Where's The Fairness Doctrine?

[Pell Mell]

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashaot.htm

[Tom]

Funny isn't it......how obviously biased MSM is an how little concern by the American sheeple?

[andymays]

Funny isn't it......how obviously biased MSM is an how little concern by the American sheeple?


It's like half of the country is under a spell! Didn't Michael Savage write a book about liberalism being a mental disorder?

[Marshall Bennett]

Thats sick !! I'm sure Diane Sawyer will be there with her pom poms on the front row .

[Tom]

Whatever you do, DO NOT sit next to Chris Mathews. I repeat, DO NOT sit next to him. :eek:

[BlueShoe]

When does Der Fuhrer,uh,um,I mean the President,create a new czar;the Minister of Propaganda?Am sure that the Dems have someone lined up to become the new Joseph Goebbels.

[ArlJim78]

we've entered the brave new world of 1984. the televsions stream the approved messages of Big Brother for the masses.

[Lefty]

obama is spesking to just about every network on the planet EXCEPT Fox News. I guess Fox hurt his wittle feelings. He's a whiny little boy.

[jballscalls]

are any of you guys going to watch it??

[Lefty]

nope. If he can'tbe a man and appear on a real news network that will ask the tough questions, then why bother?

[jballscalls]

nope. If he can'tbe a man and appear on a real news network that will ask the tough questions, then why bother?

as far as i'm concerned Fox is as much of a news network as MSNBC, both have their agendas, just different sides...i'm a FNC watcher, but can admit they are certainly way biased to the ride.

[Lefty]

jb, you don't know what you're talking about. watch Fox and tell me they don't present both sides. They have liberals on every night. Watch a few days. Nobody at Fox ever said Bush sent tingles up and down their legs. Bush was criticized roundly at Fox when different commentators thought he was wrong. I think you're spouting "hear say"

[jballscalls]

jb, you don't know what you're talking about. watch Fox and tell me they don't present both sides. They have liberals on every night. Watch a few days. Nobody at Fox ever said Bush sent tingles up and down their legs. Bush was criticized roundly at Fox when different commentators thought he was wrong. I think you're spouting "hear say"

throughout the last couple months of watching beck and o'reilly on occasion, i've heard both, especially beck praise bush many times and never once criticize him, maybe they do it other nights, i watch oreilly twice a week probably, so it could be i just see certain episodes. I mean i haven't watched Hannity cause he kind of makes my stomach feel a little green, but otherwise it's obviously a conservative based station.

I mean every host on there, Cavuto, Beck, O'reilly, hannity, they are all conservatives. maybe Greta is their liberal voice?? never watched her show O'reilly will have liberal guests on but he generally yells over them and they don't get to get their views across properly. He had a lady named Walsh on talking about the Tiller thing and he did a very poor job of talking with her because he wouldn't let her get her points across, he yelled over her and said she had blood on her hands. i think that might have been a case where the topic.

And it's not a bad thing either, with all the left based stations, there needs to be a right win station, plus their hosts are generally more entertaining than the other networks, hence why i watch

[mostpost]

It's a Town Meeting; it's not a debate. It's an opportunity for one side of the issue to present that side and answer questions. And don't tell me about equal time. There is no Fairness Doctrine. They are not required to provide equal time. If conservatives wish to present their health care plan let them do it on Fox. No...wait....you don't have a plan!

[Lefty]

most, it's on national tv. He's presenting only one side. Is he afraid of debate?
He will tell us that everyone agrees with him, which seems to be his favorite lie.
the R's say they do have a healthplan.
My wife and i worked hard for our healthplan and it took us a long while. I don't want to see it destroyed.
The CBO said his plan will cost a trillion dollars and only add 16 million people.

[BenDiesel26]

You obviously HAVEN'T been watching Beck if you don't think he has criticized Bush. He's pretty much critical of every president back to Teddy Roosevelt on a daily basis. In his eyes the only difference b/w Bush and Obama is the rate of government growth under Obama. I can't really disagree with him.

