Monday, October 26, 2009
Media / Politics / Woods As Blackburn Chuckles, Fox Anchor Snaps at Democrat
Posted by Jeff Woods on Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 8:27 AM
Comments (28)
Showing 1-28 of 28
like
dislike
VGE,
Sorry no.
But Jarrett had a legitimate beef.
Congressman Andrews was trying to equate a state mandate for drivers to have auto insurance with a federal mandate for individuals to have health insurance.
Now whatever your position on health care reform, that analogy is simply silly. If one drives without insurance and injures others, you have a responsibility to compensate them for damages. Suggesting that not having health insurance harms others is absurd.
Andrews might have made a comparison to Social Security or Medicare which would have been a better argument but he didn't and he deserved to get slapped down.
Mark: Have you ever considered the cost to the rest of us for those who use ERs for their primary care provider?
Sorry, Mark, you both missed the point and illustrate the point.
As someone who is supposed to be a FAIR and BALANCED moderator of a discussion, Jarrett is not in a position to have a beef with anyone who is attempting to answer the question. Watch how they handle side-by-side interviews with Democrat and Republican guests to see how it's done. Jarrett is supposed to be asking questions and then getting out of the way enough to let each guest make his or her point and respond to each other's points.
This miserable clip was anything but that. Instead of asking Andrews in a neutral way to respond to Blackburn's argument, Jarrett basically served as an interrogator on Blackburn's behalf, posing the question about Article I in an argumentative, prosecutorial way. Then he didn't even have the decency to allow Andrews to answer the question without repeatedly interrupting and talking over him. At the apex of this pitiful spectacle, Jarrett is talking so loudly over his guest that he can't even quite hear everything that Andrews is saying -- so he bellows "Excuse me?!" in the way that you might hear someone respond to someone who has made an outrageous or insulting statement. The contrast to his treatment of Blackburn could not be more stark.
And then of course, when Andrews has the temerity to point out that Jarrett is not living up to his network's marketing slogan, Jarrett acts as though he's been grievously insulted.
This clip out to be shown to all journalism students to illustrate the difference between TV news as a money-making business and TV news as real journalism. If you're out to make money to by appealing to a target audience, this clip shows why Fox has been so successful. If you want to show students what fake journalism looks like, this clip is perfect.
It's also a great illustration of why, if you're not of the Blackburn tribe, it really doesn't make sense to give interviews to Fox, and why Fox's claim that their news division runs entirely differently from their commentary programs rings so hollow.
I meant to say: Watch how they handle side-by-side interviews on the PBS News Hour to see how it's done.
I left that part out and don't know how to go back and edit posts.
As to Mark's argument itself, sueyyy is absolutely right. There is abundant evidence that people who lack insurance drive up costs for everyone -- in the very same manner that uninsured motorists drive up costs. And by the way, a significant number of those who go without insurance are people under age 30 who can afford coverage but voluntarily forego it because they're willing to run the chance they won't be in a serious accident or suffer a devastating illness. When such people are unlucky enough to run into heavy medical costs, we all help pay for their abdication of personal responsibility.
You have to be really living in a bubble of dogma, Mark.
"Mark: Have you ever considered the cost to the rest of us for those who use ERs for their primary care provider?"
And that is not a case of the individual imposing costs on others, it is a case of the government doing so.
It is the federal government that mandates people receive treatment at Hospital ER's regardless of whether they can pay or not.
The federal government never had any Constitutional authority to enact any such law to begin with.
That's right, Big G. If some kid breaks his leg and his parents have no insurance and can't afford to pay the hospital, the ER staff should kick their asses back out on the street. Maybe the kid will be more careful next time. And maybe the parents will get off welfare and get a decent job that provides health insurance, which is what most normal, non-lazy (that leaves out liberals) Americans do.
All Democrats are commies.
"It is the federal government that mandates people receive treatment at Hospital ER's regardless of whether they can pay or not."
So, let's just let them die then. Or let them have their babies out in the street. A wonderful synopsis of modern American right-wing thinking. These are also the people who talk about how Christian and moral they are.
"The federal government never had any Constitutional authority to enact any such law to begin with."
I don't think even Scalia would agree with that statement.
"So, let's just let them die then. Or let them have their babies out in the street."
You are perfectly free to contribute to the healthcare of others all you want to right now, Chris.
