T Nation

Did Public Television Commit Self-Censorship to Appease Billionaire Funder David Koch?

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
That is why I post here, lol. To debate stuff. I find it fun. [/quote]

It is only a debate when both parties have intelligence. What you are doing is a beat down.[/quote]

If intelligence had anything to do with posting you wouldn’t be allowed here.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
or you don’t understand the meaning of things you read and write…[/quote]

This. He has no original thought. He’ll bring up unrelated points and topics to avoid the issues he is challenged on, and then like as if magic, post a darealnewz.omg video about that very same off topic issue a day later.

He works for them, this is beyond obvious at this point.

Why do I continue to argue with him? Well… That is why I post here, lol. To debate stuff. I find it fun. [/quote]
I provide the Real News info as you will not get this point of view from the corporately owned media. You seem to think you know it all so why do you need to hear another one’s point of view as Faux has already decided what the truth is based on fiction and you follow in lock-step.

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Too bad for you that government run healthcare hasn’t had the same effect as communism… Oh wait!
[/quote]

Your “Oh wait!” implies that government-run healthcare HAS had the same effect as communism. You must be coming around…or you don’t understand the meaning of things you read and write…you surely at least understand that communism includes government-run healthcare, right?[/quote]

Label it whatever you want but the evidence speaks in spite of your knee-jerk reactions. Is Australia communist?

“Universal health insurance does not necessarily mean universal access to health care. In practice, many countries promise universal coverage but ration care or have extremely long waiting lists for treatment. Those countries that have single-payer systems or systems heavily weighted toward government control are the most likely to face waiting lists, rationing, restrictions on the choice of physician, and other barriers to care.”

“Those countries with national health care systems that work better, such as France, the Netherlands and Switzerland, are successful to the degree that they incorporate market mechanisms such as competition, cost-consciousness, market prices, and consumer choice, and eschew centralized government control.”

“While other countries spend considerably less than the U.S. on health care both as a percentage of GDP and per capita…the average annual increase for per capita health spending in European countries was 5.55 percent, only slightly lower than the United States? 6.21 percent. As the Wall Street Journal notes, Europeans face steeper medical bills in the future in their cash-strapped governments. In short, there is no free lunch.”

“While no country with universal coverage is contemplating abandoning a universal system, the broad and growing trend in countries with national health care systems is to move away from centralized government control and to introduce more market oriented features. As Richard Saltman and Josep Figueras of the World Health Organization put it, The presumption of public primacy is being reassessed. Thus, even as the U.S. debates adopting a government-run system, countries with those systems are debating how to make their systems look more like the U.S.”

Horizontal inequity in healthcare access under the universal coverage in Japan; 1986?2007.Authors:Ryo Watanabe
Hideki Hashimoto∗.

Affiliation:Department of Health Economics and Epidemiology Research, The University of Tokyo School of Public Health, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan.

Source:In Social Science & Medicine October 2012 75(8):1372-1378.

Publisher:Elsevier Ltd.

Abstract:Universal coverage of healthcare aims at securing access to appropriate healthcare for all at an affordable cost. Since 1961, Japan?s national health insurance has provided an equal package of benefits including outpatient, inpatient, dental, and pharmaceutical services. Reduced copayment and other welfare programs are available to the elderly. However, social health insurance may not be a panacea to achieve healthcare for all, especially when facing household impoverishment due to economic stagnation. Using time-series cross-sectional data of a nationally representative survey of Japan, we assessed the degree of inequity in healthcare access in terms of the ?equal treatment for equal needs? concept, to identify the impact of changing economic conditions on people?s healthcare access. Concentration indices of actual healthcare use (CM) and standardized health status as a marker of healthcare needs (CN) were obtained. We decomposed CM to identify factors contributing to inequalities in healthcare use. Results showed that horizontal inequities in healthcare access in favor of the rich gradually increased over the period with a widening health gap among the poor. The inequality in favor of the rich was specifically observed among people aged 20?64 years, whereas high horizontal equity was achieved among those aged >65 years. Decomposition of CM also demonstrated that income and health status were major contributors to widening inequality, which implies that changes in household economic conditions and copayment policy during the study period were responsible for the diminished horizontal equity. Our results suggest that the achievement of horizontal equity through universal coverage should be regarded as an ongoing project that requires continuous redesign of contribution and benefit in the nation?s healthcare system…

Document Type:Article.
ISSN:0277-9536.
DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.06.006.
Accession Number:S0277953612004844.
Copyright:Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved…
Database: ScienceDirect.

