Obama’s absence from Fox News is censorship

The New Original Journalist

Tue Nov 3 2009 01:44

Jeff,

This one is even better. A poll by the philanthropy organization the Robert Johnson Wood Foundation found that nearly 63 percent of physicians support a public health option while almost 10 percent support a single payer system. Only 27 percent supported legislation without a public option. According to the poll nearly 3/4s of American physicians, the people who know the system the best, support some sort of government health program. The survey was posted in the New England Medical Journal and cited by various papers. Like I said, the support is there. Congress can either work together and pass something meaningful, or screw it up like they usually do to, well just about everything. I've got 20 bucks on the latter.

haha and stop with the fallback CNN slander. Once again, I don't have a T.V! (and no I don't watch CNN online)

Jeff

Tue Nov 3 2009 00:47

The "opt out" clause that was thrown around by harry reid is a scam. To opt out, states will be subject to new taxes, hardly a conservative approach. I'm sure that 60% of democrats support a public option, but that 60% of Americans support it is not only hard to believe, its hysterical, and if you could show me the poll, I bet money it was a CNN poll. Tell me how the government funds itself. Other than printing money, where does the money come from? If health care is nationalized, you go to the government for your health care and you pay taxes, how is that not like a single payer system? The "basic english" complaint is pretty weak judging by the number of logical posts I have made, although some people refuse to see the logic. I never said that all of obama's radical ideas will be made into law by congress, fortunately our congress isn't totally overrun by progressives. I do agree that health care reform is needed and good reform would start with fewer government restrictions and mandates on health insurance, tort reform for malpractice cases, and sending illegal immigrants back to their respective countries instead of to our emergency rooms.

Jazi

Sat Oct 31 2009 14:09

Jeff wears pants. Nazis wore pants. Therefore, Jeff is a Nazi.

Paulk

Fri Oct 30 2009 22:06

There's just nothing here to rebut, Jeff. I made one substantive (though brief) rebuttal of one point, which you responded to by repeating your exact same claim with no sense at all that you understood the point I said—then added a few more wild and paranoid claims that simply have no basis in fact to support their assertion, so it's not clear what kind of response would even be useful.

I'll be willing to concede that we could, in theory, have a national health system with a single payer plan to pay whatever private insurers still operate. I can't think of any country that operates this way, mostly because it would be nonsensical to pay for people to use a private service that the government is already funding itself. Of course, nothing like a single payer plan or a national health service plan is part of this legislation, so your repeated insistence that you have read the bill doesn't exactly do much to contradict my suggestion that you don't understand basic English.

And if it's elitist to expect that people who engage in debates be able to do more than throw around a lot of frankly laughable generalizations about who you think I am and ridiculous boilerplate right wing talking points, well...guilty!

U.S. News

Fri Oct 30 2009 21:05

Jeff,

What law school were you admitted to? I'm just compiling data as to why certain schools are dropping in the rankings... Your posts contain more logical fallacies than a classroom full of educated dicks.

Your name

Fri Oct 30 2009 21:01

Jeff: When you are forced to proclaim yourself the winner of an online debate, you have, in fact, lost.

The New Original Journalist

Fri Oct 30 2009 18:21

"single payer and nationalized are not contradictory terms, you eltitist brown shirt." --Jeff

While technically this is correct (sans nazi comment), there is no single payer option on the table. What the moderate democrats have concocted is a bill with a quasi-government run program that the states can opt out of. Some of the good ol' fashioned federalism conservatives usually champion. Almost 60 percent of the country supports a public option. There will be health care reform and the country needs health care reform Jeff even Bill O' Reily admits this. The only thing left for congress (Lieberman I'm looking in your direction) to screw up is the way in which this reform is enacted.

And mi hermano Jefe, brown shirts? I find it sadly ironic that someone who would have fought for the nacionalistas in the guerra civil española would use this kind of political label. You detest when people claim you watch Fox news, yet you automatically assume anyone who smells like a commi-pinko liberal blindly swallows everything they watch on CNN. You said this exact same thing to me last week and I don't even own a T.V. Knock off the us against them stuff Jeff. We're all Americans and we're all human beings.

Jeff

Fri Oct 30 2009 13:41

Paulk,
I've read the bill, have you? you've changed the subject from actually discussing the issue to what you perceive as my incompetence, and therefore you've lost the argument. And you are still an elitist and a sheep. Of course I understand the difference between single payer and nationalized health care, and the terms are still not contradictory. And if I was really as incompetent as you say, I don't think I would have been admitted to law school. The other thing you misunderstand as well is that I will never be miserable that we have a communist for a president. Only the liberals can still be miserable even though their candidate is in the white house, their ranting continues about the usual crap they perceive as the ills and injustices of capitalism even though their president continues to slash through capitalism with his hammer and sickle policies.

