Fox dispels some myths about healthcare

[Lemon law]

The other thing no one mentions, is the fact that the fact that the FCC has a public duty and obligation to prevent an entire network like Fox to become a political organ of one political party. And to really screw the pooch, the nutty owner driving it, one Rupert Murdock is not a US citizen. Its going to be a close race, will Rupert die first, or will Fox get shut down by the FCC?

Some of the rants by Fox political commentators are poster child compelling evidence for an a FCC total shut down of large parts of the Fox network. And given the fact that the license renewal of all stations does involve proving those stations operate in the public interest, any Fox FCC license renewal will face firestorms of negative public comment. And the arena of FCC renewal, Fox, by a wide wide wide margin, is the worst offender.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Mani


In Obama's proposal, anyone who wants a private plan can keep it, which will insulate you from the government bureaucrats if you so choose.

The problem is you actually believe that. He will FORCE you to take gubment insurance by making it appear less expensive because he will tax the shit out of private health care and premiums. He has said it many times over, you just have to read between the lines.

He's a sneaky one, but listen to what the man says.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Link

I know many who spend all day on MSNBC understand that the US has worse healthcare than Somalia, but in this article the author is a little more honest than many other sources at the moment. Here are some tidbits:

Myth: ?The U.S. has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the developed world.?

Myth: ?The uninsured can?t afford to buy coverage.?...17.6 mn of the uninsured made more than $50,000 per year, and 10 mn of those made more than $75,000 a year

<- I freakin knew it! A lot who cannot afford health insurance just don't want to pay for it, but can.

Myth: ?Nationalized health care would not impact patient waiting times.?...In 2005, only 8% of U.S. patients reported waiting four months or more for elective surgery.

Countries with nationalized health care had higher percentages with waiting times of four months or more, including Australia (19%); New Zealand (20%); Canada (33%); and the United Kingdom (41%).

As I've always maintained, this is inevitable.

Hopefully a few reading this who didn't know it will let it influence their conclusions instead of put a wall up against it because it's on Fox or too much effort to back out of their sureness.

Most of the people who aren't covered by some type of medicare or medicaid plan already make more than the poverty rate. That means they can move to a cheaper apartment, buy store brand groceries, and cancel their cell phones to purchase health insurance.

 

[Sacrilege]

Originally posted by: yllus
I would watch Megan Fox report the news.

That's one of their strategies. I was watching Fox Business News the other day and all I saw were boobies. I wonder why their ratings are high.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Hacp
Most of the people who aren't covered by some type of medicare or medicaid plan already make more than the poverty rate. That means they can move to a cheaper apartment, buy store brand groceries, and cancel their cell phones to purchase health insurance.

I know because having a plan with $10,000 deductable/$30,000 out-of-pocket won't make someone just over the poverty line go bankrupt in case of a medical problem. :roll:

That's assuming, of course, that they're young, healthy, single, and have no preexisting conditions.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: feralkid
Fox News.

Nothing more needs to said

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Hacp
Most of the people who aren't covered by some type of medicare or medicaid plan already make more than the poverty rate. That means they can move to a cheaper apartment, buy store brand groceries, and cancel their cell phones to purchase health insurance.

I know because having a plan with $10,000 deductable/$30,000 out-of-pocket won't make someone just over the poverty line go bankrupt in case of a medical problem. :roll:

That's assuming, of course, that they're young, healthy, single, and have no preexisting conditions.

That number is usually quoted for a family of four.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Hacp
Most of the people who aren't covered by some type of medicare or medicaid plan already make more than the poverty rate. That means they can move to a cheaper apartment, buy store brand groceries, and cancel their cell phones to purchase health insurance.

I know because having a plan with $10,000 deductable/$30,000 out-of-pocket won't make someone just over the poverty line go bankrupt in case of a medical problem. :roll:

That's assuming, of course, that they're young, healthy, single, and have no preexisting conditions.