It's called charity.
Charity hospitals existed long before any government mandates came around and long before most people had any health insurance.
And when there is a horrific car accident, should the medics be required to hunt through the debri to see if the injured have insurance before they take them to the ER?
Yeah Chris, YOU contribute all you want to some socialistic charity hospital, because me and Big G. sure as hell are not going to! Who needs charity? The poor, the lazy, liberals, socialists and Democrats, that's who! I fail to see a single reason in the whole world why I should care.
Gilbertjr. May what you throw soo freely come back for you to experience freely. God Bless you and yours
Marcia buttburn is just one real sick puppie, amazed how she gets/got voted in office....says a lot about her area.
We will all await Gilbert's detailed list of the people suffering in ERs he has voluntarily paid for over the past decade as a buttress against the rising sludge of decency and humanity; I mean, uh, "socialism".
(Since I've said that, he will now bore the living guts out of us, in reply, with the self-proclaimed highly reasoned and oh so toney reasons it is philosphicaally absurd to be pressed to do so or to describe any such efforts in public. Oh--and add that this is all drivel, or some such veddy fake Britishism, since he's a highly placed intellectual..)
Blackburn reps him very well--although she's still a ninny by comparison.
"Charity hospitals existed long before any government mandates came around and long before most people had any health insurance."
They sure did.
The first of them was in part created by Benjamin Franklin: the Pennsylvania Hospital. For years, in fact, it was the only hospital in the country.
Would is surprise you to know that it was funded partly by private contributions of business leaders AND partly by the state from its general fund? Oddly, it didn't need public funding: Franklin actually generated enough funding to initially open and run the hospital with private donations ONLY but insisted that the legislature participate with matching funds. He believed it to be the civic duty of citizenry to care for the "poor and infirm" through the state.
Philadelphia Hospital operated for years without an accounting department to collect bills, and actually considered people who asked to be billed as a nuisance. Kinda socialist-sounding, huh?
But I guess that Franklin must not have been one of the framers of _your_ Constitution.
Don't take my word for it, read about it:
http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1014.htm
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/paharc/
sueyyyy and Boyd,
"Mark: Have you ever considered the cost to the rest of us for those who use ERs for their primary care provider?"
"As to Mark's argument itself, sueyyy is absolutely right. There is abundant evidence that people who lack insurance drive up costs for everyone -- in the very same manner that uninsured motorists drive up costs.
So the test of the Right of government to regulate behavior is the cost to others? You really want to make that argument?
OK.
We should immediately enact legislation that mandates that women who are on welfare cannot have additional children until they are able to afford them since those children represent major short and long term expenses for others.
Similarly men who have unpaid child support should be mandated to have vasectomies until they are current on their child support since their children are likely to be a burden on othrs who have to provide for them.
We need legislation to require all Americans meet certain health targets and participate in supervised exercise and diet since overeating and lack of exercise will result in health care costs that will be borne by society.
We can make alcohol and tobacco illegal since they serve no positive purpose and lead to higher health costs.
All of these are perfectly consistent with your position on mandating health insurance on the basis of the costs to others. And there are many more things government can regulate, tax or mandate to prevent private behavior from harming others.
Good God, Mark, what a leap!
You argued that it's "absurd" to say that uninsured people drive up the costs for others in the healthcare system. I pointed out that the facts don't bear out your claim; in fact, they flatly contradict it. From this, you somehow extrapolate that I'm making the argument that "the test of the Right of government to regulate behavior is the cost to others." Thanks, but I didn't make that argument. I simply pointed out that your claim was wrong.
I noticed you completely failed to address my other point about the behavior of the Fox News "moderator." I guess you concede that one.
Boyd,
It is absurd because it opens up exactly the examples I used. You reject them because you cannot admit that they are based on exactly the same principle, that government can take action to prevent activities that result in costs to others.
How are they different?
One mother or father of two children whom they cannot raise costs the larger society far more than a dozen uninsured 20 somethings. Seen the stories on the costs to health care of obesity?
Note that I did point out that Andrews could have cited Social Security or Medicare because these are federal mandates. The difference is that SS and Medicare are government-run not a buffet of options like the various health care reform plans propose.