All other shows constantly present both sides, even Hannity. The problem with Hannity though is that he is so over the top with everything being so political I have trouble watching. In reality though Hannity's show is more or less like Olberman's show (or MSNBC in general), except he actually has guests that disagree with him. I can handle some of CNN's anchors. MSNBC is an absolute disgrace, which is why they get absolutely destroyed. Most moderate liberals can't stand it, as was evident during the election polls.

[BenDiesel26]

It's a Town Meeting; it's not a debate. It's an opportunity for one side of the issue to present that side and answer questions. And don't tell me about equal time. There is no Fairness Doctrine. They are not required to provide equal time. If conservatives wish to present their health care plan let them do it on Fox. No...wait....you don't have a plan!

1. Who cares about equal time, it shouldn't be free. ABC is not state-run, or is that where we're heading. They choose the audience (which means they choose the questions) and they have the editing privileges (which means they can edit if somebody does ask a good question that Obama has not rehearsed). If you're American, that should bother you.

2. Obama does not have a plan either. He has mentioned in the past (2003?) that he is a strong supporter of the single payer system (direct quote), he just hasn't presented anything yet. He won't say that of course since most Americans do not support it. Of course nobody will be able to ask him about his quote either since his questions will almost surely be rehearsed.

[mostpost]

most, it's on national tv. He's presenting only one side. Is he afraid of debate?
He will tell us that everyone agrees with him, which seems to be his favorite lie.
the R's say they do have a healthplan.
My wife and i worked hard for our healthplan and it took us a long while. I don't want to see it destroyed.
The CBO said his plan will cost a trillion dollars and only add 16 million people.

Did you watch Obama's speech to the AMA. Obama said during that speech, if you like your current plan YOU CAN KEEP IT. He emphasized that point.
The way I understood the plan that has been (or will be) put forth, there are three parts. 1. Private insurance (keep it if you like it)...if not 2. You may purchase health insurance from an insurance exchange. This is the plan or plans that are available to federal employees including Congresscritters. It is NOT government run or "Public" heath insurance. It is provided by private insurance companies or HMO's. You have the right to choose the plan (Company) with which you wish to do business. 3. Is the public option.

The"Public Option" would provide compettion to the private companies and help to hold down premiums. DO NOT tell me the so called free market does that now.

[mostpost]

1. Who cares about equal time, it shouldn't be free. ABC is not state-run, or is that where we're heading. They choose the audience (which means they choose the questions) and they have the editing privileges (which means they can edit if somebody does ask a good question that Obama has not rehearsed). If you're American, that should bother you.

2. Obama does not have a plan either. He has mentioned in the past (2003?) that he is a strong supporter of the single payer system (direct quote), he just hasn't presented anything yet. He won't say that of course since most Americans do not support it. Of course nobody will be able to ask him about his quote either since his questions will almost surely be rehearsed.
ABC says they will have complete editorial control. That means that the White House will have no veto power over what questions wlll be asked or who will be in the audience. It does not mean that ABC will be editing the content of the show. I'm sure this will be a live telecast, so editing will be impossible anyway. I don't know how ABC will determine audience make up, but I am certain they will try to represent all viewpoints.
Obama does not screen the audiences for his town hall meetings, though you could argue that people attending those meetings would tend to be supporters.

I think you are correct that Obama has strongly favored a single payer system. If he now proposes a system which includes private insurance, an insurance exchange and some form of public option why would that be a reason to criticise him. We are learning that he is a pragmatist. He may feel that is the plan which has the best chance of passing a this time. You may dislike any plan he puts forth, but please don't use the flip flop nonsense

[Lefty]

yes, I heard the speech. he said we could keep our current plan and that's a lie. He will let Congress do his dirty work there and stand above it.
Or when Corporations cancel their employees private plan because a public plan is available, then Obama will say something likehe can't interfere with private corps decisions. No way we will be able to keep our private plans. If you believe that I have some nice desert land, with this nice little trout stream...
And why would you trust ABC
if they won't let Republicans be represented? are you that easily snookered?

