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

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Peer reviewed links will come shortly.[/quote]

I won’t hold my breath.

What are you talking about here? I’m lost as to what this is addressing.

Where did I say anything to that effect? Really? Stop putting words in my mouth or imagining I said something I didn’t.

The public is, get this, a bunch of individuals. They are one in the same. This is not a collective, we are all individuals that make up a social system in which we live. Curtailing the freedom of one, curtails the freedom of all. Without freedom, we are but slaves.

You are missing my point. Well done.

ummm… Yeah, I certainly can. You may not understand it, but I can. Have you figured out what overhead is yet, and why salary and litigation would effect the costs of healthcare?

No, that isn’t the bottom line, not even close. It is the top line. It is the issue, the problem, not the bottom line. The bottom line is the cause of this situation. Then we move from the bottom line, to the solutions.

This statement is classic lazy thinking.

Where did I say that? Oh right, no where.

No, I gave that list to try and shed light on SOME of the causes for the differences. Please try and follow along here.

Ummm… Read my posts again. I broke down one of your articles in a fairly detailed fashion already, which explains a significant portion of this issue…

You have provided 2 links, of which I addressed already. I’m not seeing this evidence “all around me”…

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
it is Pfizer not Phizer. lol the stock ticker symbol is PFE. lol[/quote]

Thank you, dmaddox, for answering half my question for Zeppelin. I thought Zeppelin may have been talking about Pfizer, but I said to myself, “Surely Zeppelin is not so stupid as to keep bringing up a company whose name he doesn’t even know as an example of anything.”

Now I just need Zeppelin to tell me the meaning of “visa versa.” [/quote]

Please tell me what this has to do with anything?

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Peer reviewed links will come shortly.[/quote]

I won’t hold my breath.

What are you talking about here? I’m lost as to what this is addressing.

Where did I say anything to that effect? Really? Stop putting words in my mouth or imagining I said something I didn’t.

The public is, get this, a bunch of individuals. They are one in the same. This is not a collective, we are all individuals that make up a social system in which we live. Curtailing the freedom of one, curtails the freedom of all. Without freedom, we are but slaves.

You are missing my point. Well done.

ummm… Yeah, I certainly can. You may not understand it, but I can. Have you figured out what overhead is yet, and why salary and litigation would effect the costs of healthcare?

No, that isn’t the bottom line, not even close. It is the top line. It is the issue, the problem, not the bottom line. The bottom line is the cause of this situation. Then we move from the bottom line, to the solutions.

This statement is classic lazy thinking.

Where did I say that? Oh right, no where.

No, I gave that list to try and shed light on SOME of the causes for the differences. Please try and follow along here.

Ummm… Read my posts again. I broke down one of your articles in a fairly detailed fashion already, which explains a significant portion of this issue…

You have provided 2 links, of which I addressed already. I’m not seeing this evidence “all around me”… [/quote]

Yeah the rest of the world (rich industrialized nations included) spend half as much as we do on healthcare and their systems do not cause financial ruin but somehow we are the ones they should model after.

This is classic ideology thinking. Ignore the evidence around you and reach further into fantasyland to prove your point.

I forgot to thank you for helping make my point. You cited reasons as to why market-based system have a much higher admin cost than government run systems. But yet you want to keep these systems around. So tell me again why everyone should not benefit from a Medicare system for all? Was it the government boogeyman fear?

What is your alternative to the current system?

I know what the public is made up of so why should the freedom of a few take precedence over the freedom of the many?

The evidence is the rest of the world and our own government run sectors of healthcare! Why can you not see this? Oh your an ideologue, I forgot.

All you did in your so-called “'breakdown” of the reasons why healthcare may cost so much was help me to prove my point. Thank you!

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

The government by the people should not allow obvious conflicts of interest to be lawful.[/quote]

The government by the people wouldn’t have to have a law in place to do that. A government with less power to regulate and control the population wouldn’t need a law to prevent “conflict of interest” because there wouldn’t be one.

I bolded your go-to talking point that you love to toss around after you ignore factual information presented that counters your position. Well done.

Also, pot meet kettle.

So the government should be allowed to tell the citizens of its country where and who they can or can’t work for?

This is false, first off, and secondly not comparable.

You can drive through red lights all day if you want. You may die, kill someone else, or be fined and lose your privileges, but you are in fact free to do that.

You can’t compare regulations on a privilege to regulation of basic human rights.

Yes, welcome to this thing called liberty. No one said it was easy or safe.

The individual’s liberty is paramount, to everything. It is the trump card, it is the alpha, it is the beginning of any good government system.

No, sorry. You have the RIGHT to work for whomever you damn well please that will hire you. If the hiring company doesn’t hire you due to a perceived conflict of interest, then so be it, happens in private industry all the time. However, the government cannot tell you whom you can or cannot seek to work for.

So basically, because freedom isn’t always “safe” we should strip the citizens of their “freedom” so the can be safe to enjoy not having freedom?

[/quote]
Your not stripping freedom away on balance you make people more free to choose when doing so. Most of the public does not have an informed knowledge of the medical field the way someone who works for Glaxo Kline Smith or the FDA. It is much easier for these folks to take advantage of those who aren’t in the know. To have freedom of choice you must be knowledgeable in the choices you have. How can the public compete and have freedom of choice when those choices have been skewed to favor those who can pull the wool over the publics eyes to make a quick buck. Your position is the antithesis of real freedom. You choose the choice of the few over the choice of the many.

