ABC shills bHo's health care plan

[CountryBoy]

ABC TURNS PROGRAMMING OVER TO OBAMA; NEWS TO BE ANCHORED FROM INSIDE WHITE HOUSE
Tue Jun 16 2009 08:45:10 ET

On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care -- a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!

Highlights on the agenda:

ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.

The network plans a primetime special -- 'Prescription for America' -- originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.


http://www.drudgereport.com/flashaot.htm

No room for opposing views. :confused: I really don't feel comfortable with the so called unbiased media shilling like this. It's just one step closer to a State Run Media. I'm sure the Socialist/libs have no problem with this, especially only reporting one side of the issue, but it really has my spidey sense tingling, but I'm not suprised, next will be bailouts for newspapers and radio stations.

CB

[Spaf]

Something needs to be done with the health care system. Especially prescription medicine. Proper care is no longer affordable!

The government needs to take it over, the private sector is way too greedy. The correct health care, many times, is only affordable to the rich and richer. This problem remains hidden to the average person, until the real cost is made known, then it's too late.....:(

[OBGibby]

Notwithstanding President Obama's desire to effect health care "reform" - whatever that means these days - nothing substantive will happen. Mark my words, even better, I'll throw in a totally worthless Internet message board bet, that he does not garner the support to do anything.

[CountryBoy]

Something needs to be done with the health care system. Especially prescription medicine. Proper care is no longer affordable!

The government needs to take it over, the private sector is way too greedy. The correct health care, many times, is only affordable to the rich and richer. This problem remains hidden to the average person, until the real cost is made known, then it's too late.....:(

Agree something needs to be done, but we need the views of all sides and the point I was really meaing to get across was the questionable relationship between ABC and bHo in making this endeavor.

As a fellow Fed, I sure don't consider myself rich, but after major surgery about 5 years ago, I was very satified with how my insurance treated me and the costs they covered. Also after watching my mother suffer and eventually die from battling Parkinsons for over 20 years, my dad's Fed CSRS insurance also performed well and I don't consider them rich either. And as he ages, his insurance is still performing to his satisfaction.

I left 2 higher paying jobs, over 25 years ago, because family and job benefits were more important to me than money and it so far has come true. Just leave my bennies alone, because I had the foresight and put in the effort and sacrifice to put myself and family in the position we wanted. The Feds can keep their damn socialistic hands off my money and benefits.

People need to take personal responsibility and as I've said hundreds of times here, those that really need help, we should help.

CB

[2EASY]

Why is the U.S. scared of government health care? I am retired Army. Me and my family get 100% health care at a military medical treatment center for only $486 a year. But of course - I thought it would be free. My recruiter lied to me 30 years ago.

[OBGibby]

Why is the U.S. scared of government health care? I am retired Army. Me and my family get 100% health care at a military medical treatment center for only $486 a year. But of course - I thought it would be free. My recruiter lied to me 30 years ago.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Government health care is not the same concept as military health care. Two completely different concepts. And hopefully, in my opinion, government health care will stay just that, a concept never put into practice.

[2EASY]

I am sorry...I thought the military was part of the government:).

[OBGibby]

I am sorry...I thought the military was part of the government:).

I'm happy to see that sarcasm hasn't died a lonely, painful death as I was previously led to believe. "Government" or "national" health care most often refers to the government dictating cost schedules and treatment prerogatives, but does not control the actual delivery of medical care. The military health care system controls all aspects by paying the "bills" and controlling the delivery of service by their own medical professionals.

[2EASY]

Let's see what happens when the government offers government health insurance. I suspect the average citizen will cancel their private health care insurance and sign on the new government health care insurance. Why? Because my friend - it will be cheaper!!

[tsptalk]

The point of this thread was that ABC is allowing their network be basically taken over to give the democratic agenda on health care, without giving the republicans a chance to do a counterpart.

This would be like Fox (not just Fox News) allowing the Bush administration to have a prime time show on why lower taxes is better for the economy or give a pro-life filibuster, without letting the Dems have their say.

[CountryBoy]

The point of this thread was that ABC is allowing their network be basically taken over to give the democratic agenda on health care, without giving the republicans a chance to do a counterpart.

This would be like Fox (not just Fox News) allowing the Bush administration to have a prime time show on why lower taxes is better for the economy or give a pro-life filibuster, without letting the Dems have their say.

Thank you Tom, :)

CB

[OBGibby]

I'm actually a bit surprised that the Obama Administration didn't choose their favorite cheerleading network - NBC/MSNBC - to showcase their point of view.

