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

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Why am I bothering to engage a “person” that calls me ignorant, yet can’t even spell the word correctly?

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

as aside note your argument says nothing about things that really matter, loke healthcare but as long as they have toys comehhow that is okay with you. You are totally nlind to your own ignotance. [/quote]

Did you bother to think about why the costs of Healthcare are so high? And how that is comparable to the facts and circumstances of the development of the compact disc?[/quote]

And my keyboard is broke so you will have to excuse me for the misspellings.

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
I hope that they did. Being a gigantic employer of many technical trades, he is probably one of the biggest contributors to the funding of labor unions, and the libs owe him one big time.

In fact, I don’t understand what so many libs have it out for big businesses. If it weren’t for them their brothers in arms would be a bunch of broke assed motherfuckers on unemployment instead of gainfuly employed dues paying members in good standing.
[/quote]

You’re right. You don’t understand. Big business has the propensity of squashing the labor movement to make themselves more profit. While productivity rises wages do not. If wages rose in conjunction with productivity instead of going to the CEO or major shareholders the mean average household income would be 90k. It is almost 50% less. So tell me why should the workers and/or libs be happy with big business? [/quote]

You ever see a union take over, or what happens to smaller shops when one occurs? (disregarding the fact that even the most desperate unions want nothing to do with small shops)

I guaranfuckingtee you haven’t, or if you did you are to fucking stupid to understand what exactly happens. You would also have a better understanding of the interdependent nature of labor unions.

Keep wandering around your world of wonder Bambi.
[/quote]
Did you ever see the destruction of businesses when Walmart moves into town?[/quote]

Usually I see a bunch of business move in next to the Walmart. So, no. I am sure a couple of mom and pops are affected here and there, but Walmart’s are generally good for the local economy.

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Why am I bothering to engage a “person” that calls me ignorant, yet can’t even spell the word correctly?

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

as aside note your argument says nothing about things that really matter, loke healthcare but as long as they have toys comehhow that is okay with you. You are totally nlind to your own ignotance. [/quote]

Did you bother to think about why the costs of Healthcare are so high? And how that is comparable to the facts and circumstances of the development of the compact disc?[/quote]

And my keyboard is broke so you will have to excuse me for the misspellings.
[/quote]
$15 at Walmart.

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
what I know is that the healthcare costs in the U.S. are twice as high as anywhere else and we are one of the only market based system.

Other countries along with the U.S. ( medicare) spend far less on their healthcare than we do.

There is no comparison in CD playeras and healthcare except that healthcare makes a differnece in someones life and CDs do not. In your mond as long as people have a TV in every room then the economy works. I think health and education are far more important and are things that actually make a difference in proples lives and are both rising in costs. Too bad the wages of Americans are not keeping pace with increased productivity or they might be able to afford such luxuries. But hey the cost of CD players have gone down so that makes a difference, huh?

Yers healthcare does not work in a market-based system like CDs might.
[/quote]

You have to just enjoy watching the rest of us continue to argue with you, right? You can’t be serious about any of this.

Please explain how to implement this great system in which you believe.

The way I see it, it can be implemented in only the following ways:

  1. Healthcare costs can stay the same, but be distributed amongst the entire population each time healthcare is used.
  2. Healthcare costs can stay the same, but the government can determine when healthcare is used, in order to limit expenses.
  3. Healthcare costs can be set by the government at artificially low levels.

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
what I know is that the healthcare costs in the U.S. are twice as high as anywhere else and we are one of the only market based system. [/quote]

Are the populations of the countries the same?
Are the ages of the population the same?
What are the environmental differences between the countries?
IS the level of care the same?
How are wait times?
Are you including broke EU countries?
Are the machines and medicines used in all the countries the same? Are they of the same level of cutting edge technology?
Are the treatment paths the same?
Are life expectancies the same?
How about the national diets, how do they differ?
How much are the doctors paid in each region?
What are the litigation climates in each country like and how do they differ?

Yes there is. You’re just not thinking about it.

Why would the price of a CD player decline, but price of health services continue to rise? What factors in the rising costs are unique to health and human services?

You’ve reduced my point here to a strawman, and I’ve made an argument in a past thread where this would be slightly relevant, but still, you’re setting up a strawman here.

lol, We throw more and more money at teaching our kids the same basic shit every year. You act like education costs are rising in spite of government, when it is quite literally the opposite.

