American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[Don B]

Read'em and weap.

Same Day Cable News Daily Ratings for Thursday, August 1, 2013.
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/201...1-2013/195240/

Ratings up for Fox News, CNN and HLN and down for MSNBC.
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul...tings-20130702

Fox News Crushes MSNBC in Ratings During Zimmerman Trial Verdict.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/danield...rdict-n1641058

Cable News Ratings: Rachel Maddow Sinks With MSNBC, CNN Rebounds, But Fox News Is Still Untouchable.
http://www.ibtimes.com/cable-news-ra...chable-1333745

Q2 2013 Ratings: Fox News #1 for 11 1/2 Years.
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/...-years_b186570

Fox News Wins The George Zimmerman Verdict Ratings Battle.
http://www.businessinsider.com/georg...n-msnbc-2013-7

But wouldn't you rather watch Rachel Maddow than Megan Kelly?

Don B.

[Jackson]

Fox News is #1 in the same way that National Enquirer is #1 in the tabloid sensational gossipy print news. No, feel free to watch Fox, a lot of busty women presenters there, buttons bursting and low cleavage blouses.

Read'em and weap.

Same Day Cable News Daily Ratings for Thursday, August 1, 2013.
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/201...1-2013/195240/

Ratings up for Fox News, CNN and HLN and down for MSNBC.
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul...tings-20130702

Fox News Crushes MSNBC in Ratings During Zimmerman Trial Verdict.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/danield...rdict-n1641058

Cable News Ratings: Rachel Maddow Sinks With MSNBC, CNN Rebounds, But Fox News Is Still Untouchable.
http://www.ibtimes.com/cable-news-ra...chable-1333745

Q2 2013 Ratings: Fox News #1 for 11 1/2 Years.
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/...-years_b186570

Fox News Wins The George Zimmerman Verdict Ratings Battle.
http://www.businessinsider.com/georg...n-msnbc-2013-7

[WorldTravel69]

And these also.

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-...nsumers-2012-6

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...t-costs-lives#

http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/heal...cy/calculator/

WT69. Did you read the link? Yes or no? If not why not? If yes what did you not understand?

What is your source of rebuttal?

Put up or shut up.

Don B.

[Don B]

Fox News is #1 in the same way that National Enquirer is #1 in the tabloid sensational gossipy print news. No, feel free to watch Fox, a lot of busty women presenters there, buttons bursting and low cleavage blouses.

I believe your comparison falls under the category of false alternative.

Don B.

[Rev BS]

Did you even read it? The link is an INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY editorial, not Fox. I ask you before and I'll ask you again, what's wrong with Fox News? Isn't Fox still the #1 rated cable news channel?

Have we reached a point where I need to request a list of approved reading comrade?

Fox News is #1 in the same way that National Enquirer is #1 in the tabloid sensational gossipy print news. No, feel free to watch Fox, a lot of busty women presenters there, buttons bursting and low cleavage blouses.

[Rev BS]

When health care in America started going corporate with the advent of Health Maintenance Organizations, the for-profit business model destroyed private practice in the traditional way. And the community based hospitals also came under more pressure financially. As I remembered it, starting in the 80's, there were a flurry of smaller hospitals closings or mergers. Hospital Administration became a real sought after college major. And so now, even if you love your doctor, you could not go to him as he might not be on your insurance carrier's list.

And thus the death of the private practitioner. No more house calls, no more bartering of payments. As Vegas would say, keep the slots ringing.

[Don B]

Did you even read it? The link is an INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY editorial, not Fox. I ask you before and I'll ask you again, what's wrong with Fox News? Isn't Fox still the #1 rated cable news channel?

Have we reached a point where I need to request a list of approved reading comrade?

WT69. Did you read the link? Yes or no? If not why not? If yes what did you not understand?

What is your source of rebuttal?

Put up or shut up.

Don B.

[Esten]

Esten, the private system was working fine until the mid to late 1960's when the federal government involved itself in healthcare with the advent of Medicare and Medicaid.

At the time we had a three tier healthcare delivery system:

Physician offices and small clinics were the first or primary tier and the least expensive level of care for common problems.

The result of this error was the near total destruction of the first two tiers of medical service delivery, which left only the third tier for delivery of all services which was the most expensive level of care.

Has anyone seen a doctor at a physician office or small clinic in the US?

According to Doppel, they've been pretty much wiped out.

[Punter 127]

http://news.investors.com/politics/0...ting-plans.htm



Did someone say “Affordable Care Act”.

They costs Came in Lower than what was predicted.

What right wing shit are you reading?

FOX!

California is already Set Up!

The States that are using S.S., the most don't Want It.

WFT!

Did you even read it? The link is an INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY editorial, not Fox. I ask you before and I'll ask you again, what's wrong with Fox News? Isn't Fox still the #1 rated cable news channel?

Have we reached a point where I need to request a list of approved reading comrade?

[WorldTravel69]

Here are few laws they are trying to pass in the Worst Congress' History.

[WorldTravel69]

They costs Came in Lower than what was predicted.

What right wing shit are you reading?

FOX!

California is already Set Up!