Faculty

Fri Oct 30 2009 11:46

Obama and his team of thugs is censoring the media....everyone better wake up.

Don'tmatta

Fri Oct 30 2009 11:31

I'm so glad I don't live in Utah anymore- crazy right wingers galore!

Paulk

Fri Oct 30 2009 02:17

Wow, Jeff. I'd actually hoped you'd have taken the hint to actually read something about these bills that didn't merely confirm your own preconceived opinions. But since you clearly don't understand the tax structures underlying the bills, the difference between single payer and national health care systems, healthcare policy generally, the origins and purpose of the Brownshirts, simple critical thinking skills or basic English, there's really nothing to be done. Enjoy your self-perpetuating paranoia. You're going to be miserable for the next few years.

Deesing is a Douche

Fri Oct 30 2009 01:09

Obviously, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Jeff

Thu Oct 29 2009 18:30

To paulk
single payer and nationalized are not contradictory terms, you eltitist brown shirt. Obama wants to own your health by requring all people to receive insurance and health care through the government. To suggest that the health care bill currently in congress is only for 10% of the population is stupid. The bill contains provisions to tax the crap out of people with private insurance plans, to thereby force them out of the private plan and into the government plan. The statists in power are not interested in "helping the little guy" as they claim, but are only interested in expanding the role of government in controlling your life, just ask Barney Frank. Also, I never said I got any of my information from Fox news because I didn't. And if by talking points you mean facts, maybe you should stop watching the communist news network. obama chooses to associate himself with radicals, you cannot deny that without seperating yourself from reality and following the administration along like an sheep.

shporq

Thu Oct 29 2009 13:29

Well, Deesing, it looks like you understand this issue about as well as you understand the gay rights issue.

I'm starting to see a pattern here... it seems like you don't understand any issue. Let's see an article where you're at least casually familiar with the terms and phrases you use. You clearly don't know what censorship is, so why not take it back a few steps and write about something a little simpler. Go buy a dictionary, and familiarize yourself with the English language.

Once you've learned to use our language, I would suggest utilizing that newfound knowledge by reading a little bit of recent political history. You may recall a man named Bush, but lovingly called "Dubya". You may be interested to hear about his version of favoritism. Nothing like giving exclusive access to a single media organization. Nothing like paying "journalists" to write favorable articles. Oh, then there were those "press conferences" where it turned out that the "press" were actually federal employees. Great stuff, truly.

Spencer

Thu Oct 29 2009 13:14

Good article. All news agencies would jump at the chance to interview the president ... especially on camera ... irrespective of political positions. Why? Because ratings, viewership, readership, and advertising skyrocket during and after that interview. If the highest public office in the land is playing favorites, it is an indirect form of censorship. The excluded news agency would be at a disadvantage against its competition. A pattern of this behavior would force the excluded news agency to change or eventually go out of business. This article's point is valid, though it could have been made clearer.

Disclosures: I voted for Obama but am nervous about all this government spending, and I wouldn't watch a minute of Fox News if it was the last media outlet in the world. But the article still makes a valid point.

Lisa

Thu Oct 29 2009 11:46

Mr. Anonymous, just your presence drops the level of discourse to the 3rd grade level.

Mr. Anonymous

Thu Oct 29 2009 09:01

I really admire the high level of intellectual discourse on this page. Bravo to all of you.

Your name

Thu Oct 29 2009 02:51

You know, printing the same story two days in a row doesn't make it any less a piece of crap.

Paulk

Thu Oct 29 2009 02:46

Jeff and Zombie certainly fit the mold of Fox News viewers: poorly informed with exceptionally low comprehension of the terms and details they spout. Good lord, these are ridiculously weak (but sadly common) talking points that don't really hold up to even one minute of scrutiny.

BTW, Jeff, if you're going to get all paranoid about "single payer, nationalized healthcare," it might be worth your time to learn that those are two entirely different (contradictory, in fact) systems.. The first is a method of insurance payment to private care providers (like Medicare); the second is a health care provider system where the government pays for doctors, hospitals, etc. (like the V.A.) And maybe if you stopped listening to Fox and paid more attention to, well, anyone who actually knows what they're talking about, you'd know Obama hasn't proposed anything close to a single payer system (the public option wouldn't even be an option for 90% of the population) and no one has proposed a national healthcare plan.

But facts really don't matter when your job is to be the communications arm of the opposition party, which Fox does rather well. That's fine. But don't complain when the other side doesn't want to play along with the act.

Rob

Wed Oct 28 2009 23:16

Hey Deesing - I noticed you've never interviewed Obama either. You must be wunna dem censorurz.

DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH