what Obama has in store for service members wounded in battle

Stewart is a comedian and his show is entirely satirical, but O'Reilly and Olbermann ARE, IN FACT, JOURNALISTS. They just have commentator programs. I can't stand Bill O'Reilly but he has been a journalist all his life. He has worked as a journalist for newspapers and is a graduate from Boston College if I'm not mistaken. Olbermann is a Cornell graduate and began his career in sports journalism and later moved to MSNBC. Like them or not, they're real journalists.

I frankly don't care what their backgrounds are, or whether they have been accredited journalists. In their current positions they are acting as commentators and pundits -- and should be listened to (or ignored) on that basis.
To borrow and restate an oft-heard prog-metal quip, "Columbia School of Journalism is NO guarantee!" :)
 
That's where I disagree. It is my belief that if you are to be given a position on a cable news network, then you should be presenting the news. However, I do agree with you on the point of listening or ignoring them based on their position as a commentator. Again, the problem doesn't lie with them entirely; it is with the people in the US who cannot see the difference and take their word as gospel. Furthermore, the responsibility is on the commentators to act accordingly.

You say they are acting as commentators or pundits...that couldn't be further from the truth and that is exactly the problem. They are in positions as commentators or pundits yet they are acting as journalists.

We should care what their backgrounds are, or else why not just listen to all the old farts playing cards at the local pub blather on about how they have the answer to everything that's wrong in the world? We always laugh at them, why would Glenn Beck be any different? The difference is that Glenn Beck has a medium that reaches millions of people and he uses that medium to stretch the truth and even flat-out lie sometimes. Sure, weak-minded people are only affected but look at how many weak-minded people there are today. Beck and his army of morons started out as a joke at best and a nuisance at worst, but now it's developing into a problem. It's nothing short radical nationalism and Fox News justifies it simply by ratings.

Commentators have no place in the news. If they want to rant and rave and exaggerate and tell their opinion, then they should get their own show like Bill Maher. I like Maher but I don't want to see his face anywhere near a newsroom or on any cable news network, no matter how much I may agree with him. It's all opinions and conjecture and it has no place anywhere near the news. At least he does his own show on his own terms and doesn't hide behind Fox News and let them protect him and then cop-out with the "I'm not a journalist" bullshit.

Glenn Beck is just like any other televangelist spewing their bullshit. The only difference is that he's talking about world events and not about religion.
 
That's where I disagree. It is my belief that if you are to be given a position on a cable news network, then you should be presenting the news. However, I do agree with you on the point of listening or ignoring them based on their position as a commentator. Again, the problem doesn't lie with them entirely; it is with the people in the US who cannot see the difference and take their word as gospel. Furthermore, the responsibility is on the commentators to act accordingly.

You say they are acting as commentators or pundits...that couldn't be further from the truth and that is exactly the problem. They are in positions as commentators or pundits yet they are acting as journalists.

We should care what their backgrounds are, or else why not just listen to all the old farts playing cards at the local pub blather on about how they have the answer to everything that's wrong in the world? We always laugh at them, why would Glenn Beck be any different? The difference is that Glenn Beck has a medium that reaches millions of people and he uses that medium to stretch the truth and even flat-out lie sometimes. Sure, weak-minded people are only affected but look at how many weak-minded people there are today. Beck and his army of morons started out as a joke at best and a nuisance at worst, but now it's developing into a problem. It's nothing short radical nationalism and Fox News justifies it simply by ratings.

Commentators have no place in the news. If they want to rant and rave and exaggerate and tell their opinion, then they should get their own show like Bill Maher. I like Maher but I don't want to see his face anywhere near a newsroom or on any cable news network, no matter how much I may agree with him. It's all opinions and conjecture and it has no place anywhere near the news. At least he does his own show on his own terms and doesn't hide behind Fox News and let them protect him and then cop-out with the "I'm not a journalist" bullshit.

Glenn Beck is just like any other televangelist spewing their bullshit. The only difference is that he's talking about world events and not about religion.

Totally quoted and filled with truth. My self I do no listen to any television news as of late, as most and i stress most but not all newscasters are not reall news reproters, they are commentators who read what the real reporters have written, oh for the days of Cronkite. The thing i hate most is that say if you work for CBS, NBC, FOX, ABC, CNN or Al-MOHAMMED you have to follow the policies and party line of that station, gone are the days of real opinion and editorials. And basically the truth.
 
