Fox dispels some myths about healthcare

[JKing106]

Originally posted by: 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.

This is why cable news in America is considered a joke in the rest of the world, and intelligent persons find their news from the outside. No, you're not supposed to cherry pick and paraphrase. It's not a contest. News is supposed to objective, and unbiased, unlike opinion/editorials, where you can spout whatever shit you feel like. Cable news in America are just big 24/7 op/ed channels. Fox is the worst of the lot. I wouldn't have a problem with them if they didn't keep trying the repeating the "Fair and Balanced" lie, over and over. I wish they'd just man up and title themselves "Conservative TV." At least I could respect them, then, for their integrity, if not for their ideology.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: senseamp
So Fox puts up some strawman "myths" and heroically tears them down, what else is new?

If the CBO is your strawman then I guess so.

Myth: ?Government-run universal health care would increase the international competitiveness of U.S. companies.?

The Congressional Budget Office disagrees.

?Replacing employment-based health care with a government-run system could reduce employers? payments for their workers? insurance, but the amount that they would have to pay in overall compensation would remain essentially unchanged,? the CBO says. ?Cash wages and other forms of compensation would have to rise by roughly the amount of the reduction in health benefits for firms to be able to attract the same number and types of workers.?

Pass UHC, get a raise

which will be offset by a rise in medicare tax rates and 28% additional tax rate - both part of the Dems several different plans they are considering.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: CPA


which will be offset by a rise in medicare tax rates and 28% additional tax rate - both part of the Dems several different plans they are considering.

That can't be true. Obama said he wouldn't raise taxes, and I for one believe him!
:roll:

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: eits
it came from fox news. the end. that's all i needed to know to make sure whether it was from a credible source or not... and it is not.

Here we see the prototypical leftist. The facts as others have mentioned come largely from the CBO. If the same report had come from MSNBC, would that then give it more credence?

That is what Fox News does when they dont like what they see. Either attempt to censor it, or pretend it doesn't exist or is invalid.

Fixed

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: senseamp
So Fox puts up some strawman "myths" and heroically tears them down, what else is new?

If the CBO is your strawman then I guess so.

Myth: ?Government-run universal health care would increase the international competitiveness of U.S. companies.?

The Congressional Budget Office disagrees.

?Replacing employment-based health care with a government-run system could reduce employers? payments for their workers? insurance, but the amount that they would have to pay in overall compensation would remain essentially unchanged,? the CBO says. ?Cash wages and other forms of compensation would have to rise by roughly the amount of the reduction in health benefits for firms to be able to attract the same number and types of workers.?

Pass UHC, get a raise

which will be offset by a rise in medicare tax rates and 28% additional tax rate - both part of the Dems several different plans they are considering.

Maybe, but it's good to see that CBO is disputing the long time rightwing argument that employers will just hoard the money they'd save on health premiums instead of passing it on to their employees.

 

[quest55720]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: senseamp
So Fox puts up some strawman "myths" and heroically tears them down, what else is new?

If the CBO is your strawman then I guess so.

Myth: ?Government-run universal health care would increase the international competitiveness of U.S. companies.?

The Congressional Budget Office disagrees.

?Replacing employment-based health care with a government-run system could reduce employers? payments for their workers? insurance, but the amount that they would have to pay in overall compensation would remain essentially unchanged,? the CBO says. ?Cash wages and other forms of compensation would have to rise by roughly the amount of the reduction in health benefits for firms to be able to attract the same number and types of workers.?

Pass UHC, get a raise

which will be offset by a rise in medicare tax rates and 28% additional tax rate - both part of the Dems several different plans they are considering.

Maybe, but it's good to see that CBO is disputing the long time rightwing argument that employers will just hoard the money they'd save on health premiums instead of passing it on to their employees.

They will pass it along to the top level employees who are hard to replace. The average person won't see a dime as they are easily replaceable. They will just use the economy as the excuse and the middle class will finally be dead because they will have to pay for the health care of all.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: quest55720
They will pass it along to the top level employees who are hard to replace. The average person won't see a dime as they are easily replaceable. They will just use the economy as the excuse and the middle class will finally be dead because they will have to pay for the health care of all.

yup. just like with corporate taxes, the employees who are easy to replace are going to get the shaft.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

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.

There is very little likelihood of the bolded part actually happening.

I read this article as well...it is excellent and very informative. The author cites the CBO report for many of their points.

When a network has been proven time and time again to mislead and outright lie I will question *everything* that comes from them.

I known it's the Iraqi Minister of Defense that said this but he makes some good points...

No thanks.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: JKing106

Originally posted by: 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.

This is why cable news in America is considered a joke in the rest of the world, and intelligent persons find their news from the outside. No, you're not supposed to cherry pick and paraphrase. It's not a contest. News is supposed to objective, and unbiased, unlike opinion/editorials, where you can spout whatever shit you feel like. Cable news in America are just big 24/7 op/ed channels. Fox is the worst of the lot. I wouldn't have a problem with them if they didn't keep trying the repeating the "Fair and Balanced" lie, over and over. I wish they'd just man up and title themselves "Conservative TV." At least I could respect them, then, for their integrity, if not for their ideology.