It appears to me that universal health insurance does not, “level the playing field,” like so many think it does. As the first article points out, nations using a universal system are modifying thier approach to include free market mechanisms to better the system.

This issue reminds me a lot of the China. A governement controlled economy that in recent years/decades has shifted to, gasp, many free market principles. Why do they do this? Because they work…

Quit posting facts and backing it up with truth. It does not fit the crap coming from darealnewz.

On 06/07/13, in this very thread Zep posted the following in response to Aragorn, totally irrelevant to the point of any post before it…

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
As far as hijacking my own thread maybe I should give you an example of the bad news of corporate control over media sources. In the late mid to late 70’s Indonesia invaded East Timor. The U.S. backed Indonesia’s …[/quote]

Then on 06/12/13 posted this thread:

Which is a link to darealnewz.omg who in turn uploaded a youtube video from Democracy Now. (Which is just another arm of the Soros media empire, lulz, wonder if he funds darealnewz.omg http://www.mrc.org/commentary/soros-funded-lefty-media-reach-more-300-million-every-month )

So then we have:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
I provide the Real News info as you will not get this point of view from the corporately owned media. You seem to think you know it all so why do you need to hear another one’s point of view as Faux has already decided what the truth is based on fiction and you follow in lock-step.[/quote]

So no, you don’t provide anything. You link to your pet website to drive up clicks. You don’t not have a single substantive argument that you back up with any external source oother than your pet website.

I don’t watch Fox news, nor do I read their articles other than when linked to them, which isn’t often, but nice try at the logical fallacy. 2 points for almost having enough originality to go beyond stale talking point into Alynski tactic…

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

“Universal health insurance does not necessarily mean universal access to health care. In practice, many countries promise universal coverage but ration care or have extremely long waiting lists for treatment. Those countries that have single-payer systems or systems heavily weighted toward government control are the most likely to face waiting lists, rationing, restrictions on the choice of physician, and other barriers to care.”

“Those countries with national health care systems that work better, such as France, the Netherlands and Switzerland, are successful to the degree that they incorporate market mechanisms such as competition, cost-consciousness, market prices, and consumer choice, and eschew centralized government control.”

“While other countries spend considerably less than the U.S. on health care both as a percentage of GDP and per capita…the average annual increase for per capita health spending in European countries was 5.55 percent, only slightly lower than the United States? 6.21 percent. As the Wall Street Journal notes, Europeans face steeper medical bills in the future in their cash-strapped governments. In short, there is no free lunch.”

[/quote]

lol, get out of here with this. I’ve only been trying to explain this for a couple fo pages now. He will change the subject to either a) Bush 43 b) Wall Street getting rich “off the poor” b) whatever other video is at the top of darealews.omg homepage…

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

“Universal health insurance does not necessarily mean universal access to health care. In practice, many countries promise universal coverage but ration care or have extremely long waiting lists for treatment. Those countries that have single-payer systems or systems heavily weighted toward government control are the most likely to face waiting lists, rationing, restrictions on the choice of physician, and other barriers to care.”

“Those countries with national health care systems that work better, such as France, the Netherlands and Switzerland, are successful to the degree that they incorporate market mechanisms such as competition, cost-consciousness, market prices, and consumer choice, and eschew centralized government control.”

“While other countries spend considerably less than the U.S. on health care both as a percentage of GDP and per capita…the average annual increase for per capita health spending in European countries was 5.55 percent, only slightly lower than the United States? 6.21 percent. As the Wall Street Journal notes, Europeans face steeper medical bills in the future in their cash-strapped governments. In short, there is no free lunch.”

[/quote]

lol, get out of here with this. I’ve only been trying to explain this for a couple fo pages now. He will change the subject to either a) Bush 43 b) Wall Street getting rich “off the poor” b) whatever other video is at the top of darealews.omg homepage…
[/quote]

You forgot deregulation of banks…

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

“Universal health insurance does not necessarily mean universal access to health care. In practice, many countries promise universal coverage but ration care or have extremely long waiting lists for treatment. Those countries that have single-payer systems or systems heavily weighted toward government control are the most likely to face waiting lists, rationing, restrictions on the choice of physician, and other barriers to care.”