[jballscalls]

apparently Obama watches Fox News. In the clip on this page, he says "There is one channel that is completely dedicated to hurting my administration" and "If you watch the whole day's worth of programming on Fox, you'll never hear a good thing about me"


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2009/06/16/obama-blasts-fox-news-ive-got-one-television-station-entirely-devoted-att

[Lefty]

actually he said, 'one tv station.' He doesn't know the difference between a station and a network.

[jballscalls]

actually he said, 'one tv station.' He doesn't know the difference between a station and a network.

thats just Bush like semantics. his point was that Fox News is against him and only shows and says bad things about him. But atleast he's part of the largest viewership in cable news entertainment

[newtothegame]

ABC says they will have complete editorial control. That means that the White House will have no veto power over what questions wlll be asked or who will be in the audience. It does not mean that ABC will be editing the content of the show. I'm sure this will be a live telecast, so editing will be impossible anyway. I don't know how ABC will determine audience make up, but I am certain they will try to represent all viewpoints.
Obama does not screen the audiences for his town hall meetings, though you could argue that people attending those meetings would tend to be supporters.

I think you are correct that Obama has strongly favored a single payer system. If he now proposes a system which includes private insurance, an insurance exchange and some form of public option why would that be a reason to criticise him. We are learning that he is a pragmatist. He may feel that is the plan which has the best chance of passing a this time. You may dislike any plan he puts forth, but please don't use the flip flop nonsense


Most...the other thing you failed to mention as I understand it is that if you chose YOUR OWN provider, you WILL BE TAXED ACCORDINGLY as if it were income.

[Lefty]

jb, not Bush semantics,MSM semantics. Sooo i'm applying the standard set my the msm and zilly to Obama. The msm won't do it, but they were all over Bush for every little mstk.

[dav4463]

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=58889


I already posted it, but it just shows Rush is right when he calls it the "state-run media."

[Pell Mell]

When I started this thread I was being sarcastic because it is the Libs that want the Fairness Doctrine to try to shut up conservative talk radio. So, where is the balance they always talk about?:bang:

[Tom]

Most...the other thing you failed to mention as I understand it is that if you chose YOUR OWN provider, you WILL BE TAXED ACCORDINGLY as if it were income.

And assuming your provider is not driven out of business, which is part of his plan.

[Tom]

obama is spesking to just about every network on the planet EXCEPT Fox News. I guess Fox hurt his wittle feelings. He's a whiny little boy.

Obama is a total chicken. He is afraid to debate anyone because he knows he is a light weight. He is a a coward. Out CNC is a frigging coward.

And, the way he is always blaming others for his problems, I suspect he is to some degree mentally ill.

[Snag]

Did you watch Obama's speech to the AMA. Obama said during that speech, if you like your current plan YOU CAN KEEP IT. He emphasized that point.
The way I understood the plan that has been (or will be) put forth, there are three parts. 1. Private insurance (keep it if you like it)...if not 2. You may purchase health insurance from an insurance exchange. This is the plan or plans that are available to federal employees including Congresscritters. It is NOT government run or "Public" heath insurance. It is provided by private insurance companies or HMO's. You have the right to choose the plan (Company) with which you wish to do business. 3. Is the public option.

The"Public Option" would provide compettion to the private companies and help to hold down premiums. DO NOT tell me the so called free market does that now.

Of these three options, which one do you think will be the lowest cost to the individual?

How long to you think plan 1 & 2 will be able to compete with plan 3?

If this structure is so good, why has it not been set up before now?

Regardless of what words are being used, health care is not a right!

[lsbets]

What about people like me who choose not to have insurance? From what I have seen these plans will force me to spend my money on something I do not want. That is tyrannical.

[BenDiesel26]

What about people like me who choose not to have insurance? From what I have seen these plans will force me to spend my money on something I do not want. That is tyrannical.