[James48843]

I'm happy to see that sarcasm hasn't died a lonely, painful death as I was previously led to believe. "Government" or "national" health care most often refers to the government dictating cost schedules and treatment prerogatives, but does not control the actual delivery of medical care. The military health care system controls all aspects by paying the "bills" and controlling the delivery of service by their own medical professionals.

Gibby- military health care IS "single-payer government health care".

So is VA health care.

In both instances, the doctors are employed BY THE GOVERNMENT.

THEY are the ones dictating medical care.

That's exactly how is works in many, many other developed nation- you pick it- Canada, England, Germany, Norway, France, Egypt, Israel, Brazil, Japan.

You name it- and, in MOST parts of the world, the Doctors are their government's FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, DELIVERING SERVICES TO PATIENTS.

So, do you agree that a single-payer system modeled after the Military's health care system, or VA"s health care system, would improve service, reduce costs, eliminate costly overhead of insurance companies, and deliver better quality care and outcomes, at a lower price?

[Buster]

A question begs to be asked..

These so-called Federal Doctors are employed as GS and/or Core Comp employee's.. no?...so why couldn't they make it in the Private sector, making much more money?:worried:

[James48843]

Buster-

They don't make that much more money in the private sector. That's a myth.
General Practicioners earn, in the private sector, on average, between $132,000 and $153,000 a year gross income in the U.S.

They also work about 60 hours a week, sometimes more.
http://www.collegeboard.com/csearch/majors_careers/profiles/careers/106718.html

http://www.worldsalaries.org/usa.shtml


In the government sector, they can earn comparable salaries, not have to pay incredible malpractice insurance premiums, and work fewer hours, in some cases only 40 hours a week, and make GS=14 to GS-15 pay, plus in some areas, they get bonuses or extra annual leave as incentives.

Go walk over to CAMI, and ask Doc Tilton his opinion. If you've never talked with him, you would be surprised- he's a nice guy, and enjoys his job, and is a lot less stressed than many in private practice.

See:
http://jobview.usajobs.gov/GetJob.aspx?JobID=78807830&JobTitle=Physician+(Primary+Care)&sort=rv&vw=d&brd=3876&ss=0&FedEmp=N&FedPub=Y&q=physician&AVSDM=2009-05-16+12%3a32%3a00
for a typcial general practice doctor in federal service. Pay rate from 95K to 175K. That's comparable, or better, than many private doctors. 40 hour weeks, vacation, and no malpractice insurance bill to pay.

And VA IS quality care.

[Buster]

Thanks Jim..I don't doubt what you are saying...it just seems odd that they don't make more in private sector overall..perhaps it's the specialists that make a better living than GPs that I'm thinking of..I don't know..But I go to CAMI next week for my annual hearing test..I'll check it out.


Next time you come to the Academy..look me up..

[The HalfBreed]

Even the VA bargains the price of Medicine for their use, don't they ? WHY was Bush so 'against' the government getting a better price for those in Medicare ?

National Health care may, or may not be the cure-all. As a Left leaning centrist at heart, several things make me wonder......


WHY don't we use and abide by the SSN Verify (E-Verify) to determine workers actually ARE US Citizens ??? It appears more businesses are against it more and more.......Cheap Labor = Better Bottom Line ???

Will Free Health Care cost me $$$ for NON US Citizens ??? (like it doesn't already...)


Why Illegal immigrants can have children here, who are, in turn, considered US Citizens......


Things that make me go Hmmmmmmm.....


I go to CAMI for Aspirin, only if I have to. :D

[OBGibby]

Gibby- military health care IS "single-payer government health care".

So is VA health care.

In both instances, the doctors are employed BY THE GOVERNMENT.

THEY are the ones dictating medical care.

That's exactly how is works in many, many other developed nation- you pick it- Canada, England, Germany, Norway, France, Egypt, Israel, Brazil, Japan.

You name it- and, in MOST parts of the world, the Doctors are their government's FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, DELIVERING SERVICES TO PATIENTS.

So, do you agree that a single-payer system modeled after the Military's health care system, or VA"s health care system, would improve service, reduce costs, eliminate costly overhead of insurance companies, and deliver better quality care and outcomes, at a lower price?

To answer your question – No, I do not believe that service would improve, nor do I think better quality care would result from heavily government influenced health care, in whatever form that may take via “reform.”
Did some cursory Internet searches and found (via PBS and NPR), contrary to your line above, that in Japan, doctors and almost all hospitals are in the private sector, and are not government employees. In Germany, doctors are in private practice, they are not government employees. In France, most doctors are in private practice. In the Netherlands, majority of doctors are in private practice.