You can repeat this false talking point until you are blue in the face, but the simple fact is, when the increases in productivity are reflected in lower prices for goods and services, well, then they can afford it now can’t they…

[quote]But hey the cost of CD players have gone down so that makes a difference, huh?

[/quote]

Pretty much, yeah. But you arent’ thinking, you’re feeling, so I don’t expect you to see it for what it is.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
I hope that they did. Being a gigantic employer of many technical trades, he is probably one of the biggest contributors to the funding of labor unions, and the libs owe him one big time.

In fact, I don’t understand what so many libs have it out for big businesses. If it weren’t for them their brothers in arms would be a bunch of broke assed motherfuckers on unemployment instead of gainfuly employed dues paying members in good standing.
[/quote]

You’re right. You don’t understand. Big business has the propensity of squashing the labor movement to make themselves more profit. While productivity rises wages do not. If wages rose in conjunction with productivity instead of going to the CEO or major shareholders the mean average household income would be 90k. It is almost 50% less. So tell me why should the workers and/or libs be happy with big business? [/quote]

You ever see a union take over, or what happens to smaller shops when one occurs? (disregarding the fact that even the most desperate unions want nothing to do with small shops)

I guaranfuckingtee you haven’t, or if you did you are to fucking stupid to understand what exactly happens. You would also have a better understanding of the interdependent nature of labor unions.

Keep wandering around your world of wonder Bambi.
[/quote]
Did you ever see the destruction of businesses when Walmart moves into town?[/quote]

Usually I see a bunch of business move in next to the Walmart. So, no. I am sure a couple of mom and pops are affected here and there, but Walmart’s are generally good for the local economy. [/quote]
Walmart is a horrible company. They are union busters and there is a cost to those low prices. Get informed!

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Walmart is a horrible company. [/quote]

Holy shit we agree on something. This is like twice now. :wink:

Although I dont’ dislike them for all the same reasons you do, I do dislike them.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
what I know is that the healthcare costs in the U.S. are twice as high as anywhere else and we are one of the only market based system. [/quote]

Are the populations of the countries the same?
Are the ages of the population the same?
What are the environmental differences between the countries?
IS the level of care the same?
How are wait times?
Are you including broke EU countries?
Are the machines and medicines used in all the countries the same? Are they of the same level of cutting edge technology?
Are the treatment paths the same?
Are life expectancies the same?
How about the national diets, how do they differ?
How much are the doctors paid in each region?
What are the litigation climates in each country like and how do they differ?

Yes there is. You’re just not thinking about it.

Why would the price of a CD player decline, but price of health services continue to rise? What factors in the rising costs are unique to health and human services?

You’ve reduced my point here to a strawman, and I’ve made an argument in a past thread where this would be slightly relevant, but still, you’re setting up a strawman here.

lol, We throw more and more money at teaching our kids the same basic shit every year. You act like education costs are rising in spite of government, when it is quite literally the opposite.

You can repeat this false talking point until you are blue in the face, but the simple fact is, when the increases in productivity are reflected in lower prices for goods and services, well, then they can afford it now can’t they…

[quote]But hey the cost of CD players have gone down so that makes a difference, huh?

[/quote]

Pretty much, yeah. But you arent’ thinking, you’re feeling, so I don’t expect you to see it for what it is. [/quote]
As far as education is concerned the government could pay for it all along with healthcare if we were not engaged in these immoral wars costing us billions of dollars.

Healthcare costs continue to go up as much as they do because Big Pharma and insurance companies run it for their own benefit. Why do other industrialized countries have government run healthcare but pay half as much as we do?

If wages would have risen in tandem with productivity the mean wage for an American worker would be 90k. Do you think the American worker would rather have a wage increase with the rise of productivity or do you think they are more satisfied with the reduction in price of a CD player?

I’m thinking of the non difference a CD player is making in someone’s life vs. healthcare. You are trying to make a point that the reason why healthcare is so expensive probably has to do with government intervention versus the electronics market where the free-market is allowed to rule. However, you don’t answer the question why other rich industrialized countries with single payer healthcare systems pay half as much when their governments control the entire thing. Not to mention the small administrative costs of Medicare vs. private health care. So no the reason why healthcare costs continue to go up astronomically has nothing to do with government.