Well if Kennedy's plan were to pass, you would be forced to buy insurance. If you did not, you would be forced to pay a tax penalty. Apparently, Obama does not support the plan. I would think he supports the substance, just can't publicly support it now that it will cost over an estimated $1 trillion and that is only estimated to cover a third of the currently uninsured. Employers would be forced to pay or play, driving down employment and outsourcing jobs. The public plan would only cost $65 bucks a month, meaning employers that do provide would all probably switch to the public plan, which Obama wants make no mistake about it. Last, it would pay medicare + 10% to health care providers. I'm sure doctors are just thrilled with getting paid late and getting paid less.

It seems that the best health care countries in Europe are not the single payer systems, but the countries where laws cap private insurance company profits.

[jonnielu]

What about people like me who choose not to have insurance? From what I have seen these plans will force me to spend my money on something I do not want. That is tyrannical.

You should move out of the federal jurisdiction, which is purely socialist now, and live in America, which is still a free country. From there, you are not paying for the socialism (excercising your "power of the purse"(see federalist papers - Madison.)), and you can use your Constitutional state government to control the renegade Congress by recall.

The Constitution is your chain on Congress, jurisdiction is the cage that you keep it (Congress) in. Once you have clarified your status (American, by God), and put the federal jurisdiction back in its cage, repeal the Fed, and repeal the 14th amendment. Teach your kids about jurisdiction.

jdl

[Marshall Bennett]

Well if Kennedy's plan were to pass, you would be forced to buy insurance. If you did not, you would be forced to pay a tax penalty. Apparently, Obama does not support the plan. I would think he supports the substance, just can't publicly support it now that it will cost over an estimated $1 trillion and that is only estimated to cover a third of the currently uninsured. Employers would be forced to pay or play, driving down employment and outsourcing jobs. The public plan would only cost $65 bucks a month, meaning employers that do provide would all probably switch to the public plan, which Obama wants make no mistake about it. Last, it would pay medicare + 10% to health care providers. I'm sure doctors are just thrilled with getting paid late and getting paid less.

It seems that the best health care countries in Europe are not the single payer systems, but the countries where laws cap private insurance company profits.
Doesn't Kennedy have brain cancer and recently was on death's door step . Seems strange he's suddenly well enough to head off such a plan so critical to everyone's future ???

[jballscalls]

Doesn't Kennedy have brain cancer and recently was on death's door step . Seems strange he's suddenly well enough to head off such a plan so critical to everyone's future ???

i thought i remember hearing that he wanted the healthcare bill to be his legacy

[ddog]

yes, I heard the speech. he said we could keep our current plan and that's a lie. He will let Congress do his dirty work there and stand above it.
Or when Corporations cancel their employees private plan because a public plan is available, then Obama will say something likehe can't interfere with private corps decisions. No way we will be able to keep our private plans. If you believe that I have some nice desert land, with this nice little trout stream...
And why would you trust ABC
if they won't let Republicans be represented? are you that easily snookered?

lefty ,,, you are not in a private plan if the plan is through your employer.

That would be a group plan, you are in a group.

corp provided plans SHOULD and MUST be killed.

They are a big part of the problem and are KILLING many business in this country who are trying their best to provide a benefit for their employees.

Many people will "hang on" to a job , any job that provides some coverage and that doesn't help the corp or the person in the long run.

It shifts too much of the "choice" away from the employee and is a huge waste of time and resources from the company perspective.

Whatever "plan" that comes around that doesn't address this is not worth the effort to commit to paper.

[Lefty]

allright dog, a group plan that is provided by a private co. if you want to be pedantic about it. Those plans will disappear if a public plan is implemented. Going to the doctor will be worse than going to the DMV. right now, I can see my doctor with about a day's notice. That will change under socialized medicine.

[boxcar]

lefty ,,, you are not in a private plan if the plan is through your employer.

That would be a group plan, you are in a group.

corp provided plans SHOULD and MUST be killed.

They are a big part of the problem and are KILLING many business in this country who are trying their best to provide a benefit for their employees.

