Seven things I've learned from FOX news.

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

Agreed...France has a very good mixed system with excellent results. Few would duplicate what Canada has done, as it has one of the most expensive universal payer health care systems in the world. Fox News hammered this home while fighting Obamacare, and is partially responsible for the U.S. just saying no to single payer despite lobbying to do so.

Edited January 21, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[Shady]

Agreed...France has a very good mixed system with excellent results. Few would duplicate what Canada has done, as it has one of the most expensive universal payer health care systems in the world. Fox News hammered this home while fighting Obamacare, and is partially responsible for the U.S. just saying no to single payer despite lobbying to do so.

Germany also has a very good public/private system. Unfortunately, fanatics in our country prevent us from experiementing with the same type of model.

[bush_cheney2004]

Germany also has a very good public/private system. Unfortunately, fanatics in our country prevent us from experiementing with the same type of model.

Yes, any change would be considered "American Style" healthcare, even when it isn't. Funny part is that even with Fox News doing its thing, the Americans did implement "health care reform". Much harder to do in Canada.

[The_Squid]

Germany also has a very good public/private system. Unfortunately, fanatics in our country prevent us from experiementing with the same type of model.

"Fanatics"? So there were bombings at the parliament buildings when this government tried to introduce legislation about health care? Is that what you mean by "fanatics"? Because I missed that story on the news...

Who has been in government for 8 years?

This government hasn't done a thing to improve healthcare in Canada. It has gotten worse under their management.

Edited January 21, 2014 by The_Squid

[cybercoma]

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.

The government imposed limits on the number of students that can get into med schools. We need to immediately get rid of those limits. The reason we're importing fully-trained doctors (not students) is that the number of graduates we have here are not able to keep up with the demand and population growth. The already limited number of seats going to foreign students may be another problem, but I haven't seen that argument made yet.

[guyser]

Germany also has a very good public/private system. Unfortunately, fanatics in our country prevent us from experiementing with the same type of model.

Both do, I agree with the first part.

The second is woefully ignorant.

Geography/density is our biggest hurdle , one that no other country has to deal with in any magnitude.If you put all of Canada in Ontario , we'd be a bigger country than Germany by double, and 4 times the size of France. We would blow both of their systems out of the water in all likelihood.

Some wonderful changes would have to come tho, like mobile Drs making housecalls to parents w mutliple sick kids along w medicine delivery for prescriptions.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Guyser2

[Guest Derek L]

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.

Back up a minute……..I thought you suggested the majority of FOX viewers were economic rubes being tricked by the “1%”? So why would all these rubes be in favour of cutting government programs that directly “benefit” them?

Now could a “small government” also be an efficient Government and still deliver social programs to those in need?

[Guest Derek L]

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.

I didn't see the interview, but I'll assume it was on Fox & Friends? Not many thought provoking interviews on “morning shows”, be they Good Morning America or Canada AM etc.

With that said:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3085066628001/gov-scott-walker-rates-obamacares-impact-on-wisconsin/

Seems like the interview is covering problems with Obamacare in his State, then his State's surplus and lowering jobless rate.....and then the coming reelection and how the national AFL-CIO is funding his opponent.....My god the propaganda

Edited January 22, 2014 by Derek L

[bush_cheney2004]

I didn't see the interview, but I'll assume it was on Fox & Friends? Not many thought provoking interviews on “morning shows”, ....

I disagree...didn't you notice that skirt ? No wonder Fox News Channel is #1.

[Guest Derek L]

I disagree...didn't you notice that skirt ? No wonder Fox News Channel is #1.

Fair point.....Luckily though, mine at home is of the same calibre, granted an older model year

[Guest Derek L]

Thought I’d add O’Reilly’s Talking Points from yesterday on President Obama’s race remarks in the New Yorker:

http://youtu.be/QQScWLnNxzM

Listen to the biggest face of FOX spout GOP agitprop against the President....

And from tonight's Factor, a Talking Points that ties into this very discussion, on FOX/Cable News versus the legacy network news media:

And his point is made in this very thread, we’re talking about FOX here and not ABC/NBC/CBS, just as the OP of this thread mentions coverage of Benghazi and not Michelle Obama’s 50th birthday....

Edited January 22, 2014 by Derek L

[Shady]

Back up a minute……..I thought you suggested the majority of FOX viewers were economic rubes being tricked by the “1%”? So why would all these rubes be in favour of cutting government programs that directly “benefit” them?

Now could a “small government” also be an efficient Government and still deliver social programs to those in need?

He's got an army of strawmen.

[Argus]

Back up a minute……..I thought you suggested the majority of FOX viewers were economic rubes being tricked by the “1%”? So why would all these rubes be in favour of cutting government programs that directly “benefit” them?

Uhm, because they're economic rubes.

Now could a “small government” also be an efficient Government and still deliver social programs to those in need?

I'm not speaking just about social programs. There are things which societies need doing. The government should do whatever needs doing that can't be done more effectively or efficiently by the private sector. The appropriate size of government would be dicated by what it needs to do. And taxes would be whatever the government needs in order to accomplish those tasks.

Now, there is argument to be made, most specifically about social programs, about which are needed, and whether these are the most efficient, effective means of accomplishing a stated goal, or whether government ought to even be trying to accomplish that goal. Unfortunately, those discussions tend to be ideological rather than baed on which would actually do the job better. In other words, they're complicated.

FOX doesn't like complicated. It's viewers don't like complicated. Poor people are are poor because of their own behaviour, and are leaches. Let's stop giving them so much money so they can 'pull themselves up by their boostraps' tends to be the narrative there. And those that don't pull themselves up by their boostraps are just lazy, so why bother caring about them? It's a stupid narrative but it seems to be effective with a certain portion of the electorate.