Totally quoted and filled with truth. My self I do no listen to any television news as of late, as most and i stress most but not all newscasters are not reall news reproters, they are commentators who read what the real reporters have written, oh for the days of Cronkite. The thing i hate most is that say if you work for CBS, NBC, FOX, ABC, CNN or Al-MOHAMMED you have to follow the policies and party line of that station, gone are the days of real opinion and editorials. And basically the truth.

+1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

And just like you said, while Fox may be stepping over the line more than the others more often, that doesn't mean that Olbermann is presenting anything from a neutral point of view, either. Cable News gets ratings mainly from the commentators and not the newscast, and they're all guilty.

I'm just a young whipper-snapper but I remember a bit of Cronkite when I was a kid. Sadly, those days are long gone.
 
I'm just a young whipper-snapper but I remember a bit of Cronkite when I was a kid. Sadly, those days are long gone.

http://www.playboy.com/articles/walter-cronkite-interview/index.html (1973)

PLAYBOY: Implicit in the Administration's attempts to force the networks to "balance" the news is a conviction that most newscasters are biased against conservatism. Is there some truth in the view that television newsmen tend to be left of center?

CRONKITE: Well, certainly liberal, and possibly left of center as well. I would have to accept that.

PLAYBOY: What's the distinction between those two terms?

CRONKITE: I think the distinction is both clear and important. I think that being a liberal, in the true sense, is being nondoctrinaire, nondogmatic, noncommitted to a cause—but examining each case on its merits. Being left of center is another thing; it's a political position. I think most newspapermen by definition have to be liberal; if they're not liberal, by my definition of it, then they can hardly be good newspapermen. If they're preordained dogmatists for a cause, then they can't be very good journalists; that is, if they carry it into their journalism.
 
You say they are acting as commentators or pundits...that couldn't be further from the truth and that is exactly the problem. They are in positions as commentators or pundits yet they are acting as journalists.

Yeah, I realized afterward that my phrasing was poor there. What I should have said is that they are slotted (in the broadcast) as commentators and pundits....i.e., their segments are intended to be commentary and are separate from the top-of-the-hour news, which is read by a (hopefully) seemingly unbiased anchor.

The problem with the White House's big freeze on Fox News -- and what ABC and others rightfully took umbrage over -- is that they targeted the entire Fox News organization, including all of its newspeople, instead of just its pundits.
 
Maybe the USA should copy Switzerland and The Netherlands Health Care: This is what Matt Miller had to say in an article, and it was repeated Sunday night on 60 minutes


The first fallacy of the 'public option or nothing' mantra is the notion that we'll never cover everyone without a Medicare-style program for Americans under 65. The experiences of Switzerland and the Netherlands prove that this isn't the case. Both have pioneered market-based universal health care. Both cover all their citizens using private insurers, and they do so for much less cost — 10 percent of gross domestic product for the Dutch and 12 percent for Switzerland, compared with 17 percent in the United States, where nearly 50 million people are still uninsured."

Let's take Miller's assertions individually.

First, he's right that both countries have systems in which private companies provide the insurance. In both countries, citizens must buy health insurance from a company that must provide the customer with a basic package of services defined by the government. Subsidies are provided for people who need them. Because everyone is covered, the insurers can spread their financial risk across a large and diverse group of beneficiaries.

Companies cannot compete against each other on the basic package (and in Switzerland, any profit they make on basic services must be used to reduce premiums the following year). Instead, they can make a profit by offering supplementary packages that cover certain services such as dental care, eyeglasses and cosmetic surgery. In Switzerland, many insurers also provide life insurance or homeowners insurance.

The degree of government mandates and restrictions for private insurers in the Netherlands and Switzerland goes well beyond what is practiced by the U.S. government. But the insurers are indeed private, profit-seeking companies, as Miller said they are.

Miller's second point is that both countries have universal coverage. Yes, both require people to have health insurance (just as the Democratic bill would). In the Netherlands, for instance, the penalty for not having insurance is having to pay 130 percent of the premium during the time one is not insured. In both countries, the government can forcibly enroll uninsured citizens in a plan if they do not do so themselves. Enforcement of the law is probably not 100 percent in either country, but it's close.