Are the populations of the countries the same?
Are the ages of the population the same?
What are the environmental differences between the countries?
IS the level of care the same?
How are wait times?
Are you including broke EU countries?
Are the machines and medicines used in all the countries the same? Are they of the same level of cutting edge technology?
Are the treatment paths the same?
Are life expectancies the same?
How about the national diets, how do they differ?
How much are the doctors paid in each region?
What are the litigation climates in each country like and how do they differ?

No populations of the countries are not the same anywhere.
No the U.S. has one of the lowest death rates in terms of age compared to most industrialized countries.
Don’t know the environmental conditions of every country. Are you talking about surrounding environments or natures environment?
No the level of care is better in most industrialized countries as a good deal of Americans can’t afford it.
Wait times? They live longer than we do so what if the wait times are longer at least they get to see a doctor.
No the treatments are mostly better in other countries as they are allowed to treat patients with adult stem cells and we are not because Big Pharma has made the FDA stop this from coming to the market for human treatment as it represents a huge economic threat to them since they can not patent it.
So no the treatment paths are much better in other countries.
Life expectancies are greater.
Infant mortality rates are better.
Don’t know about diets. Overall I would think they are better as other governments won’t allow shit like GMO into their countries or companies like Monsanto to rider rough shod over them. In other countries companies have to prove something is safe before it comes to market,in the U.S. we the people have to prove it’s dangerous. The onus is on the public or government.
Don’t know the pay scale and do not see how that is important.
So litigation makes that much a difference, why?

beans I don’t know why you bother. he started a thread on public tv, and started a market economy/productivity/wage debate but veered to healthcare instead of staying on topic when you replied to him. that was a misdirection on his part. He was expanding the debate to avoid the subject.

Zep, what is the monetary cost of these immoral wars to the US gov’t?

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

As far as education is concerned the government could pay for it all along with healthcare if we were not engaged in these immoral wars costing us billions of dollars.[/quote]

This is so laughably false I don’t even know where to begin.

Most education funding comes from local and state levels, and the “immoral wars” are a blip on the screen when compared to entitlement spending.

Your talking points aren’t going to pass here, nice try though. Unless you can back up your claim here with actual numbers, from a verified source, your in la-la land on this one.

Yes, that is part of the costs, there is no denying that. However, it is just a portion of the issue, see my list of questions as to ascertain where the other sources of the increase in costs lay.

Well, which country are you referring to in comparison to the US?

Show me some numbers and I might be able to take a stab at answering that question. Otherwise it is a pointless ordering of characters on a screen.

Source?

Can’t answer that question without first knowing the figures you are using here aren’t bunk.

But even if your figures are correct, yes, without any costs of living ever going down, you could be paid $90 or $90k a year and it won’t matter. All that matters is the purchasing price of those dollars. So if wages “increased with the rise of productivity” but inflation increased with the rise of wages, it is a net zero gain.

No, you need to talk about healthcare because that is the topic you are being fed talking points about. It is beyond obvious you get your talking points from a particular source, which isn’t updated very often, and your main goal on this forum is to get clicks to darealznewz.omg. I would assume you get paid a small salary that you use to supplement a separate career. I can’t imagine you get paid commission for each unique visit to that site from this forum or the other forums you do the same song and dance on other than this one.

No, that isn’t my point. However, government intervention does play role in the costs of healthcare, it, again, isn’t the only factor to be considered.

My point about the CD player is as follows:

Here we have breaking technology when it came out. As such, when it was new to the consumer market it was expensive. As time passed and newer technology came about and new competition came into the picture the price dropped. Both as a function of production economies of scale, inputs into the manufacturing became cheaper and because without a reduction in price, the market for the product would never expand and revenues would dry up.

Now a CD player will last for quite a while. Can the same thing be said for an MRI machine? I suppose, but there are many, many many many, companies out there not only making the MRI better, but producing new products for the medical field that help save people’s lives. I could list an example out, but it would violate confidentiality agreements I have with clients. So the medical field is in a constant state of improvement, the CD production, no so much.

The other aspect is, there is the market for healthcare, and that is that. There isn’t an option to spread out or make significant changes to the inputs like there is in CD’s. You can’t manufacture a service in a lower cost area and ship it to the customer. The doctors nurses and machines need to be on site.