Address the facts of the article, not your fear and scare tactics. There are already tons of programs the folks you speak of simply choose not to take advantage of, as shown in the facts of this article.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: EXman

I don't agree with you.

1 I was not talking about surgeries. And it is naive to think people will not go more often.

You just wanted to get me back for calling you naive in the other thread, didn't you. The only surgeries that more people would go in for are what would be considered elective, something most UHC plans limit. Secondly, the UHC plans being proposed are putting a tremendous emphasis on preventative care which should help to offset the most common surgeries done - most notably angioplasty, but to a lesser extent spinal surgeries and arthroscopy.

2 If you spend half your life in school to make not a ton of money for a uber skilled position that most all people could not do no matter how much schooling they take makes it less attractive with a smaller monitary reward. It takes a lot to run a good practice.

The majority of MDs are general physicians. Having several family members and very close friends who have gone through the process, it is not nearly as uber-skilled as you think. No matter what level of UHC, the profession will always be one of the most respected and will always have six-figure salaries. That is more than enough to still attract top talent.

3 I think I was talking more of administration not the actual service. I should have said administrator which some are nurses as well. Government administrators have more red tape around them as they do incompetents that are not paid enough to care about you. Get ready for customer no service!!!

Lets face it folks do you or your government know what is best for your body? How will they make it cheaper? Rationing, Bureaucrats not doctors dictating a price schedule and health maintenance. Think HMOs with even worse service and overloaded with 10 times the workload.

In Obama's proposal, anyone who wants a private plan can keep it, which will insulate you from the government bureaucrats if you so choose.

True. I gotcha back BUT I'm not niave on current affairs. I like to saber rattle and not sit on my hands.

Don't Agree still ...

Obama care will bankrupt the private insurers possibly but I have a little hope. Think Walmart = Government and Privates = mom and pop shop. I have an HSA so pretty much I shop for healthcare. I keep my costs down and if I get a bad doctor I fire him and go to another! I love it but it does require more work. It also becomes my $ if I do not use it. Bad thing is that it is an individual account and I get taxed on what my employer gives me. Still works out cause I'm picky about everything.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

Originally posted by: yllus
I would watch Megan Fox report the news.

That's one of their strategies. I was watching Fox Business News the other day and all I saw were boobies. I wonder why their ratings are high.

Have you been to a GOP function? Or a Conservative group function? The Ladies are quite fine. Especially the farther south you go. And definately not of kranky Janine Giraffepillow Or hate filled (or jelly filled) Rosie O'Donnell types.

 

[SickBeast]

I think for the middle class in America (which I assume most of you are), overall universal heath care would cost you about the same in taxes as what you pay now for private insurance (even if your employer pays it, it's really the same difference as that could be added to your salary).

The benefit to UHC is that the poor people in the US could have coverage, along with retired pensioners who just scrape by and probably need the service the most. The only con that I see is that the quality of service will probably go down, and wait times will go up for people who are used to private coverage.

BTW, if they do introduce this legislation, will people still be allowed to use private insurance? I know that here in Canada, for-profit healthcare is illegal.

As a Canadian I think you guys should model your system after France and do it gradually.

 

[SickBeast]

I think for the middle class in America (which I assume most of you are), overall universal heath care would cost you about the same in taxes as what you pay now for private insurance (even if your employer pays it, it's really the same difference as that could be added to your salary).

The benefit to UHC is that the poor people in the US could have coverage, along with retired pensioners who just scrape by and probably need the service the most. The only con that I see is that the quality of service will probably go down, and wait times will go up for people who are used to private coverage.

BTW, if they do introduce this legislation, will people still be allowed to use private insurance? I know that here in Canada, for-profit healthcare is illegal.

As a Canadian I think you guys should model your system after France and do it gradually.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Lemon law
If nothing else, Limbaugh and Fox news better watch their ass, because Obama has a very good sense for debunking many of their sloganeering arguments.

