Seven things I've learned from FOX news.

[guyser]

[Shady]

Sorry but. . .

http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee92/PROJEKTxxMURDER/ThisThreadSucks.jpg

I agree, it's a complete train wreck!

[cybercoma]

I agree, it's a complete train wreck!

WIth the number of times you've replied, this thread was crafted at least partially by you.

[On Guard for Thee]

You are missing the larger point, which this anti-FOX rant only reinforces. Many Canadians watch American media outlets for news and entertainment, and have done so since the birth of broadcast television, particularly in border areas. This continued right on through the infamous cheater satellite rigs and pirate cable boxes of the '80s and 90's. And now we get a rant that complains about the format of a foreign cable news channel. Can't make this stuff up.....I guess the CBC just isn't enough, eh ?

CBC is quite enough, although I do check NPR, BBC, Radio Deutche Wella, and ABC (that particular A is for Australlian). (A) I prefer information that comes from a source that is not driven bytotally by the need for profit, and ( I just hate listening to those brain dead commercials that are there to drive those profits.

[bush_cheney2004]

CBC is quite enough, although I do check NPR, BBC, Radio Deutche Wella, and ABC (that particular A is for Australlian). (A) I prefer information that comes from a source that is not driven bytotally by the need for profit, and ( I just hate listening to those brain dead commercials that are there to drive those profits.

Sounds great...I prefer media sources that are not state financed and controlled like the CBC in Canada.

[On Guard for Thee]

Sounds great...I prefer media sources that are not state financed and controlled like the CBC in Canada.

If you think the CBC is controlled by the government, then obviously you have never listened to it.

[Bonam]

Small? Big? Government should do what government needs to do on behalf of society, and what the private sector can't or won't. Thus, to take one example, government should provide efficient, effective health care, something the private sector has demonstrated it is incapable of providing. No real conservative would look at the shockingly expensive and inefficient waste of resources which is the US health care system with any degree of approval.

What "government needs to do on behalf of society" is a list whose contents are very subjective.

What private sector can or cannot do well is also highly subject to opinion. The fact that you think the problems in America's healthcare system conclusively prove that private healthcare is unworkable is proof enough that your opinion on this topic is not well founded. Talk about logical fallacy. One instance of something doesn't work well, therefore the whole idea must be fundamentally flawed? Maybe healthcare really is better done by the public sector, maybe not, but pointing at one country where private healthcare has problems as proof that well-done private healthcare is impossible is just plain silly.

[GostHacked]

Yes...it is strange how some Canadians present themselves here as experts on Fox News Channel. They would have to purchase the service to have such an in depth understanding. I guess Americans are experts concerning the goverment sponsored and controlled CBC as well !

Yeah it's not like we can watch it for free on their website.

[Argus]

What drivel? Domestic and International news?

You know, I switched to RT this morning. They were going on about those violent Ukrainian protestors and how undemocratic they were, and how they were being supported by evil western powers. Then I flicked to FOX. They were just ending a schmoozfest interview with Governor Scott Walker, talking about how undemocratic those who wanted him out of power were (the graphic below this is Liberals and unionists continue to attack Walker), and about the greedy motives of those unions and liberals and 'special interests' who were paying to cause the poor man trouble when all he was trying to do was deal with the deficit THEY were responsible for.

Now, here's the thing, neither was out and out lying. The way you lie in mondern propaganda is to tell only part of the story, so that your ignorant viewers don't get the context and will sympathsize with your agenda. Yes, there was some violence among the Ukrainians, but by far the majority of their protests have been peaceful, and the uptick in anger is due to new laws the government passed to outlaw demonstrations. This, of course, was not mentioned. The intersts of Vlad the impaler were not mentioned either, or how desperately he wants to reel Ukraine back into his orbit, and the pressure Russia has put on Ukraine.

On the FOX side, while they were going on about those 'special interetsts' no mention was made of all the money out of state PACs and ultra right wing billionaires had funneled into the governor's pockets, or that he was seen from the start as the gopher of local billionaire Diane Hendricks, who, while constantly complaining about high local taxes, evidently pays no state taxes herself. There was no mention that the state's deficit, which he said he had to attack union pay and compensation to deal with, was fuelled by tax cuts, primarily for business and higher income earners.