“Those countries with national health care systems that work better, such as France, the Netherlands and Switzerland, are successful to the degree that they incorporate market mechanisms such as competition, cost-consciousness, market prices, and consumer choice, and eschew centralized government control.”

“While other countries spend considerably less than the U.S. on health care both as a percentage of GDP and per capita…the average annual increase for per capita health spending in European countries was 5.55 percent, only slightly lower than the United States? 6.21 percent. As the Wall Street Journal notes, Europeans face steeper medical bills in the future in their cash-strapped governments. In short, there is no free lunch.”

“While no country with universal coverage is contemplating abandoning a universal system, the broad and growing trend in countries with national health care systems is to move away from centralized government control and to introduce more market oriented features. As Richard Saltman and Josep Figueras of the World Health Organization put it, The presumption of public primacy is being reassessed. Thus, even as the U.S. debates adopting a government-run system, countries with those systems are debating how to make their systems look more like the U.S.”

Horizontal inequity in healthcare access under the universal coverage in Japan; 1986?2007.Authors:Ryo Watanabe
Hideki Hashimoto∗.

Affiliation:Department of Health Economics and Epidemiology Research, The University of Tokyo School of Public Health, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan.

Source:In Social Science & Medicine October 2012 75(8):1372-1378.

Publisher:Elsevier Ltd.

Abstract:Universal coverage of healthcare aims at securing access to appropriate healthcare for all at an affordable cost. Since 1961, Japan?s national health insurance has provided an equal package of benefits including outpatient, inpatient, dental, and pharmaceutical services. Reduced copayment and other welfare programs are available to the elderly. However, social health insurance may not be a panacea to achieve healthcare for all, especially when facing household impoverishment due to economic stagnation. Using time-series cross-sectional data of a nationally representative survey of Japan, we assessed the degree of inequity in healthcare access in terms of the ?equal treatment for equal needs? concept, to identify the impact of changing economic conditions on people?s healthcare access. Concentration indices of actual healthcare use (CM) and standardized health status as a marker of healthcare needs (CN) were obtained. We decomposed CM to identify factors contributing to inequalities in healthcare use. Results showed that horizontal inequities in healthcare access in favor of the rich gradually increased over the period with a widening health gap among the poor. The inequality in favor of the rich was specifically observed among people aged 20?64 years, whereas high horizontal equity was achieved among those aged >65 years. Decomposition of CM also demonstrated that income and health status were major contributors to widening inequality, which implies that changes in household economic conditions and copayment policy during the study period were responsible for the diminished horizontal equity. Our results suggest that the achievement of horizontal equity through universal coverage should be regarded as an ongoing project that requires continuous redesign of contribution and benefit in the nation?s healthcare system…

Document Type:Article.
ISSN:0277-9536.
DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.06.006.
Accession Number:S0277953612004844.
Copyright:Copyright Ã?© 2012 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved…
Database: ScienceDirect.

It appears to me that universal health insurance does not, “level the playing field,” like so many think it does. As the first article points out, nations using a universal system are modifying thier approach to include free market mechanisms to better the system.

This issue reminds me a lot of the China. A governement controlled economy that in recent years/decades has shifted to, gasp, many free market principles. Why do they do this? Because they work… [/quote]

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-08-23/opinions/36874710_1_government-run-insurance-health-care-medical-insurance

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

“Universal health insurance does not necessarily mean universal access to health care. In practice, many countries promise universal coverage but ration care or have extremely long waiting lists for treatment. Those countries that have single-payer systems or systems heavily weighted toward government control are the most likely to face waiting lists, rationing, restrictions on the choice of physician, and other barriers to care.”

“Those countries with national health care systems that work better, such as France, the Netherlands and Switzerland, are successful to the degree that they incorporate market mechanisms such as competition, cost-consciousness, market prices, and consumer choice, and eschew centralized government control.”

“While other countries spend considerably less than the U.S. on health care both as a percentage of GDP and per capita…the average annual increase for per capita health spending in European countries was 5.55 percent, only slightly lower than the United States? 6.21 percent. As the Wall Street Journal notes, Europeans face steeper medical bills in the future in their cash-strapped governments. In short, there is no free lunch.”