The States that are using S.S., the most don't Want It.

WFT!

http://news.investors.com/politics/0...ting-plans.htm



Did someone say “Affordable Care Act”.

[Punter 127]

'Cheapest' ObamaCare Plans Aren't So Cheap After All

http://news.investors.com/politics/0...ting-plans.htm



Did someone say “Affordable Care Act”.

[Member #4112]

In healthcare, the private sector has come up short. It leaves tens of millions uninsured because they can't afford health insurance, and shuts out people with pre-existing conditions. Millions of Americans go bankrupt trying to pay their medical bills.

Where is the logic in keeping a system where we wait until people have medical emergencies, and then need costly interventions that cost taxpayers $$$$$.

Esten, you make my point for me in such elegant terms.

Under ObamaCare millions will still be without "affordable" healthcare. Affordable for whom? It is not going to be "affordable" for those younger Americans whose insurance premiums will rise in some cases 300%. How exactly is it the Federal Government's place to decide what is "affordable" or the Federal Government's place to intervene when people place themselves in bankruptcy for failing to adequately prepare. What's next, you spend more than you earn and declare bankruptcy and now it's the Fed's "duty" come rescue you. Every heard the term personal responsibility? Funny I never saw anything in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States or in the Bill of Rights guaranteeing healthcare much less "affordable" healthcare to the populace.

Time for the history lesson AGAIN:

Esten, the private system was working fine until the mid to late 1960's when the federal government involved itself in healthcare with the advent of Medicare and Medicaid.

At the time we had a three tier healthcare delivery system:

Physician offices and small clinics were the first or primary tier and the least expensive level of care for common problems.

Community hospitals and large clinics were the second or secondary tier providing services for more serious injuries require surgery or more advanced treatment or intervention, while not as inexpensive as the first tier still within the budget of most people at the time.

Large hospitals, university hospitals and teaching hospitals were the third or tertiary tier providing the most advance care and at the greatest cost.

Enter the all-knowing, all-seeing federal government, to wit Medicare and Medicaid, ivory tower types decided it was less expensive to provide services in rural settings than more urban settings and discounted payments by these federal systems accordingly. For some strange reason they thought the cost of a syringe, bandage, iodine, and other normal supplies cost less to purchase from the same vendors in an rural setting than an urban setting which was totally false. They were not as all-knowing as his majesty Obama I guess.

The result of this error was the near total destruction of the first two tiers of medical service delivery, which left only the third tier for delivery of all services which was the most expensive level of care.

The federal folks finally figured out they had made an error in reimbursement policy but about 5 years too late.

Esten, it's not the government's responsibility to provide "affordable healthcare" or any healthcare, except for those in the service who the fed directly employs. The fed is the reason we have the problem we have now. It is impossible to provide the level of healthcare the liberals want to every American, not withstanding those who refuse care, at a cost which will not bankrupt the nation.

If you can afford it then you can have it, if you can't you don't. The federal government has no business in healthcare. Time to get back to the thing which built this country - self reliance and personal responsibility. I have no wish to live in the Peoples Republic of American.

[Esten]

The federal government needs to get our of "helping people" and turn it back over to the private sector.

In healthcare, the private sector has come up short. It leaves tens of millions uninsured because they can't afford health insurance, and shuts out people with pre-existing conditions. Millions of Americans go bankrupt trying to pay their medical bills.

Where is the logic in keeping a system where we wait until people have medical emergencies, and then need costly interventions that cost taxpayers $$$$$.

[Don B]

Black Shirt I agree there is plenty of blame to go around but I think the Dems / Liberals get more than half IMHO.

As far as what went wrong, it started when liberals wanted to have the government start taking care of people and removing those functions from the local folks. Of course when they did that they took the money as well as the control and pretty soon the people making the decisions regarding what "needed to be done" and who "needed help" was being made by people with no idea of what was really needed locally.

People at the local level, and I'm not talking about government at the local level, know what is needed better than some politician at the national level looking to fill his pockets, hand out favors and get re-elected.

The federal government needs to get our of "helping people" and turn it back over to the private sector. Term limits would be a great thing was well and a VAST REDUCTION in the federal government agencies as well. We don't need the Dept. Of Energy, Dept. Of Education, and only need a very scaled back version of the EPA just to start.

The era I grew up in we did not lock the doors to our homes when we left to go shopping; if you wanted the keys to the car they were either in the ignition or over the visor; we learned science, math and English in school; if you acted up in school you got paddled and when you got home it was even worse; we respected our elders; the use of curse words (this for Davie) were only spoken by low class people and if used in polite company you could get smacked; and I was fourteen years old before I realized damn yankee was two words. The churches, charities and shelters took care of the indigent and there were not nearly as many as today. We had lazy bums back then not "misunderstood" or "challenged" people. If you did not work there was something wrong with you unless you were old enough to retire. It was very different back then, even Jack Kennedy told the nation "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". Times have changed and not for the better.

Actual today's "Liberals" are not the descendents of the classic liberals of the 19th century but of the Progressives of the early 20th century. They highjacked the term to provide respectability to their bad ideas.

Don B.