Do I really need to go on here? Or do most reasonable people get it by now?

How can I answer a question if you provide no source or reasoning beyond “because I said so” on the subject?

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

No populations of the countries are not the same anywhere.
No the U.S. has one of the lowest death rates in terms of age compared to most industrialized countries.[/quote]

So lets stop right here…

Your comparing countries with varying population sizes, ages and levels of general health, yet wondering why the health care costs might be different?

Okay…

lol

Let me check your source for this claim, oh wait, you have none… Nevermind.

Source on the life span assertion?

LOL @ “but they live longer they can wait longer for their basic needs”. Get out with that rational. We aren’t children, stop posting childish BS.

Source for this talking point?

[quote]
Life expectancies are greater.
Infant mortality rates are better.[/quote]

Source?

Your contention is that people can’t take care of themselves, so they need bureaucrats to do it for them?

[quote]
Don’t know the pay scale and do not see how that is important.
So litigation makes that much a difference, why?[/quote]

lol. You don’t understand business one bit do you? Do yourself a favor, talk to someone who does and has the patience to explain it to you. You want to specifically ask about this little thing called “overhead”. Then come back and laugh at how silly this comment is.

Best of luck.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
beans I don’t know why you bother. he started a thread on public tv, and started a market economy/productivity/wage debate but veered to healthcare instead of staying on topic when you replied to him. that was a misdirection on his part. He was expanding the debate to avoid the subject.
[/quote]

Eh, he has a limited amount of talking points to work with. I don’t hold it against him. The place he gets them must not run updates very often.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
beans I don’t know why you bother. he started a thread on public tv, and started a market economy/productivity/wage debate but veered to healthcare instead of staying on topic when you replied to him. that was a misdirection on his part. He was expanding the debate to avoid the subject.

Zep, what is the monetary cost of these immoral wars to the US gov’t?[/quote]

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 leader and the defense contractors made millions possibly billions off of selling war machinery to Indonesia. They invaded and other countries newspapers called the level of violence genocide. Not barely a peep out of U.S. news sources of the violence. Only from other countries who weren’t making a buck off the death of the East Timorese. In fact the news coverage went down to zero when the violence reached it’s pinnacle. However, U.S. news sources commented tremendously on the Pol Pot massacre because it didn’t serve their purposes. So here we have a paired example of accepted an non-accepted genocides. Do you think it’s acceptable for American defense contractors to make money off the deaths of innocent people?

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
beans I don’t know why you bother. he started a thread on public tv, and started a market economy/productivity/wage debate but veered to healthcare instead of staying on topic when you replied to him. that was a misdirection on his part. He was expanding the debate to avoid the subject.
[/quote]

Eh, he has a limited amount of talking points to work with. I don’t hold it against him. The place he gets them must not run updates very often. [/quote]

Your debate technique is hypocritical to say the least. You chide others for not citing news sources but do not provide them yourself. Indeed.

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
beans I don’t know why you bother. he started a thread on public tv, and started a market economy/productivity/wage debate but veered to healthcare instead of staying on topic when you replied to him. that was a misdirection on his part. He was expanding the debate to avoid the subject.
[/quote]

Eh, he has a limited amount of talking points to work with. I don’t hold it against him. The place he gets them must not run updates very often. [/quote]

Your debate technique is hypocritical to say the least. You chide others for not citing news sources but do not provide them yourself. Indeed.
[/quote]

A broken record you are.

Seeing as I sourced my first post in this thread, and have just been waiting for you to follow suit, I’d say I’m in the clear here.

Avoiding fail on your part homie.

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Your debate technique is hypocritical to say the least. You chide others for not citing news sources but do not provide them yourself. Indeed.
[/quote]

For what should he be citing sources? He is asking you to cite sources because you are stating things as fact that seem to be opinion.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

No populations of the countries are not the same anywhere.
No the U.S. has one of the lowest death rates in terms of age compared to most industrialized countries.[/quote]

So lets stop right here…

Your comparing countries with varying population sizes, ages and levels of general health, yet wondering why the health care costs might be different?

Okay…

lol

Let me check your source for this claim, oh wait, you have none… Nevermind.

Source on the life span assertion?

LOL @ “but they live longer they can wait longer for their basic needs”. Get out with that rational. We aren’t children, stop posting childish BS.

Source for this talking point?