Finally, Miller asserts that both nations spend less on health care than the United States does. Here, too, he is correct.

According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development — a group that analyzes statistics on wealthier, industrialized countries — the Dutch spent 9.8 percent of gross domestic product on health care in 2007, while the Swiss spent 10.8 percent and the United States spent 16 percent. So while Miller slightly overstated the percentage for Switzerland and the United States, he's close.

As for the number of uninsured Americans, the most commonly cited number is 46 million. (We looked into the validity of this number here .) The recession has almost certainly bumped that number upward, so his "nearly 50 million" assertion is probably pretty close.

So let's recap. Miller is correct that both the Netherlands and Switzerland achieve universal coverage through systems that use private insurers. And he's right that both countries do so more cheaply than the United States. So we rate his statement True.
 
Okay something else, here is a site with the truth and lies about the HealthCare bill it is pretty good reading, you will find who is lying or half lying or telling the truth, so will surprise you.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/subjects/health-care/?page=1

Kinda fun, but I notice they seem to apply a bit of a bias themselves.

Case in point: bottom of Page 3, with Steny Hoyer saying "House Republicans pledged to introduce a bill to reform America’s health care system," but "the 'party of no' has . . . failed to produce legislation."

In actuality, per the site, "The GOP hasn't produced one bill, it's introduced many." [Most notably, H.R. 3400]

--Which directly refutes Hoyer's statement...and yet he gets a "half-true" out of it? C'mon, he was either blatantly lying or was astonishingly myopic about operations in the U.S. House. :rolleyes:
 
The principled truths of the Declaration of Independence are in a way an unpacking of First Principles of (Commonsense) Reason. While much could be said about what was posted here, I think any judgments made no matter how eloquently, or barbarically, could be logical, but does not mean they are rational or therefore true concerning actual reality. This is where I think Obama gets his philosophy from/his liberalism from, as it's logic detached from actual reality. By and large I think he makes purely logical judgments based is false assumptions, that end up going directly in opposition to commonsense reason.. what happens is one ends up calling what is false, true, treating friends as enemies, and punishing the innocent while rewarding the guilty. One thing we could ask ourselves is if our judgments are reducible, identical, or consistent with First Principles. If they are then great, ad hominems in that case are unnecessary and an indicator that one may likely be incorrect, for why make a personal attack if you have and know what is true? If not, then why make these kinds of judgments.
 
Barack Obama is only a puppet. Do you really think the hiearchy ends with him? There are people pulling his strings. This is no conspiracy theory. There is proof out there if you do the digging.
 
Barack Obama is only a puppet. Do you really think the hiearchy ends with him? There are people pulling his strings. This is no conspiracy theory. There is proof out there if you do the digging.


Who do you suggest is the puppet master, King Diamond, Lord forbid? I don't know King Diamonds political views. Wallstreet? If you want to introduce and announce the term conspiracy theory, do you mean Bilderberg or something else?
 
One of his puppet-masters is clearly the SEIU (and collaterally, all of Big Labor): just look at the White House visitor logs and see who his most frequent visitor -- by far -- has been. Then, consider Obama's support of the Card Check bill, and the exclusion of union workers (and only union workers) from the tax on so-called "cadillac" health plans.......
 
One of his puppet-masters is clearly the SEIU (and collaterally, all of Big Labor): just look at the White House visitor logs and see who his most frequent visitor -- by far -- has been. Then, consider Obama's support of the Card Check bill, and the exclusion of union workers (and only union workers) from the tax on so-called "cadillac" health plans.......


How do you know they don't go there because he's the only one offering free Girl Scout cookies? I don't know exactly who's pulling his strings but I believe to Obama and his group are all about Socialism and Communism being established ie they're Secular Progressives.
 
Nice. This pretty much punches a hole in the chest of every Republican. It's *gasp* exactly what Obama's been saying all along!


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...8/top-10-facts-know-about-health-care-reform/

1. The plan is not a government takeover of health care like in Canada or Britain. The government will not take over hospitals or other privately run health care businesses. Doctors will not become government employees, like in Britain. And the U.S. government intends to help people buy insurance from private insurance companies, not pay all the bills like the single-payer system in Canada. The key parts of the current U.S. system -- employer-provided insurance, Medicare for the elderly, Medicaid for the poor -- would stay in place. The government would create health insurance exchanges for people who have to buy insurance on their own, so they could more easily compare plans and prices.