[Buster]

I go to CAMI for Aspirin, only if I have to. :D
You might be wise there HB..Since last week CAMI and their expert medical staff, misdiagnosed a student three times and he ended up driving himself to a Hospital with a ruptured appendix.:suspicious::blink:

[Spaf]

[as a member]

The topic of this thread --> Was the media providing coverage of the Dems health care plan without hearing from the Reps!

The point of this thread was that ABC is allowing their network be basically taken over to give the democratic agenda on health care, without giving the republicans a chance to do a counterpart.

A question is in fairness should we hear from both sides about their health care plans? Or is it ok that ABC be a confederate of the President's health care plan?

What is your reality? Do you agree with more talk, or is it time to walk?

Will more talk just put health care reform futher back.

The Reps had 8 years to come up with a plan.

Could the Reps get their plan into law.

Is time running out on more talk.

Can the Dems get their plan into law.

Will the new plan be bi-partisan.

Questions, questions.......:confused:

[XL-entLady]

I have been paying very close attention to the health care debate for very personal reasons: I'm living on a disability income and my annual co-payments amount to five figures (and a quarter of my net income) each year. I completely understand when I read of people forced into bankruptcy because of no health insurance. And I have had multiple personal experiences with people in the medical profession who were egregiously bad at their jobs. (I've also had lots of experiences with medical experts who helped me enormously.)

I was reading an article recently that compared health care reform to a cicada cycle. It comes around once a decade, makes a lot of noise and then disappears again.

Do I think it's right that one party be given all the say in this subject? No. Do I think one party is going to have all the say in this subject. No. Do I think health care reform can be done at a national level without bipartisan action? No. Do I think that either party can quit arguing with the other party long enough to accomplish that? Sadly, no.

Lady

[Steadygain]

A question begs to be asked..

These so-called Federal Doctors are employed as GS and/or Core Comp employee's.. no?...so why couldn't they make it in the Private sector, making much more money?:worried:

It probably largely depends on the Federal Provider. I would say to a large degree the Foreign Doctors have an easier access to the Federal System and that's probably the underlying reason why they dominate the System; YET in my experience they are every bit as smart and capable of providing excellent care as any doctor I worked with in the Private Sector.

In the Private Sector - it is largely a 'numbers game' that far exceeds 'quality care' and the patient is often more a 'number' generated for income to the Industry. Competition is (and will always be) what drives them the most.

So someone driven to the Medical Field to be a 'good servant' and provide quality care can easily become discontent.

I will include the State System in the Private Sector - though it is largely like the Federal System. In my last few years of working for them the stress to the doctors became more 'the importance of ordering numerous lab studies' to generate income.

Once again - for someone with a heart for people - being under pressure to order needless studies in order to 'take their money' is something you either accept and promote - or you find another job.

In my case 'Money is not everything'. I consider working for the VA as 'a Mission' for the Veterans I serve. The benefits of working here far outweigh anything I've ever had in the Private Sector. Quality Care is rare no matter where you go. Patients seldom find someone who honestly gives them quality time and makes an effort to really connect with them and do all they can on their behalf. For the Veterans I've served over the years this has all the more stood out and so it is very rewarding. Job SECURITY is also a huge issue and being out of the Private Sector competition and having the mindset of providing quality care WITH NO CONCERN about the money your generating for the Industry is far more rewarding.

So I'd say that most of the Doctors working in the Federal System (especially over the longer term) find it more rewarding than the Private Sector. Many of the short term leave for 'more Money' and if Money itself is what drives them then they are better off in the Private Sector. In my situtation the yearly COL increase; the continual step advancements and occasional bonuses have more than matched what the Private Sector provided.

To answer your question – No, I do not believe that service would improve, nor do I think better quality care would result from heavily government influenced health care, in whatever form that may take via “reform.”
Did some cursory Internet searches and found (via PBS and NPR), contrary to your line above, that in Japan, doctors and almost all hospitals are in the private sector, and are not government employees. In Germany, doctors are in private practice, they are not government employees. In France, most doctors are in private practice. In the Netherlands, majority of doctors are in private practice.

I have nothing to do with the overall level of care provided by the VA - or heavily government influenced care. They use generic meds as much as possible and they stive to go with medications that provide the highest quality care at the lower costs. I have always supported that method of treatment and feel to do otherwise is not in the patient's best interest. The Goverment run medical centers are the most 'over seen' medical institutions I've ever dealt with. They are constantly monitoring each other in numerous ways - are inspected on a regular basis by the highest committee of Health Care and their Services are matched against the Private Sector.