So are you saying that the left would take the entire report and quote the entire report when trying to prove their point? They are not guilty of cherry picking at all? And I'm not even necessarily referring to news outlets.

With that being said, let's say for example that what you say is true. The whole thing is being misrepresented by Fox. Are you saying the quotes they use do not exist in the report? Or are you saying that somehow if you look at the entire report that the points they bring forth don't really matter? Remember, all it takes is one card for the entire house to crumble.

Once again a negative topic in relation to UHC has been derailed into a left vs. right spin job that has very little to do with what is actually being reported. Don't attack the source attack the data used by the source. If it is incorrect then so be it. But saying 'lol Fox'... yeah.

Remember, it is the left that is trying to change something we have in place today. The burden of convincing people that this change is a good thing is up to the people who support the change (even though we have little in the line of facts to tell us just what UHC means and how we are going to pay for it).

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: senseamp
So Fox puts up some strawman "myths" and heroically tears them down, what else is new?

If the CBO is your strawman then I guess so.

Myth: ?Government-run universal health care would increase the international competitiveness of U.S. companies.?

The Congressional Budget Office disagrees.

?Replacing employment-based health care with a government-run system could reduce employers? payments for their workers? insurance, but the amount that they would have to pay in overall compensation would remain essentially unchanged,? the CBO says. ?Cash wages and other forms of compensation would have to rise by roughly the amount of the reduction in health benefits for firms to be able to attract the same number and types of workers.?

Pass UHC, get a raise

which will be offset by a rise in medicare tax rates and 28% additional tax rate - both part of the Dems several different plans they are considering.

Maybe, but it's good to see that CBO is disputing the long time rightwing argument that employers will just hoard the money they'd save on health premiums instead of passing it on to their employees.

They will pass it along to the top level employees who are hard to replace. The average person won't see a dime as they are easily replaceable. They will just use the economy as the excuse and the middle class will finally be dead because they will have to pay for the health care of all.

I didn't see that in the CBO report. Please back up this assertion.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: 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.

Man, you conspiracy theorists have it all figured out, don't you. :roll:

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: 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.

Man, you conspiracy theorists have it all figured out, don't you. :roll:

Heh, no conspiracy. If you listen to what he says it becomes perfectly clear. In so many words he has said exactly what I described.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: senseamp
So Fox puts up some strawman "myths" and heroically tears them down, what else is new?

If the CBO is your strawman then I guess so.

Myth: ?Government-run universal health care would increase the international competitiveness of U.S. companies.?

The Congressional Budget Office disagrees.

?Replacing employment-based health care with a government-run system could reduce employers? payments for their workers? insurance, but the amount that they would have to pay in overall compensation would remain essentially unchanged,? the CBO says. ?Cash wages and other forms of compensation would have to rise by roughly the amount of the reduction in health benefits for firms to be able to attract the same number and types of workers.?

Pass UHC, get a raise

which will be offset by a rise in medicare tax rates and 28% additional tax rate - both part of the Dems several different plans they are considering.

Maybe, but it's good to see that CBO is disputing the long time rightwing argument that employers will just hoard the money they'd save on health premiums instead of passing it on to their employees.

It is all smoke and mirrors. If you read that one point by itself (just like you attacked the OP for) then it makes it look like everyone is getting a raise. Just like CPA pointed out this is a meaningless point in that you will end up losing all of this raise to added taxes to pay for health care. Otherwise the bolded part of your sentence makes no sense at all.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: 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.

Man, you conspiracy theorists have it all figured out, don't you. :roll:

Heh, no conspiracy. If you listen to what he says it becomes perfectly clear. In so many words he has said exactly what I described.

I wish he would hurry up and make a full UHC system, which will be able to eliminate the need for private insurers, who have huge overheads and burden us all.

I actually BELIEVE in UHC, and am not going to keep funneling money to a wasteful private company to do something the government can handle with next to no overhead compared to private companies.

But you keep paying a company to waste our money and let us lag behind the rest of the civilized world.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: 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.

Man, you conspiracy theorists have it all figured out, don't you. :roll:

Heh, no conspiracy. If you listen to what he says it becomes perfectly clear. In so many words he has said exactly what I described.

I wish he would hurry up and make a full UHC system, which will be able to eliminate the need for private insurers, who have huge overheads and burden us all.

I actually BELIEVE in UHC, and am not going to keep funneling money to a wasteful private company to do something the government can handle with next to no overhead compared to private companies.

But you keep paying a company to waste our money and let us lag behind the rest of the civilized world.

So if UHC doesn't pass you are just going to go uninsured for the rest of your life? And as to the waste, you sure do have a lot of faith in our government if you really think there will be no waste under their program.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: 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.

Man, you conspiracy theorists have it all figured out, don't you. :roll:

Heh, no conspiracy. If you listen to what he says it becomes perfectly clear. In so many words he has said exactly what I described.

I wish he would hurry up and make a full UHC system, which will be able to eliminate the need for private insurers, who have huge overheads and burden us all.