Now I don't want to re-fight the Scott Walker thing. I'm merely pointing out that, like RT, FOX declines to mention things which don't support its agenda and narrative, thus allowing it to sway the ignorant -- which it sees as its job as a propaganda organ for its wealthy masters.

[Argus]

Hey, you're the one going on about how dumb "small government" is......

The advocates of small government generaly are dumb. Their idea of small government is what FOX told them it should be, to slash money for education, slash money for pensions, slash health care, slash spending on NECESSARY societal programs, oh, and cut taxes some more, especially for the rich. This is the narrative FOX is giving out, and this is what the dumb are picking up. Because what this agenda does is harm nearly everyone and help, basically, only those who are already very well-off.

[Argus]

What "government needs to do on behalf of society" is a list whose contents are very subjective.

What private sector can or cannot do well is also highly subject to opinion. The fact that you think the problems in America's healthcare system conclusively prove that private healthcare is unworkable is proof enough that your opinion on this topic is not well founded. Talk about logical fallacy. One instance of something doesn't work well, therefore the whole idea must be fundamentally flawed? Maybe healthcare really is better done by the public sector, maybe not, but pointing at one country where private healthcare has problems as proof that well-done private healthcare is impossible is just plain silly.

I don't think most people would disagree with the services I believe govermnent should provide. Most would probably think it ought to be doing more things than I think it should. However, public health care really is a no-brainer. I am not, of course, an expert in health care. I can observe, however, that of every reasonably advanced, sophisticated society on the planet, only ONE has examined the most efficient means of health care provision, and decided the private sector was the way to go.

Note: I'm not saying there isn't a place for the private sector in health care, just that is' absurdly wasteful of resources to make it principally responsible. I say that as a conservative who cares about efficiency and effectiveness in all things.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Argus

[Bonam]

I can observe, however, that of every reasonably advanced, sophisticated society on the planet, only ONE has examined the most efficient means of health care provision, and decided the private sector was the way to go.

Really? Which one is that? When, exactly, did the US "examine the most efficient means of health care" and decide anything?

[cybercoma]

Note: I'm not saying there isn't a place for the private sector in health care, just that is' absurdly wasteful of resources to make it principally responsible. I say that as a conservative who cares about efficiency and effectiveness in all things.

Our system is a blended system anyway. Universal single-payer healthcare is only public insofar as the public purse pays the costs. Services are privately delivered. Contrast that with the UK, where the services are delivered publicly. Doctors and nurses are government employees. That's not so here.

[Argus]

Really? Which one is that? When, exactly, did the US "examine the most efficient means of health care" and decide anything?

Don't get pedantic, Bonam. No one else has gone private. No one else will. It simply makes no economic sense and is grossly inefficient.

[Argus]

Our system is a blended system anyway. Universal single-payer healthcare is only public insofar as the public purse pays the costs. Services are privately delivered. Contrast that with the UK, where the services are delivered publicly. Doctors and nurses are government employees. That's not so here.

And does that make us better or worse? We are last among OECD countries in health care wait times, and there has been NO improvement.

“We see that we are by far the country that waits the longest for emergency departments and that’s a direct relationship to the fact that we don’t have good access to our primary care providers at different times of the day,” he said.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/canada-ranked-last-among-oecd-countries-in-health-care-wait-times-1.1647061

Edited January 21, 2014 by Argus

[Bonam]

Don't get pedantic, Bonam. No one else has gone private. No one else will. It simply makes no economic sense and is grossly inefficient.

Plenty of European countries have two-tier healthcare systems, with a public system paying for a basic level of care and private money paying for additional care beyond that. The same is true in Canada.

Whenever people talk about "private health care", they bring up the US as if it's the only model for such a thing, with its bloated and corrupt health insurance companies siphoning off hundreds of billions of dollars, its tens of billions of dollars spent on litigation, etc. There are many other ways private health care can be implemented.

The reality is I support a public health care system that provides an acceptable level of care for everyone. I just think your arguments against a private system are very weak and flawed.