The last meeting I attended - we were ranked higher than the Private Sector - and there is always (and forever) a push to raise the bar higher.

I know the orginal purpose of this thread had little (or nothing to do with what I'm saying) - also started this early this morning and came back here and there as time allowed ... so it may look out of place considering the other posts that have occured since I started.

Oh well - PEACE to all

[Steadygain]

I have been paying very close attention to the health care debate for very personal reasons: I'm living on a disability income and my annual co-payments amount to five figures (and a quarter of my net income) each year.

Lady

You have one of the 'rarest' and most complicated conditions throughout the whole human race. There may be 6 to 10 people on the entire planet with this condition.

The Gift - is likely secondary to the injuries you sustained. It also is the basis for figure. I say this only because despite the constant pain; you got a few perks out of it.

I realize the disability income does not make up for pain - especially the 'bad days' - but I am very grateful you do get disability pay. I don't see how you'd get by without it.

Your situation is a lot more difficult than most - because it is so rare but hopefully a treatment will come along that gives you a '2' Max and even some Os and 1s.

[OBGibby]

UPDATE: ABC REFUSES OPPOSITION ADS DURING WHITE HOUSE SPECIAL... (http://www.drudgereport.com/flashaot1.htm)

[Silverbird]

Sigh, back to watching BBC (and sometimes CNN) to get news, I already know what I'm going to hear on most U.S. news networks by which channel I'm looking at. :notrust:

[The HalfBreed]

I find all of this "Concern" about media coverage, and why the coverage is not "Bipartisan" amusing to say the least. FOX news considers themselves bipartisan.....I feel they're as bipartisan as MSNBC is. That being said, it was brought up on a News Show where ideas were split, like 55% Dem/45% Repubs..... The Republican on the talk show was irate because the Dems passed the bill (whatever it was) by a majority vote. The Repub told the talk show host that 55% of the Bill should have been what the Dems wanted, and 45% should've been what the Repubs wanted.

That was a great Idea !!!

Then, the talk show host asked the Repub. WHY didn't he think that way or suggest that solution when the Repubs were 52% and the Dems were 48% under the Bush era.

He looked Stupified.

As well he should. Works Both ways.


and the bHo thing....folks know his middle name, you don't have to ENUNCIATE it. He's president, and he's a US Citizen...get over it already.

[Viva La Migra]

I find all of this "Concern" about media coverage, and why the coverage is not "Bipartisan" amusing to say the least. FOX news considers themselves bipartisan.....I feel they're as bipartisan as MSNBC is. That being said, it was brought up on a News Show where ideas were split, like 55% Dem/45% Repubs..... The Republican on the talk show was irate because the Dems passed the bill (whatever it was) by a majority vote. The Repub told the talk show host that 55% of the Bill should have been what the Dems wanted, and 45% should've been what the Repubs wanted.

That was a great Idea !!!

Then, the talk show host asked the Repub. WHY didn't he think that way or suggest that solution when the Repubs were 52% and the Dems were 48% under the Bush era.

He looked Stupified.

As well he should. Works Both ways.


and the bHo thing....folks know his middle name, you don't have to ENUNCIATE it. He's president, and he's a US Citizen...get over it already.
Gotta disagree with you on the news media thing. ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN are all U.S. versions of TASS (Soviet Union state run media.) Look at how they deal with Sarah Palin and Joe Biden. The State run media continues to hound Palin, but they leave Biden alone, even after he declared himself the first BLACK VICE PRESIDENT!!! Not exactly objective, are they! The only network that has anything closely related to true debates is FOX. I think that's partly why FOX continues to gain viewers and the state run media outlets are losing viewership.

The Democrats have been in control of the House and Senate since before the recession began. I am hopeful that the people will see that the Dems are responsible for this recession and will vote enough of them out to restore the balance of power. Not that I want the Republicans to gain a filibuster proof majority, but I like to see a Congress that has to reach to the other side and do real negotiations and real compromises to get things passed. Too much one sided control is a bad thing!

I'm not sure I understand the middle name issue. The President's name is Barack Hussein Obama. It's no longer taboo to use his middle name, is it? Most people referred to George Walker Bush as W, so I don't see what the problem is. Another example of some folks needing to grow thicker skin, me thinks!

[OBGibby]

...Biden...even after he declared himself the first BLACK VICE PRESIDENT!!!

VIVA LA MIGRA -

Sorry, haven't been able to find any evidence of that. There was a blog (linked to on this MB) wherein Biden supposedly says such a thing; however, the blog was satirical and not fact.