[/quote]

lol, get out of here with this. I’ve only been trying to explain this for a couple fo pages now. He will change the subject to either a) Bush 43 b) Wall Street getting rich “off the poor” b) whatever other video is at the top of darealews.omg homepage…
[/quote]
You have yet to explain the most expensive healthcare system attributes and the failings of this system and why it would not be prudent to follow a system that costs less and doesn’t force people into BK? You have offered questions as a means to deflect the facts.

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Quit posting facts and backing it up with truth. It does not fit the crap coming from darealnewz.[/quote]

This is merely one point of view from a think-tank funded by the rich to come out with conclusions that benefit them.

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

“Universal health insurance does not necessarily mean universal access to health care. In practice, many countries promise universal coverage but ration care or have extremely long waiting lists for treatment. Those countries that have single-payer systems or systems heavily weighted toward government control are the most likely to face waiting lists, rationing, restrictions on the choice of physician, and other barriers to care.”

“Those countries with national health care systems that work better, such as France, the Netherlands and Switzerland, are successful to the degree that they incorporate market mechanisms such as competition, cost-consciousness, market prices, and consumer choice, and eschew centralized government control.”

“While other countries spend considerably less than the U.S. on health care both as a percentage of GDP and per capita…the average annual increase for per capita health spending in European countries was 5.55 percent, only slightly lower than the United States? 6.21 percent. As the Wall Street Journal notes, Europeans face steeper medical bills in the future in their cash-strapped governments. In short, there is no free lunch.”

“While no country with universal coverage is contemplating abandoning a universal system, the broad and growing trend in countries with national health care systems is to move away from centralized government control and to introduce more market oriented features. As Richard Saltman and Josep Figueras of the World Health Organization put it, The presumption of public primacy is being reassessed. Thus, even as the U.S. debates adopting a government-run system, countries with those systems are debating how to make their systems look more like the U.S.”

Horizontal inequity in healthcare access under the universal coverage in Japan; 1986?2007.Authors:Ryo Watanabe
Hideki Hashimoto∗.

Affiliation:Department of Health Economics and Epidemiology Research, The University of Tokyo School of Public Health, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan.

Source:In Social Science & Medicine October 2012 75(8):1372-1378.

Publisher:Elsevier Ltd.

Abstract:Universal coverage of healthcare aims at securing access to appropriate healthcare for all at an affordable cost. Since 1961, Japan?s national health insurance has provided an equal package of benefits including outpatient, inpatient, dental, and pharmaceutical services. Reduced copayment and other welfare programs are available to the elderly. However, social health insurance may not be a panacea to achieve healthcare for all, especially when facing household impoverishment due to economic stagnation. Using time-series cross-sectional data of a nationally representative survey of Japan, we assessed the degree of inequity in healthcare access in terms of the ?equal treatment for equal needs? concept, to identify the impact of changing economic conditions on people?s healthcare access. Concentration indices of actual healthcare use (CM) and standardized health status as a marker of healthcare needs (CN) were obtained. We decomposed CM to identify factors contributing to inequalities in healthcare use. Results showed that horizontal inequities in healthcare access in favor of the rich gradually increased over the period with a widening health gap among the poor. The inequality in favor of the rich was specifically observed among people aged 20?64 years, whereas high horizontal equity was achieved among those aged >65 years. Decomposition of CM also demonstrated that income and health status were major contributors to widening inequality, which implies that changes in household economic conditions and copayment policy during the study period were responsible for the diminished horizontal equity. Our results suggest that the achievement of horizontal equity through universal coverage should be regarded as an ongoing project that requires continuous redesign of contribution and benefit in the nation?s healthcare system…

Document Type:Article.
ISSN:0277-9536.
DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.06.006.
Accession Number:S0277953612004844.
Copyright:Copyright Ã??Ã?© 2012 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved…
Database: ScienceDirect.

It appears to me that universal health insurance does not, “level the playing field,” like so many think it does. As the first article points out, nations using a universal system are modifying thier approach to include free market mechanisms to better the system.