In today's news conference, Obama directly addressed why a public plan option is one of the options we should have. And pointed out that if private health care plans are the best, not only can people opt to stay with those private health care plans, and if the private health care claims are to be believed, they should be able to be more cost effective than any government plan. But as everyone knows, private health care plans have always flunked at managing costs because the more heath care costs, the more money sticks to their hands, and have also excelled at evading or delaying payment. And dropping all but the super healthy. Making mangled care a moniker they have earned.

And with that kind of Obama make his case directly to the American people with sound reasoning, any entity that does not have a well thought out case to make, are going to find their arguments DOA discredited.

No he doesn't. He lies through his teeth to get stupid people to listen.

Bush & Co. had that down to a science.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: EXman

I don't agree with you.

1 I was not talking about surgeries. And it is naive to think people will not go more often.

You just wanted to get me back for calling you naive in the other thread, didn't you. The only surgeries that more people would go in for are what would be considered elective, something most UHC plans limit. Secondly, the UHC plans being proposed are putting a tremendous emphasis on preventative care which should help to offset the most common surgeries done - most notably angioplasty, but to a lesser extent spinal surgeries and arthroscopy.

2 If you spend half your life in school to make not a ton of money for a uber skilled position that most all people could not do no matter how much schooling they take makes it less attractive with a smaller monitary reward. It takes a lot to run a good practice.

The majority of MDs are general physicians. Having several family members and very close friends who have gone through the process, it is not nearly as uber-skilled as you think. No matter what level of UHC, the profession will always be one of the most respected and will always have six-figure salaries. That is more than enough to still attract top talent.

3 I think I was talking more of administration not the actual service. I should have said administrator which some are nurses as well. Government administrators have more red tape around them as they do incompetents that are not paid enough to care about you. Get ready for customer no service!!!

Lets face it folks do you or your government know what is best for your body? How will they make it cheaper? Rationing, Bureaucrats not doctors dictating a price schedule and health maintenance. Think HMOs with even worse service and overloaded with 10 times the workload.

In Obama's proposal, anyone who wants a private plan can keep it, which will insulate you from the government bureaucrats if you so choose.

True. I gotcha back BUT I'm not niave on current affairs. I like to saber rattle and not sit on my hands.

Don't Agree still ...

Obama care will bankrupt the private insurers possibly but I have a little hope. Think Walmart = Government and Privates = mom and pop shop. I have an HSA so pretty much I shop for healthcare. I keep my costs down and if I get a bad doctor I fire him and go to another! I love it but it does require more work. It also becomes my $ if I do not use it. Bad thing is that it is an individual account and I get taxed on what my employer gives me. Still works out cause I'm picky about everything.

I don't like to sit on my hands either...I just want to make the most informed decision I can before I act, so I can appreciate Obama being of the same philosophy.

The good news is, with Obama's plan, you will still be able to shop for healthcare. The main difference, as it's being proposed, is that there will be a government option to choose from. The richest people will always demand their own insurance and coverage, which means private options will always exist and will be abundant. If the public option does end up bankrupting private insurers it will most likely be because people made the choice to move away from them.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Myth: ?The uninsured can?t afford to buy coverage.?...17.6 mn of the uninsured made more than $50,000 per year, and 10 mn of those made more than $75,000 a year

<- I freakin knew it! A lot who cannot afford health insurance just don't want to pay for it, but can.

PRE-EXISTING CONDITION.

I am 26 with a pre-existing condition.

For health insurance, they want $426 a month.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

How about before people yell FOX NEWS they should dispute the 5/9 CBO citations.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Hacp
Most of the people who aren't covered by some type of medicare or medicaid plan already make more than the poverty rate. That means they can move to a cheaper apartment, buy store brand groceries, and cancel their cell phones to purchase health insurance.

I know because having a plan with $10,000 deductable/$30,000 out-of-pocket won't make someone just over the poverty line go bankrupt in case of a medical problem. :roll:

That's assuming, of course, that they're young, healthy, single, and have no preexisting conditions.

Address the facts of the article, not your fear and scare tactics. There are already tons of programs the folks you speak of simply choose not to take advantage of, as shown in the facts of this article.