[Viva La Migra]

VIVA LA MIGRA -

Sorry, haven't been able to find any evidence of that. There was a blog (linked to on this MB) wherein Biden supposedly says such a thing; however, the blog was satirical and not fact.
Heard the audio on Fox News the other day. If I get a chance, I'll try to find either audio or video and post it.

[The HalfBreed]

Gotta disagree with you on the news media thing. ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN are all U.S. versions of TASS (Soviet Union state run media.) Look at how they deal with Sarah Palin and Joe Biden. The State run media continues to hound Palin, but they leave Biden alone, even after he declared himself the first BLACK VICE PRESIDENT!!! Not exactly objective, are they! The only network that has anything closely related to true debates is FOX. I think that's partly why FOX continues to gain viewers and the state run media outlets are losing viewership.

The Democrats have been in control of the House and Senate since before the recession began. I am hopeful that the people will see that the Dems are responsible for this recession and will vote enough of them out to restore the balance of power. Not that I want the Republicans to gain a filibuster proof majority, but I like to see a Congress that has to reach to the other side and do real negotiations and real compromises to get things passed. Too much one sided control is a bad thing!

I'm not sure I understand the middle name issue. The President's name is Barack Hussein Obama. It's no longer taboo to use his middle name, is it? Most people referred to George Walker Bush as W, so I don't see what the problem is. Another example of some folks needing to grow thicker skin, me thinks!

I guess one points to what one believes in......apparently, the 4 Trillion debt that Bush ran up (should I call him gWb ?) is meaningless.

Count me out for now......I find it amazing that, regardless of who's in office, it'll always be the dems that are responsible for everything bad.
Well, I beg to differ. Even Died in the wool Repubs admit Bush and the rubberstamping Republican congress of 2000-2006 spent like Drunken Sailors. (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004579)

[Viva La Migra]

I guess one points to what one believes in......apparently, the 4 Trillion debt that Bush ran up (should I call him gWb ?) is meaningless.

Count me out for now......I find it amazing that, regardless of who's in office, it'll always be the dems that are responsible for everything bad.
Well, I beg to differ. Even Died in the wool Repubs admit Bush and the rubberstamping Republican congress of 2000-2006 spent like Drunken Sailors. (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004579)
Hence my comment about not wanting a Republican controlled, filibuster proof Congress.

I equate the Dems being responsible for the recession, because the market tanked after they took over the control of Congress. You are correct that the Republicans spent significant sums of money on the two wars we were fighting while they controlled Congress. I'll grant you that. Haven't the Dems spent about the same amount of money in the last several months in order to seize private corporations and take over the banking industry? Aren't they going to spend much more in order to gather more power for themselves by making the people dependant on the government for their health care?

I'm not going to push this any farther and have you crying to the moderators to suspend me for offending your precious BHO and the Democratic Party. I think I can safely say we can agree to disagree on this one.

[Frixxxx]

I have to get this thread on topic:

1. ABC Network presents United States of America's president, Barack Obama and his views on the Health Care Plan.

2. ABC refuses to air Republican National Party's comments/opinion.

3. Are you a citizen upset?

a. No, Please sit back and watch the show.

b. Yes, Let ABC know that ALL sponsors of the show will be boycotted and that the practice of the network can not be tolerated. Sponsors do less business, sponsors don't advertise on ABC, ABC loses money and gets picked up by a different media outlet.

PRAISE CAPITALISM!!!!!:cool:

[alevin]

Frixx, the will is there to make the contact, question is-how? sign me Ignorant.

[Frixxxx]

Frixx, the will is there to make the contact, question is-how? sign me Ignorant.
Honestly, you would have to go to each sponsor of the show. Which, I'm afraid is not exactly fair, because you would have to watch the show to find out who spnsored it.

Olive Garden recently pulled ads from David Letterman (Palin fiasco), but then later said they didn't.

I have contacted the selectr marketing departments and consumer hotlines to voice my concerns before but really it takes a concerted effort.

www.Consumeraffairs.com (http://www.Consumeraffairs.com)
www.citizen.org (http://www.citizen.org)

These can be great starts for information and courses of action.

FTC is also out there as well.

[OBGibby]

These links from Drudge Report were too good to pass up:

ABC ObamaCare special struggles for viewers; Delivers sickly rating, last place... (http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/06/abcs-white-house-special-struggled-for-viewers.html)

White House Special Turns Into Presidential Filibuster... (http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090625043708.aspx)

ABC: 'President struggled to explain'... (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/HealthCare/story?id=7919991&page=1)


ABC - All Barack Channel