits make up only a small proportion of an insurance companies outlays, so why the high premiums? See I think all this so called extra testing is driven by the insurance cos and used as an excuse to raise doctor premiums.

 

Yes, I know the paperwork reqs can be large, yet some of these doctors still fill out all their forms in paper format and they then need a secretary to transpose them. You would think with all that Med Ed there would be a requirement to become Tech savy. Young Doctors, like young farmers seem to embrace Tech, the older one's who control funding and decision making are often still in the Dark Ages of Tech. But once again, you have over simplified the problem, which and the solution, just as I have in my retorts.

 

Your analysis of the Clinton economy is way off and I while there was Dot Com deal going on it certainly wasn't the reason Clinton was the only President in modern history to reduce the size of the DC and Federal bureaucracy, which was what I addressed. We were talking about belt tightening at the Federal Level, not the economy. P.S. Bush has a prosperous economy after the .com deal subsided, yet he undid Clinton's cuts and went way above their previous levels if you look Department by Department staffing level so to quote Maxwell Smart.... "missed the mark by __________ that much."