[cybercoma]

The problem is not enough family doctors. Emergency Rooms are filling up with people that go for the sniffles. If they would use the proper providers, i.e., clinics, when they don't have a family doctor, this would alleviate some of the problem. More to the point, people who have serious emergencies are cared for first. I've never been in a situation which was truly an emergency and not been taken in right away. Folks are treating the Emergency Rooms as a GP office because they can't get a GP. So how do we solve that problem? We currently have a government-imposed limit on the number of seats in medical schools in Canada. Meanwhile, the population is far outpacing the number of doctors that are graduating and practicing. When people can't get care from a family physician, they fill up the ERs. So when they say people are waiting in emergency rooms, it's primarily because they can't get a family doctor. That's the problem that needs to be solved and it can be if the government hadn't been setting restrictions on the number of students med schools can take.

[bush_cheney2004]

And does that make us better or worse? We are last among OECD countries in health care wait times, and there has been NO improvement.

That's right...Canada came in dead last. I hope FOX reports this "dumb" fact. FOX made Shona Holmes a health care rock star !

[Argus]

Plenty of European countries have two-tier healthcare systems, with a public system paying for a basic level of care and private money paying for additional care beyond that. The same is true in Canada.

I see nothing wrong with those with money accessing better services once the main, government system establishes a basic level of care for all. I like Germany's system, for example. But there has to be a backbone before you can have these other providors.

Whenever people talk about "private health care", they bring up the US as if it's the only model for such a thing,

Because it is. The others have a state health system for all, with people being able to suppliment it. There's nothing to supplement in the US.

[cybercoma]

That's right...Canada came in dead last. I hope FOX reports this "dumb" fact. FOX made Shona Holmes a health care rock star !

The only reason the US didn't score lower is because people don't wait in emergency rooms. They die at home not being able to afford care.

[Argus]

The problem is not enough family doctors. Emergency Rooms are filling up with people that go for the sniffles. If they would use the proper providers, i.e., clinics, when they don't have a family doctor, this would alleviate some of the problem. More to the point, people who have serious emergencies are cared for first. I've never been in a situation which was truly an emergency and not been taken in right away. Folks are treating the Emergency Rooms as a GP office because they can't get a GP. So how do we solve that problem? We currently have a government-imposed limit on the number of seats in medical schools in Canada. Meanwhile, the population is far outpacing the number of doctors that are graduating and practicing. When people can't get care from a family physician, they fill up the ERs. So when they say people are waiting in emergency rooms, it's primarily because they can't get a family doctor. That's the problem that needs to be solved and it can be if the government hadn't been setting restrictions on the number of students med schools can take.

It's not quite that simple. We're not talking about adding another few chairs to the lecture hall. Learning to become a doctor requires hands on experience. They need to be learning in hospitals, then need internships and residencies, and we don't have nearly enough of them. Furthermore, a huge chunk of the ones we have are sold to foreign governments to train their own students who then return home.

[bush_cheney2004]

Whenever people talk about "private health care", they bring up the US as if it's the only model for such a thing, with its bloated and corrupt health insurance companies siphoning off hundreds of billions of dollars, its tens of billions of dollars spent on litigation, etc. There are many other ways private health care can be implemented.

The U.S. is already a mixed payment model, with about 32% publicly paid health insurance (Medicaid, Medicare, VA, state programs, etc.).

[Argus]

The only reason the US didn't score lower is because people don't wait in emergency rooms. They die at home not being able to afford care.

Yes, for all the hundreds of billions extra spent by the US, they managed to come in.... second last.

Now, hands up those who think this report will ever show up on FOX...

Edited January 21, 2014 by Argus

[bush_cheney2004]

The only reason the US didn't score lower is because people don't wait in emergency rooms. They die at home not being able to afford care.

This is off topic, but why does Canada use emergency rooms for primary care, and warehouse seniors in hospitals only to discharge them into the frozen night to cab drivers ? LACK OF RESOURCES....RATIONING...WAIT TIMES.....now confirmed (again) by this OECD ranking.

[Bonam]

Because it is.

So the only things that can exist are those that have already been tried? Seriously dude? Ever hear of innovation? Of coming up with new ideas? There are an infinite number of ways to implement a private healthcare system, and the US is just one possible way.