No, we don't have to address your cherry picked, Fox News "statistics"
After all, see my post on Fox News.
You are either:
1)To stupid to realize Fox News is propaganda
2) You recognize Fox News is propaganda, but you won't say so because that keeps those in the first category blind.
which are you, one or two?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: techs
No, we don't have to address your cherry picked, Fox News "statistics"
After all, see my post on Fox News.
You are either:
1)To stupid to realize Fox News is propaganda
2) You recognize Fox News is propaganda, but you won't say so because that keeps those in the first category blind.
which are you, one or two?

Don't divert, PLEASE. I understand you think it is propaganda but what problem do you have with these facts? I took the time to fix you're quoting, what exactly is wrong with this article?

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: techs

Address the facts of the article, not your fear and scare tactics. There are already tons of programs the folks you speak of simply choose not to take advantage of, as shown in the facts of this article.

No, we don't have to address your cherry picked, Fox News "statistics"
After all, see my post on Fox News.
You are either:
1)To stupid to realize Fox News is propaganda
2) You recognize Fox News is propaganda, but you won't say so because that keeps those in the first category blind.
which are you, one or two?

Don't divert, PLEASE. I understand you think it is propoganda but what problem do you have with these facts?[/quote]
I don't THINK its propaganda. It IS propaganda. And once you start letting a propagandist dictate a debate by choosing its "facts" you have lost any right to debate the issue.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Lemon law
If nothing else, Limbaugh and Fox news better watch their ass, because Obama has a very good sense for debunking many of their sloganeering arguments.

In today's news conference, Obama directly addressed why a public plan option is one of the options we should have. And pointed out that if private health care plans are the best, not only can people opt to stay with those private health care plans, and if the private health care claims are to be believed, they should be able to be more cost effective than any government plan. But as everyone knows, private health care plans have always flunked at managing costs because the more heath care costs, the more money sticks to their hands, and have also excelled at evading or delaying payment. And dropping all but the super healthy. Making mangled care a moniker they have earned.

And with that kind of Obama make his case directly to the American people with sound reasoning, any entity that does not have a well thought out case to make, are going to find their arguments DOA discredited.

No he doesn't. He lies through his teeth to get stupid people to listen.

Bush & Co. had that down to a science.

bu-bu-but BUSH!!!

 

[Carmen813]

So...

Who actually read the CBO reports that are provided in that link? I did, and it took me all of five minutes to realize Fox did a pretty terrible job paraphrasing what is a very long and detailed analysis.

They basically picked and choice select quotes that supported their side of the argument while ignoring the stuff that didn't.

In other words, this article represents typical Fox reporting.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: techs
bu-bu-bu

Alright dummy, let me at least fix your quoting/posts.

Can we please stick to the OP? I'm guilty of being a dickhead so let's please stick to the subject at hand. Scoorb's post and the article.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: DLeRium
How about before people yell FOX NEWS they should dispute the 5/9 CBO citations.

Fox News, when Political Issues are being discussed, pretty much is synomonous with Fail.

 

[JKing106]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
So...

Who actually read the CBO reports that are provided in that link? I did, and it took me all of five minutes to realize Fox did a pretty terrible job paraphrasing what is a very long and detailed analysis.

They basically picked and choice select quotes that supported their side of the argument while ignoring the stuff that didn't.

In other words, this article represents typical Fox reporting.

But... that's not what Hannity said! He's a troo Uhmurican Patetreeut, you hippy fagit!

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
So...

Who actually read the CBO reports that are provided in that link? I did, and it took me all of five minutes to realize Fox did a pretty terrible job paraphrasing what is a very long and detailed analysis.

They basically picked and choice select quotes that supported their side of the argument while ignoring the stuff that didn't.

In other words, this article represents typical Fox reporting.

Isn't that what you're supposed to do? If there are facts in the findings that support their view and facts in the article that don't support their view then doesn't that mean it works both ways? For example, would the left ever use the points that Fox used to support their own case? Of course not.