2. Insurance companies will be regulated more heavily. They will be told the minimum services they must cover, including preventive care. They will have to pay out a certain percentage of premiums for patient care. By 2014, when the exchanges open, insurers won't be able to deny customers for pre-existing conditions.

3. Everyone will have to have health insurance or pay a fine, a requirement known as the individual mandate. The government intends to cap premiums for people who make below a certain income. For people who buy insurance on the exchanges, a family of four making $88,000 would have a cap of 9.5 percent of their income. Lower incomes would have lower caps. The fine for not having insurance would be a minimum of $695 per person per year, with exemptions for financial hardship and other special cases.

4. Employers will not be required to buy insurance for their employees, but large employers may be subject to fines if they don't provide insurance. But Congress wanted to encourage employers, especially large employers, to offer insurance. So they created a fine for employers with more than 50 workers: If those employees buy insurance on the exchanges and qualify for a low-income credit from the government, then the employer would have to pay a fine. Fines are calculated based on number of employees; for large firms, the fines could be significant.

5. The vast majority of people will not see significant declines in premiums. When President Obama talks about premiums going down, he usually means they won't go up as much as they would otherwise. For the 4-out-of-5 who get their insurance through their employer, the savings would land in the 0 to 3 percent range by 2016, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, or CBO. People who buy insurance on their own, but who don't qualify for government subsidies, could actually see their premiums rise by as much as 10 to 13 percent, but that's largely because they'll be getting beefed-up policies that would pay for more basic services, especially preventive care. Low-income people who qualify for new credits to buy insurance would see the biggest drops.

6. The plan might or might not bend the curve on health spending. Critics say there aren't enough provisions to reduce waste or fraud, but Democrats say they're not being given enough credit for new cost-saving pilot programs that could be rapidly expanded. The most recent estimate of the plan, released Thursday by the CBO, said that it would spend $940 billion over 10 years. But new taxes, penalties and cost savings would offset that spending, according to the CBO, so that overall the plan pay for itself, dropping the deficit by slightly $138 billion over 10 years. Obama has said the plan will save more than $1 trillion in the second 10 years, but that estimate, according to the CBO, is highly speculative.

7. The government-run Medicare program will keep paying medical bills for seniors, but it will begin implementing cost controls on health care providers, mostly through penalties and incentives. The legislation would reduce payments for hospital-acquired infections or preventable hospital admissions. For Medicare Advantage, the federal government intends to reduce extra payments, taking away subsidies to private insurance companies. Insurers will likely cut benefits in order to not lose profits. The bill does not address the "doctor's fix," an expected proposal that Congress usually passes to prevent doctor's Medicare payments from severe cuts.

8. Medicaid, a joint federal-state program for the poor, will cover all of the poor, instead of just a few groups the way it currently does. Right now, to qualify for Medicaid, a person has to be poor and also disabled, elderly, pregnant or a child. Under the new plan, all poor adults would qualify.

9. The government won't pay for elective abortions. But under the Senate plan, people will be able to buy insurance that covers abortion on the new health insurance exchanges, as long as the insurance company pays for the services with patient premiums, not taxpayer subsidies. Medicaid has an exemption for cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother.

10. No one is proposing new benefits for illegal immigrants. Some House members had hoped that illegal immigrants would be able to buy insurance with their own money through the new exchanges, but that now appears unlikely.
 
Sure, it's just "kicking in the door" as far as the road to single-payer goes. But at some point, the door has to be kicked in, and it looks like it will happen tomorrow.

That's not my "kicking in the door" quote, mind you; that's House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's.

They dropped "deem and pass" as an option about three hours ago, according to @JamieDupree on Twitter (WSB/Cox radio correspondent), so Sunday should prove interesting, in the Chinese sense of the word.
 
Call me simple minded, but I want less government in my life. Government "regulated" health care is a disaster in the making.
 
Nice. This pretty much punches a hole in the chest of every Republican. It's *gasp* exactly what Obama's been saying all along!