Many people will "hang on" to a job , any job that provides some coverage and that doesn't help the corp or the person in the long run.

It shifts too much of the "choice" away from the employee and is a huge waste of time and resources from the company perspective.

Whatever "plan" that comes around that doesn't address this is not worth the effort to commit to paper.

Shifting choices away from us lowly peons will take on new meaning under socialized health care. The state will offer its plantation workers very limited options in order to keep costs lower.

Lefty is right: As pricey as health care currently is, most people covered PRIVATELY can get in to see their doctors with little or no notice -- maybe the exception being if the doctor is some hot-shot specialist and the patient isn't in an emergency situation. As stated previously, right now covered people are getting what we pay for. We are getting good service and high quality. These two highly desirable components will disappear under socialized medicine because the main consideration of the state will be costs -- it will want to keep the costs down to make its plan attractive to masses. Unfortunately, I think many people will not realize what they're trading off until it's too late.

Boxcar

[jonnielu]

Doesn't Kennedy have brain cancer and recently was on death's door step . Seems strange he's suddenly well enough to head off such a plan so critical to everyone's future ???

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[ddog]

Shifting choices away from us lowly peons will take on new meaning under socialized health care. The state will offer its plantation workers very limited options in order to keep costs lower.

Lefty is right: As pricey as health care currently is, most people covered PRIVATELY can get in to see their doctors with little or no notice -- maybe the exception being if the doctor is some hot-shot specialist and the patient isn't in an emergency situation. As stated previously, right now covered people are getting what we pay for. We are getting good service and high quality. These two highly desirable components will disappear under socialized medicine because the main consideration of the state will be costs -- it will want to keep the costs down to make its plan attractive to masses. Unfortunately, I think many people will not realize what they're trading off until it's too late.

Boxcar


the employer provided plans need to go away.
I am for shifting ALL the costs and choices to the indivdual and away from this employer killing system we have now.

It's very obvious to anyone that with the advance in services and the costs increasing due to the increasing "need" of those services being pushed by profit motivated providers that the only way to have a chance to stop that loop is to make the indivdual FULLY aware of the actual COSTS of elective procedures.

That's not what we have now.

I am for a free and effective market which means the fewer entities with a hand in it the better.

The costs associated with many services are not apparent to the avg joe in a lefty type plan via the group employer option.

You are going to "give it up" one way or the other.

You are killing business with this system.

The avg run of the mill business should not be worried about health care for it's employees.

That's YOUR job as a person!

[boxcar]

the employer provided plans need to go away.
I am for shifting ALL the costs and choices to the indivdual and away from this employer killing system we have now.

It's very obvious to anyone that with the advance in services and the costs increasing due to the increasing "need" of those services being pushed by profit motivated providers that the only way to have a chance to stop that loop is to make the indivdual FULLY aware of the actual COSTS of elective procedures.

That's not what we have now.

I am for a free and effective market which means the fewer entities with a hand in it the better.

The costs associated with many services are not apparent to the avg joe in a lefty type plan via the group employer option.

You are going to "give it up" one way or the other.

You are killing business with this system.

The avg run of the mill business should not be worried about health care for it's employees.

That's YOUR job as a person!

So, let me see if I have this straight: Your anti-Private Sector/Corporations because employers have no business "meddling" into the private affairs of Joe Blow American. Is this correct? You say that this responsibility lies with us as INDIVIDUALS? Is this right? But yet, you're all for the state taking on that responsibility? The state should be "worried" about our personal health care responsibilities? And I suppose you believe the state is not going to meddle into our personal health issues? The state isn't going to dictate what medical options IT will offer the individual? Just what role, then, is the state going to play with our health care issues?

So, I need to know from you, what role is the state going to play? How deeply do you think the state will intrude into our personal health care options and decisions? And why is the state is better suited than the Private Sector to provide us with health care "insurance"? And will the quality of care and the service improve or diminish under state control, and why?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Doesn't Kennedy have brain cancer and recently was on death's door step . Seems strange he's suddenly well enough to head off such a plan so critical to everyone's future ???