[quote]
Life expectancies are greater.
Infant mortality rates are better.[/quote]

Source?

Your contention is that people can’t take care of themselves, so they need bureaucrats to do it for them?

[quote]
Don’t know the pay scale and do not see how that is important.
So litigation makes that much a difference, why?[/quote]

lol. You don’t understand business one bit do you? Do yourself a favor, talk to someone who does and has the patience to explain it to you. You want to specifically ask about this little thing called “overhead”. Then come back and laugh at how silly this comment is.

Best of luck. [/quote]

Sources: http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/06/01/us-healthcare-costs-sb-idUSTRE5504Z320090601

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2011/09/20/medicare-is-more-efficient-than-private-insurance/

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/medicare-versus-insurers/

Not even sure why I bother to list sources as it doesn’t matter to you unless they are countingbeans approved. Evidence means nothing to you as you need to mold the truth to fit your ideology.

Why is Medicare so much less expensive than private pay for fee services you covet so much? It exists in this country where the population, environment and diets are the same. So your argument holds no water. And do you really think those who get Medicare would love to switch to the private healthcare? You know they do have that option. Funny how no one wants the supreme benefits of the market-based U.S. healthcare system that you tout so much in your replies.

No my contention is that government has some responsibilities and for them to demand that corporations prove their services or products are safe for sale and profit is the right thing to do. Not the other way around like you feel.

Try The Stem Cell Institute in Panama. So Panama has a more advanced medical field than the U.S. Why?

Your questions of why healthcare in the U.S. is higher doesn’t hold water. Are you telling me these are the reasons why we spend twice as much as every other country in the world? Is the U.S. full of aliens? Are the circumstances that much different to cause this lopsided cost? And what of Medicare? Why aren’t those costs skyrocketing? The folks who receive Medicare live in the same country as those who are bound to the most expensive healthcare system in the world. Why the difference? And I expect everything to be sourced. Not just because you say so…

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Not even sure why I bother to list sources as it doesn’t matter to you unless they are countingbeans approved.[/quote]

Ahhh. You start a new darealznewz.omg thread every other day, pot meet kettle.

Pot meet kettle

Did you read your own link?

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2011/09/20/medicare-is-more-efficient-than-private-insurance/

â?¢According to CMS, for common benefits, Medicare spending rose by an average of 4.3 percent each year between 1997 and 2009, while private insurance premiums grew at a rate of 6.5 percent per year.

Then it goes on to say: the growth rate of all health care expenditures other than Medicare and Medicaid includes not just spending by private insurers, but also government programs and out-of-pocket costs paid by the uninsured.

So, what this means is that the two costs you are comparing aren’t even comparable. You are taking a limited pool, limited operation like Care and Caid and comparing it to a vastly larger, more complex pool of both users and administrators.

Medicare Has Lower Administrative Costs Than Private Plans.

Well no shit. They don’t have to advertise, compete for healthy people to join to cover costs, and don’t have the same regulatory limitations that private insures have. They don’t have to chase down people for payment, process invoices, pay payroll service fees, enroll people on a company by company basis, etc. In short they have significantly less to do.

According to hear about 50m people don’t have health insurance Number of people without health insurance in U.S. climbs - Sep. 13, 2011

(50m = 16.3% of 300m in America)

Add that to the 110 or so on government plan here http://cnsnews.com/news/article/medicaid-and-medicare-enrollees-now-outnumber-full-time-private-sector-workers

That is 160m. There are 300m people in America give or take. That leaves 140m people on private insurance…

So more people, broken up in more complex ways, with more regulation, and you wonder what admin costs are higher? lol

â?¢In most local markets, providers have monopoly power

This is due to government regulation. So ah… Can’t blame the insurance company for that.

Holds plenty of water. Nice try here though, mixing and matching my statements trying to catch shit sticking to the wall.

I assume you mean retirees here. I would assume cash flow has plenty to do with this choice. And seeing as they paid for it their entire working life, why should they switch? Medicare is also less complicated because they aren’t subject to the same regulation private insurers are, so there is that too…

Based on your powers of reason, please stop assuming you have any idea how I feel. You don’t even assume right when I spell it out in plain English.

Why is it the government’s responsibility to do this? Why can’t the citizens organize and do it themselves?

I’m not doing your research for you. This isn’t a source.