I actually BELIEVE in UHC, and am not going to keep funneling money to a wasteful private company to do something the government can handle with next to no overhead compared to private companies.

But you keep paying a company to waste our money and let us lag behind the rest of the civilized world.

So if UHC doesn't pass you are just going to go uninsured for the rest of your life? And as to the waste, you sure do have a lot of faith in our government if you really think there will be no waste under their program.

Where did I say I would go uninsured if UHC didn't pass?

I didn't say no waste. Some money will go to overhead, but a more reasonable ONE PERCENT (1%) instead of, TWENTY to THIRTY PERCENT (20-30%). Such overhead is ludicrous!

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Where did I say I would go uninsured if UHC didn't pass?

I didn't say no waste. Some money will go to overhead, but a more reasonable ONE PERCENT (1%) instead of, TWENTY to THIRTY PERCENT (20-30%). Such overhead is ludicrous!

You can't honestly believe that, can you? Do you also believe these myths that have been proven false?

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Where did I say I would go uninsured if UHC didn't pass?

I didn't say no waste. Some money will go to overhead, but a more reasonable ONE PERCENT (1%) instead of, TWENTY to THIRTY PERCENT (20-30%). Such overhead is ludicrous!

You can't honestly believe that, can you? Do you also believe these myths that have been proven false?

I post facts, not out-of-my-asshole-spidey-math.

Those are true overhead numbers, as you'd know if you paid attention to the debates that go on about this all the time.

Hint: Stop watching Faux News all the time.

 

[soundforbjt]

Originally posted by: 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.

That's because they are married to rich dudes (in other words, golddiggers, attracted to power), not because they agree with most of their values.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: senseamp

Maybe, but it's good to see that CBO is disputing the long time rightwing argument that employers will just hoard the money they'd save on health premiums instead of passing it on to their employees.

They will pass it along to the top level employees who are hard to replace. The average person won't see a dime as they are easily replaceable. They will just use the economy as the excuse and the middle class will finally be dead because they will have to pay for the health care of all.

So we cut taxes on corporations because if they have more money they will create jobs, but when we give them more money through health care they don't use it to create jobs. The right can't have it both ways.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: 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.

This is funny because it's so illustrative. You're supposed to use facts that support your viewpoint if you're attempting to take a side on an issue, but Fox claims (laugh) to be a NEWS SOURCE. So no, that is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what they are supposed to do.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: senseamp

Maybe, but it's good to see that CBO is disputing the long time rightwing argument that employers will just hoard the money they'd save on health premiums instead of passing it on to their employees.

They will pass it along to the top level employees who are hard to replace. The average person won't see a dime as they are easily replaceable. They will just use the economy as the excuse and the middle class will finally be dead because they will have to pay for the health care of all.

So we cut taxes on corporations because if they have more money they will create jobs, but when we give them more money through health care they don't use it to create jobs. The right can't have it both ways.

No, we cut taxes on corporations and the top level takes them and now in addition to that they don't pass the health care money along.

The real world has it both ways.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: 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.

Man, you conspiracy theorists have it all figured out, don't you. :roll:

Heh, no conspiracy. If you listen to what he says it becomes perfectly clear. In so many words he has said exactly what I described.

I wish he would hurry up and make a full UHC system, which will be able to eliminate the need for private insurers, who have huge overheads and burden us all.

I actually BELIEVE in UHC, and am not going to keep funneling money to a wasteful private company to do something the government can handle with next to no overhead compared to private companies.

But you keep paying a company to waste our money and let us lag behind the rest of the civilized world.

So if UHC doesn't pass you are just going to go uninsured for the rest of your life? And as to the waste, you sure do have a lot of faith in our government if you really think there will be no waste under their program.

Where did I say I would go uninsured if UHC didn't pass?

I didn't say no waste. Some money will go to overhead, but a more reasonable ONE PERCENT (1%) instead of, TWENTY to THIRTY PERCENT (20-30%). Such overhead is ludicrous!

You said you were not going to continue funneling money into a wasteful private company... So unless you're already on government insurance OR you know of a non-wasteful private company then I had to assume you would just go uninsured.
And that still begs the question... How do we know our government's overhead will drop from X to Y percent? We don't.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: senseamp

Maybe, but it's good to see that CBO is disputing the long time rightwing argument that employers will just hoard the money they'd save on health premiums instead of passing it on to their employees.

They will pass it along to the top level employees who are hard to replace. The average person won't see a dime as they are easily replaceable. They will just use the economy as the excuse and the middle class will finally be dead because they will have to pay for the health care of all.

So we cut taxes on corporations because if they have more money they will create jobs, but when we give them more money through health care they don't use it to create jobs. The right can't have it both ways.

I don't think either scenario would create jobs. But then again I'm not 'right'.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: 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.

This is funny because it's so illustrative. You're supposed to use facts that support your viewpoint if you're attempting to take a side on an issue, but Fox claims (laugh) to be a NEWS SOURCE. So no, that is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what they are supposed to do.

I honestly don't care who analyzed the data. What really matters is, did they get everything wrong, everything right, or somewhere in between? Problem is this would cause people to focus on the analysis rather than the source and therein lies the rub.