El Rushbo called this shot months ago. He predicted, while Kennedy was still quite ill that if he survived, this very thing would happen.

Boxcar

[ddog]

So, let me see if I have this straight: Your anti-Private Sector/Corporations because employers have no business "meddling" into the private affairs of Joe Blow American. Is this correct? You say that this responsibility lies with us as INDIVIDUALS? Is this right? But yet, you're all for the state taking on that responsibility? The state should be "worried" about our personal health care responsibilities? And I suppose you believe the state is not going to meddle into our personal health issues? The state isn't going to dictate what medical options IT will offer the individual? Just what role, then, is the state going to play with our health care issues?

So, I need to know from you, what role is the state going to play? How deeply do you think the state will intrude into our personal health care options and decisions? And why is the state is better suited than the Private Sector to provide us with health care "insurance"? And will the quality of care and the service improve or diminish under state control, and why?

Boxcar


I am not for the state doing it either, but since you force a choice of either or then :

If YOU insist on a pool to absorb the costs now, then the state would be better since the larger the pool the better the costs are absorbed.

To tie insurance to a corp is nuts, if stifles the economy and keeps people from moving to other jobs or starting their own business in a lot of cases.

I am for people paying their own way with a combination of whatever medical plan they can buy plus if they need more then they will have to borrow to get the extra and pay it back at the end out of the estate or life insurance or whatever. If nobody will loan them extra and they can't get a plan to pick them up then that's too bad.

You could have a gvt pick up those that can't do it on their own at whatever the cost if you wish, but it would be very strictly means tested and you would need to show ALL the assets of ALL the family members before getting the benefit.

[ddog]

allright dog, a group plan that is provided by a private co. if you want to be pedantic about it. Those plans will disappear if a public plan is implemented. Going to the doctor will be worse than going to the DMV. right now, I can see my doctor with about a day's notice. That will change under socialized medicine.


But, maybe that needs to change if the "market" was really driving more of these "choices". If others were not subsizing your 15.00 co pay or whatever?


In my opinion, many people run to a doc everytime they sneeze or the new "enhancer" or "stimulator" comes on the tv ads pushing them to "see their doc now" for this great product.

We are obssesed with pills for this and that , it's nuts and a lot of it is just pure waste.

[Lefty]

yeah, the govt does so well with the Va and Medicare. "More Please."
Under a govt plan, people will run to the docs more, because the dolts will perceive it's free. That's part of the reason there will be more waits and then rationing. Do you really want to spend a trillion to get healthcare for just 16 million people? Pricey., i'd say.

[ddog]

You posted and didn't see my other posts I assume as they did not endorse YOUR gvt plan that you have now.

Or maybe you were posting to someone else.

[Lefty]

try again. post 46 doesn't make much sense.

[Tom]

Neither does 46.

[Pell Mell]

Neither does 46.

I love that one Tom.:lol:

[boxcar]

I am not for the state doing it either, but since you force a choice of either or then :

If YOU insist on a pool to absorb the costs now, then the state would be better since the larger the pool the better the costs are absorbed.

To tie insurance to a corp is nuts, if stifles the economy and keeps people from moving to other jobs or starting their own business in a lot of cases.

I am for people paying their own way with a combination of whatever medical plan they can buy plus if they need more then they will have to borrow to get the extra and pay it back at the end out of the estate or life insurance or whatever. If nobody will loan them extra and they can't get a plan to pick them up then that's too bad.

You could have a gvt pick up those that can't do it on their own at whatever the cost if you wish, but it would be very strictly means tested and you would need to show ALL the assets of ALL the family members before getting the benefit.

And with private insurance companies, people aren't paying their own way? :bang: :bang: And you say you're all for people buying their own "medical plans"? What the heck do you think medical insurers are selling!? :bang: :bang:

Methinks you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. Even with group policies, the vast majority of companies require their employees to pick up a percentage. And that percentage can be high, depending on who the corporation is and how deep its pockets are.

Boxcar