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...8/top-10-facts-know-about-health-care-reform/

1. The plan is not a government takeover of health care like in Canada or Britain. The government will not take over hospitals or other privately run health care businesses. Doctors will not become government employees, like in Britain. And the U.S. government intends to help people buy insurance from private insurance companies, not pay all the bills like the single-payer system in Canada. The key parts of the current U.S. system -- employer-provided insurance, Medicare for the elderly, Medicaid for the poor -- would stay in place. The government would create health insurance exchanges for people who have to buy insurance on their own, so they could more easily compare plans and prices.

2. Insurance companies will be regulated more heavily. They will be told the minimum services they must cover, including preventive care. They will have to pay out a certain percentage of premiums for patient care. By 2014, when the exchanges open, insurers won't be able to deny customers for pre-existing conditions.

3. Everyone will have to have health insurance or pay a fine, a requirement known as the individual mandate. The government intends to cap premiums for people who make below a certain income. For people who buy insurance on the exchanges, a family of four making $88,000 would have a cap of 9.5 percent of their income. Lower incomes would have lower caps. The fine for not having insurance would be a minimum of $695 per person per year, with exemptions for financial hardship and other special cases.

4. Employers will not be required to buy insurance for their employees, but large employers may be subject to fines if they don't provide insurance. But Congress wanted to encourage employers, especially large employers, to offer insurance. So they created a fine for employers with more than 50 workers: If those employees buy insurance on the exchanges and qualify for a low-income credit from the government, then the employer would have to pay a fine. Fines are calculated based on number of employees; for large firms, the fines could be significant.

5. The vast majority of people will not see significant declines in premiums. When President Obama talks about premiums going down, he usually means they won't go up as much as they would otherwise. For the 4-out-of-5 who get their insurance through their employer, the savings would land in the 0 to 3 percent range by 2016, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, or CBO. People who buy insurance on their own, but who don't qualify for government subsidies, could actually see their premiums rise by as much as 10 to 13 percent, but that's largely because they'll be getting beefed-up policies that would pay for more basic services, especially preventive care. Low-income people who qualify for new credits to buy insurance would see the biggest drops.

6. The plan might or might not bend the curve on health spending. Critics say there aren't enough provisions to reduce waste or fraud, but Democrats say they're not being given enough credit for new cost-saving pilot programs that could be rapidly expanded. The most recent estimate of the plan, released Thursday by the CBO, said that it would spend $940 billion over 10 years. But new taxes, penalties and cost savings would offset that spending, according to the CBO, so that overall the plan pay for itself, dropping the deficit by slightly $138 billion over 10 years. Obama has said the plan will save more than $1 trillion in the second 10 years, but that estimate, according to the CBO, is highly speculative.

7. The government-run Medicare program will keep paying medical bills for seniors, but it will begin implementing cost controls on health care providers, mostly through penalties and incentives. The legislation would reduce payments for hospital-acquired infections or preventable hospital admissions. For Medicare Advantage, the federal government intends to reduce extra payments, taking away subsidies to private insurance companies. Insurers will likely cut benefits in order to not lose profits. The bill does not address the "doctor's fix," an expected proposal that Congress usually passes to prevent doctor's Medicare payments from severe cuts.

8. Medicaid, a joint federal-state program for the poor, will cover all of the poor, instead of just a few groups the way it currently does. Right now, to qualify for Medicaid, a person has to be poor and also disabled, elderly, pregnant or a child. Under the new plan, all poor adults would qualify.

9. The government won't pay for elective abortions. But under the Senate plan, people will be able to buy insurance that covers abortion on the new health insurance exchanges, as long as the insurance company pays for the services with patient premiums, not taxpayer subsidies. Medicaid has an exemption for cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother.

10. No one is proposing new benefits for illegal immigrants. Some House members had hoped that illegal immigrants would be able to buy insurance with their own money through the new exchanges, but that now appears unlikely.

As much as I believe that every legal resident in the US should be afforded reasonably priced healthcare, this is not the way to go about it, fining people if they don't have healthcare, you got to be kidding, and the people in government are excempt from this LAW!!!! What???? I thought all laws applied to all people, no matter what your status is.

Sorry, this not only punches a hole in the chest of republicians, but all Americians, minus members of the government.