Edited January 23, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

Seems like the interview is covering problems with Obamacare in his State, then his State's surplus and lowering jobless rate.....and then the coming reelection and how the national AFL-CIO is funding his opponent.....My god the propaganda

You'll notice he wasn't challenged on a single thing he said, and they brought up these 'special interests' like unions who were attacking him. He said the way they fought these big unions was grass roots support and getting people to donate twenty or thirty dollars on their web site -- no mention of the tens of millions flooding in from out of state billionaires, right? No mention the state's surplus was reached by slashing services to the poor, cutting salaries to the middle class, passing draconian anti-union laws which basically do away with collective bargaining for public servants, and, oh yes, he's going to 'give the money back to the people' which I'm guessing means 90% will go to his wealthy backers.

So yeah, when every story, every interview is like that, then yes, that is propaganda.

[Guest Derek L]

Uhm, because they're economic rubes.

Are they though? Perhaps they understand enough that spending more money then they have isn’t sustainable…..

I'm not speaking just about social programs. There are things which societies need doing. The government should do whatever needs doing that can't be done more effectively or efficiently by the private sector. The appropriate size of government would be dicated by what it needs to do. And taxes would be whatever the government needs in order to accomplish those tasks.

Didn't you just rattle off:

slash money for education, slash money for pensions, slash health care, slash spending on NECESSARY societal programs, oh, and cut taxes some more,

Seems your focus in the above passage was social programs....what percent of US Government spending do these programs make-up? From this chart:

It appears quite a good chunk....

[Guest Derek L]

You'll notice he wasn't challenged on a single thing he said, and they brought up these 'special interests' like unions who were attacking him. He said the way they fought these big unions was grass roots support and getting people to donate twenty or thirty dollars on their web site -- no mention of the tens of millions flooding in from out of state billionaires, right? No mention the state's surplus was reached by slashing services to the poor, cutting salaries to the middle class, passing draconian anti-union laws which basically do away with collective bargaining for public servants, and, oh yes, he's going to 'give the money back to the people' which I'm guessing means 90% will go to his wealthy backers.

So yeah, when every story, every interview is like that, then yes, that is propaganda.

My goodness, a politician highlighting his tenure during a brief fluff interview on a morning show

I take it you've never watched Chris Wallace interview politicians from both the Democrats and Republicans…….Or Bill O’Reilly interview President Obama, all the while, Vice President Dick Cheney refused to go on the show until recently…etc….Pure propaganda he says

[Argus]

My goodness, a politician highlighting his tenure during a brief fluff interview on a morning show

That was, for the most part, the only kind of interviews FOX gives Republicans. It's sort of like the interviews RT gives to Russian politicians. FOX also has a habit of interviewing people, or using them as analyists, without identifying their Republican affiliations.

I think I recall one interview which was a little confrontational. It was with Bohner, after he said unflattering things about some of the Tea Party supporters. FOX clearly didn't like that.

Edited January 23, 2014 by Argus

[Guest Derek L]

That was, for the most part, the only kind of interviews FOX gives Republicans. It's sort of like the interviews RT gives to Russian politicians. FOX also has a habit of interviewing people, or using them as analyists, without identifying their Republican affiliations.

As I've said, you've clearly never seen Chris Wallace......

[Guest Derek L]

As I've said, you've clearly never seen Chris Wallace......

More evidence of FOX being the GOP info machine:

http://youtu.be/gSTxOXnj-4E

[Shady]

As I've said, you've clearly never seen Chris Wallace......

He just regurgitates stuff he assumes and then gets reinforced from his leftwing online sources.

[Shady]

Also when you hear big government statists like the OP talk about slashing spending, they, as usual, have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. Case in point the recent accusation by the mainstream media and by democrats that republicans wanted to cut spending on the food stamp program. When the details and the facts were examined, the republicans agreed to increase funding for the program by 57% over 10 years, instead of the 63% the democrats wanted. So to big government statists like the OP, the mainstream media, and leftwing democrats, a 57% increase in government spending = a slash in spending.

[Bonam]

Also when you hear big government statists like the OP talk about slashing spending, they, as usual, have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. Case in point the recent accusation by the mainstream media and by democrats that republicans wanted to cut spending on the food stamp program. When the details and the facts were examined, the republicans agreed to increase funding for the program by 57% over 10 years, instead of the 63% the democrats wanted. So to big government statists like the OP, the mainstream media, and leftwing democrats, a 57% increase in government spending = a slash in spending.

It's almost always like that. Very often, when people are talking about, for example, a "40% cut in spending", they mean a 40% reduction in the projected increase in spending. So a "40% cut in spending" means the budget of a department will get boosted by 6% instead of 10%.

It's all a result of the effort by both sides to paint everything their opponents do as extreme and radical and nonsensical.

[Argus]

It's almost always like that. Very often, when people are talking about, for example, a "40% cut in spending", they mean a 40% reduction in the projected increase in spending. So a "40% cut in spending" means the budget of a department will get boosted by 6% instead of 10%.

No, in fact, it's virtually never like that, but you guys go on fantasizing.

[Shady]

No, in fact, it's virtually never like that, but you guys go on fantasizing.

No he's right. You're wrong. It's called baseline budgeting. You're still clueless.

[On Guard for Thee]

No he's right. You're wrong. It's called baseline budgeting. You're still clueless.

America contracts out programs such as welfare to companies like Haliburton, talk about clueless!