This issue reminds me a lot of the China. A governement controlled economy that in recent years/decades has shifted to, gasp, many free market principles. Why do they do this? Because they work… [/quote]

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-08-23/opinions/36874710_1_government-run-insurance-health-care-medical-insurance
[/quote]

I posted 2 articles. The second, is peer reviewed research, that contradicts several aspects of Reid’s opinion piece.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

“Universal health insurance does not necessarily mean universal access to health care. In practice, many countries promise universal coverage but ration care or have extremely long waiting lists for treatment. Those countries that have single-payer systems or systems heavily weighted toward government control are the most likely to face waiting lists, rationing, restrictions on the choice of physician, and other barriers to care.”

“Those countries with national health care systems that work better, such as France, the Netherlands and Switzerland, are successful to the degree that they incorporate market mechanisms such as competition, cost-consciousness, market prices, and consumer choice, and eschew centralized government control.”

“While other countries spend considerably less than the U.S. on health care both as a percentage of GDP and per capita…the average annual increase for per capita health spending in European countries was 5.55 percent, only slightly lower than the United States? 6.21 percent. As the Wall Street Journal notes, Europeans face steeper medical bills in the future in their cash-strapped governments. In short, there is no free lunch.”

“While no country with universal coverage is contemplating abandoning a universal system, the broad and growing trend in countries with national health care systems is to move away from centralized government control and to introduce more market oriented features. As Richard Saltman and Josep Figueras of the World Health Organization put it, The presumption of public primacy is being reassessed. Thus, even as the U.S. debates adopting a government-run system, countries with those systems are debating how to make their systems look more like the U.S.”

Horizontal inequity in healthcare access under the universal coverage in Japan; 1986?2007.Authors:Ryo Watanabe
Hideki Hashimoto∗.

Affiliation:Department of Health Economics and Epidemiology Research, The University of Tokyo School of Public Health, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan.

Source:In Social Science & Medicine October 2012 75(8):1372-1378.

Publisher:Elsevier Ltd.

Abstract:Universal coverage of healthcare aims at securing access to appropriate healthcare for all at an affordable cost. Since 1961, Japan?s national health insurance has provided an equal package of benefits including outpatient, inpatient, dental, and pharmaceutical services. Reduced copayment and other welfare programs are available to the elderly. However, social health insurance may not be a panacea to achieve healthcare for all, especially when facing household impoverishment due to economic stagnation. Using time-series cross-sectional data of a nationally representative survey of Japan, we assessed the degree of inequity in healthcare access in terms of the ?equal treatment for equal needs? concept, to identify the impact of changing economic conditions on people?s healthcare access. Concentration indices of actual healthcare use (CM) and standardized health status as a marker of healthcare needs (CN) were obtained. We decomposed CM to identify factors contributing to inequalities in healthcare use. Results showed that horizontal inequities in healthcare access in favor of the rich gradually increased over the period with a widening health gap among the poor. The inequality in favor of the rich was specifically observed among people aged 20?64 years, whereas high horizontal equity was achieved among those aged >65 years. Decomposition of CM also demonstrated that income and health status were major contributors to widening inequality, which implies that changes in household economic conditions and copayment policy during the study period were responsible for the diminished horizontal equity. Our results suggest that the achievement of horizontal equity through universal coverage should be regarded as an ongoing project that requires continuous redesign of contribution and benefit in the nation?s healthcare system…

Document Type:Article.
ISSN:0277-9536.
DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.06.006.
Accession Number:S0277953612004844.
Copyright:Copyright Ã???Ã??Ã?© 2012 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved…
Database: ScienceDirect.

It appears to me that universal health insurance does not, “level the playing field,” like so many think it does. As the first article points out, nations using a universal system are modifying thier approach to include free market mechanisms to better the system.

This issue reminds me a lot of the China. A governement controlled economy that in recent years/decades has shifted to, gasp, many free market principles. Why do they do this? Because they work… [/quote]

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-08-23/opinions/36874710_1_government-run-insurance-health-care-medical-insurance
[/quote]

I posted 2 articles. The second, is peer reviewed research, that contradicts several aspects of Reid’s opinion piece. [/quote]
The article you posted does not disprove that we spend twice as much as any other country and that we force record numbers of Americans into BK for healthcare.

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

The article you posted does not disprove that we spend twice as much as any other country and that we force record numbers of Americans into BK for healthcare. [/quote]

Good thing no one, not one single time, argued with those points then.

Back to the original topic of the thread:

I haven’t heard, nor have I been able to find anything in the last week or two on the progress of the Koch’s attempt to buy the LA Times other than a quote from David confirming his interest in acquiring the struggling Tribune Company.