You still don't get it. What I argued was not a matter of principle; it is a matter of fact. You may use facts (the uninsured raise healthcare costs for everyone) to argue principles (all people should be required to have health insurance), but the careful reader will note that I didn't do that. If you can find solid evidence that uninsured people don't increase costs -- and good luck with that -- then come back and we'll talk about that point.
Do obese people who don't exercise and have terrible diets cause healthcare costs to go up? Of course. When did anyone suggest otherwise?
As a debater, you're sounding like a talking head on Fox News, putting words in people's mouths and attacking points that were never made.
It's funny anyone thinking that any of the news channels arent biased. They all pretty much stay on the controled left right debates. So the credit card companies and banks are still robbing us blind. The millitary industrial complex is still moving strong as ever. We'er still in a depression. There will be no real investigations into the Bush administraion. We still have the Patriot Act. We still have all of the unconstitutional executive powers. We still have the NSA spying. Health insurance and big oil still have an oligopoly. AND we the people are still dumbed down sheep...
BBB,
I am simply pointing out that if you use that logic, you end up giving government all manner of power to regulate our lives.
To be sure, Yes, I agree that uninsured people do increase health costs.
So do alcohol, fast food, out-of-wedlock children and children who have parents who don't pay child support.
Why should uninsured people be targeted and not these others?
"So do alcohol, fast food, out-of-wedlock children and children who have parents who don't pay child support.
Why should uninsured people be targeted and not these others?"
Mark, you are comparing apples to oranges. First of all, those others already are targeted. There are sin taxes for alcohol and cigarettes, the government is forcing fast-food outlets to post nutrition (or lack thereof)on their products. Parents who don't pay child support are breaking laws and can run into serious criminal issues. Sure, the government isn't doing anything about out of wedlock children but I'm not sure there is anything that can be done about that. We don't want to encourage abortions, do we?
But the biggest difference between all those that you mentioned and people lacking insurance is the others are personal choices largely. And state and federal government agencies have targeted those for a while now. Many people simply cannot afford insurance. But the people without insurance are doing nothing wrong by simply not having insurance. People smoking and drinking, or eating all their meals at McDonalds, are making unnecessary lifestyle choices.
Chris,
Sin taxes do not deter behavior. Not at current levels. They are designed to raise revenue for general purposes. To make them effective in improving public health you would need to raise those taxes considerbly.
The government could do a great deal to reduce out of wedlock children. And as the concept of what 'harming others' expands, you may well find out what that could include.
Many people choose not to have health insurance. Young people particularly prefer money to coverage. Now if you wanted a health care plan that required medical savings accounts so that the young got a benefit for their health inurance premiums, and had to put something away for future expenses, they might be more amenable.
"Why should uninsured people be targeted and not these others?"
Because the real agenda is to find a new group of suckers to milk for financing a massive new entitlement program for a bunch of other people.
The magnitude of cost shifting due to the uninsured is overstated by the advocates of socialized medicine because they want to use it as an excuse for imposing their scheme on everyone.
Cost shifting from the failed programs of Medicaid and Medicare are more significant factors.
In fact, they canot prove that the particular component of the unisured that is being targeted for milking (the young and healthy who could afford insurance but don't buy it) are imposing any significant costs at all on others.
If the excuse for "reform" were actually preventing cost shifting from those uninsured, then the solution would be to get them signed up for high deductable, low-cost catastrophic care type policies priced on their own indidivual risk profile.
But that is not the goal. The goal is to rope in a new group to help subsidize the massive new entitlement program that makes pie in the sky promises of nobody being denied for pre-existing conditions and everybody paying the same insurance rates regardless of individual risk.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody has to pay and the Democrats are trying to round up a new group of suckers to do just that.
"Many people choose not to have health insurance. Young people particularly prefer money to coverage."
Yes, there are people like that but most without insurance don't because they aren't with an employer who can provide it at reasonable costs (and even those situations are becoming more and more unreasonable) and can't afford it on the open market because there is very little actual competition when it comes to health care. And with costs going up every year, those who prefer money to coverage are becoming rare.
And maybe sin taxes don't deter behavior, I don't know, but the government has targeted those groups. I also think governments should tax them higher. That is how European governments got their populations to stop using petrol, by taxing it at exorbitant rates. But you've got liquor and tobacco lobbies here that are too powerful.
And governments have certainly targeted dead-beat dads.