I’d like to know from the resident realnews.org operative why it would be wrong for a family business to purchase another business. This reminds me of the progressive uproar created back when Rush Limbaugh expressed interest in buying a minority interest in an NFL team.

[quote]drunkpig wrote:
Back to the original topic of the thread:

I haven’t heard, nor have I been able to find anything in the last week or two on the progress of the Koch’s attempt to buy the LA Times other than a quote from David confirming his interest in acquiring the struggling Tribune Company.

I’d like to know from the resident realnews.org operative why it would be wrong for a family business to purchase another business. This reminds me of the progressive uproar created back when Rush Limbaugh expressed interest in buying a minority interest in an NFL team. [/quote]

Simple, in this example less competition. The ability to filter the news to benefit themselves.

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]drunkpig wrote:
Back to the original topic of the thread:

I haven’t heard, nor have I been able to find anything in the last week or two on the progress of the Koch’s attempt to buy the LA Times other than a quote from David confirming his interest in acquiring the struggling Tribune Company.

I’d like to know from the resident realnews.org operative why it would be wrong for a family business to purchase another business. This reminds me of the progressive uproar created back when Rush Limbaugh expressed interest in buying a minority interest in an NFL team. [/quote]

Simple, in this example less competition. The ability to filter the news to benefit themselves.[/quote]

The news is already being ‘filtered’ by the current management. there will be the exact same amount of competition with the Koch’s owning Tribune. Everything stays the same except for the names on the doors - and likely the mast head.

How, in your little world, is competition reduced by a mere change of ownership?

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

The article you posted does not disprove that we spend twice as much as any other country and that we force record numbers of Americans into BK for healthcare. [/quote]

Good thing no one, not one single time, argued with those points then. [/quote]

But you do argue a system that has inherent problems needs to be tinkered with. To figure out the problems as to why it is so expensive. It is not enough for you to see the evidence around the world from other industrialized countries who have varying forms of government healthcare spend far less and do not force their public into BK. Nor can you admit to the evidence -in the very country you live in- as to the greater efficiency of government run aspects of healthcare. This evidence isn’t enough for you because you are more concerned with an ideology than the evidence.

So fo you, you need to hold on to your free-market fantasy as everyone else has to suffer. Incorigible fool you are…

[quote]drunkpig wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]drunkpig wrote:
Back to the original topic of the thread:

I haven’t heard, nor have I been able to find anything in the last week or two on the progress of the Koch’s attempt to buy the LA Times other than a quote from David confirming his interest in acquiring the struggling Tribune Company.

I’d like to know from the resident realnews.org operative why it would be wrong for a family business to purchase another business. This reminds me of the progressive uproar created back when Rush Limbaugh expressed interest in buying a minority interest in an NFL team. [/quote]

Simple, in this example less competition. The ability to filter the news to benefit themselves.[/quote]

The news is already being ‘filtered’ by the current management. there will be the exact same amount of competition with the Koch’s owning Tribune. Everything stays the same except for the names on the doors - and likely the mast head.

How, in your little world, is competition reduced by a mere change of ownership? [/quote]

Au contraire fool, in your little world the Koch brothers will be given more control over the media to filter the news to benefit THEM. I agree that the news is filtered which is a direct consequence of corporate control over them. An extremely bad thing for the public as we are consistently told lies to benefit the status quo. The antithesis of freedom.

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
But CB liberals do not need proof. The godking just has to say it and it is true. Zep is wearing a tinfoil hat, and all he hearz is the realnewz and obummerz.

CB your logic is sound.

Zep your logic is tiresome. Give some real world examples and back up your talking points with real evidence. All you have are talking points and nothing else.[/quote]

You accuse me of exactly what your personal Jesus CB does. He makes accusations w/o supporting evidence then chides others who do the same. Hypocritical to say the least.[/quote]

lol, where in this thread did I not back up any claim that could be backed up with links, or obvious logic where obvious logic will do?[/quote]

Can’t remember where you did. Please supply this information. Logic is not a part of your thinking. There is proof all over this page
[/quote]

Wow, obvious troll is obvious.

“I can’t remember where you did what I just accused you of and I’m not going to point it out because I can’t remember or find it but you did should trust me”