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Your position is the antithesis of real freedom. You choose the choice of the few over the choice of the many.[/quote]

This claim shows your total lack of understanding of freedom. Freedom allows both the many and the few to choose for themselves, so long as their choice doesn’t interfere with the rights of others.

You would prefer a ruler make choices for everyone based on his preferences.

I still can’t make myself believe you are serious when you post.

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Yeah the rest of the world (rich industrialized nations included) spend half as much as we do on healthcare and their systems do not cause financial ruin but somehow we are the ones they should model after. [/quote]

I invite you to open up a newspaper and look for articles on the European Union…

I don’t know why you insist on projecting your own actions on others…

Seeing as I never, not one single time, said that claim was false…

Can you show, with some sort of proof, not your conjecture, that Medicare returns a better benefit to the patient, doctors and society as a whole, than does the private insurance?

And before you ramble on, please note that “benefit” isn’t exclusive to costs to consumer here.

Was it your fear of not having the government control everything?

Can’t offer that without figuring out the reasons the current system is so much more expensive than other countries. You haven’t bothered to explore that conversation because you keep pretending I’m making arguments that I’m not.

Really? Because the freedom of the few is the freedom of the many. You sound like an old time Democrat fighting for Jim Crow right here.

We are all see as equal under the law. So everyone’s freedom is equally paramount.

I do see this… Did you forget some key words in this sentence?

Pot, Kettle

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
it is Pfizer not Phizer. lol the stock ticker symbol is PFE. lol[/quote]

Thank you, dmaddox, for answering half my question for Zeppelin. I thought Zeppelin may have been talking about Pfizer, but I said to myself, “Surely Zeppelin is not so stupid as to keep bringing up a company whose name he doesn’t even know as an example of anything.”

Now I just need Zeppelin to tell me the meaning of “visa versa.” [/quote]

Please tell me what this has to do with anything?
[/quote]

Um…because it was part of your main point?

TROLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

MBA…really?

I still love that littlw gem a few post s up hwere he say one must have a knowledge of the industry to have freedom of choice. Lol. Freedom of choice is enjoyed by idiots and geniuses a like, just because they don’t make a SMART choice does not mean they arent free. It is also you job to examine the choices you want to make

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Your position is the antithesis of real freedom. You choose the choice of the few over the choice of the many.[/quote]

This claim shows your total lack of understanding of freedom. Freedom allows both the many and the few to choose for themselves, so long as their choice doesn’t interfere with the rights of others.

You would prefer a ruler make choices for everyone based on his preferences.

I still can’t make myself believe you are serious when you post. [/quote]

To the contrary, you praise the ability of the few to trample on the rights of the many and call that freedom. Please give everyone consideration not just the choice of the few to work for whom ever they want even though it is a direct conflict of interest.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
I still love that littlw gem a few post s up hwere he say one must have a knowledge of the industry to have freedom of choice. Lol. Freedom of choice is enjoyed by idiots and geniuses a like, just because they don’t make a SMART choice does not mean they arent free. It is also you job to examine the choices you want to make[/quote]

How can one make a smart choice if they have no knowledge of that which is being presented. And the presentation is designed to limit choice.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Yeah the rest of the world (rich industrialized nations included) spend half as much as we do on healthcare and their systems do not cause financial ruin but somehow we are the ones they should model after. [/quote]

I invite you to open up a newspaper and look for articles on the European Union…

I don’t know why you insist on projecting your own actions on others…

Seeing as I never, not one single time, said that claim was false…

Can you show, with some sort of proof, not your conjecture, that Medicare returns a better benefit to the patient, doctors and society as a whole, than does the private insurance?

And before you ramble on, please note that “benefit” isn’t exclusive to costs to consumer here.

Was it your fear of not having the government control everything?

Can’t offer that without figuring out the reasons the current system is so much more expensive than other countries. You haven’t bothered to explore that conversation because you keep pretending I’m making arguments that I’m not.

Really? Because the freedom of the few is the freedom of the many. You sound like an old time Democrat fighting for Jim Crow right here.

We are all see as equal under the law. So everyone’s freedom is equally paramount.

I do see this… Did you forget some key words in this sentence?

Pot, Kettle

[/quote]
Is the European comment a veiled attempt to place some of the blame on it’s financial woes on their government run health-care?

I’m not projecting my own my own actions. I recognize the real time evidence all around the world. It is you who does not.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/In-the-Literature/2002/Oct/Medicare-vs--Private-Insurance--Rhetoric-and-Reality.aspx

You condone the freedom of the few to trample on the freedom of the population as a whole. Bravo, nice philosophy.

If you can see the evidence all around you that government run aspects of healthcare are more efficient than private systems why does the population have to wait until you figure out the reasons why the private system is so inefficient before they can receive the same benefits medicare offers to their audience?

And you are wrong the freedom of the few (revolving door employees) are not the freedoms of the many(public)

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Is the European comment a veiled attempt to place some of the blame on it’s financial woes on their government run health-care?[/quote]

It wasn’t veiled at all. Of course some of the blame falls on government run healthcare. Everything the government does in that situation has blame in cause.

Protip: saying something over and over doesn’t make it true.

[quote]http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/In-the-Literature/2002/Oct/Medicare-vs--Private-Insurance--Rhetoric-and-Reality.aspx
[/quote]

Okay, what does this survey about how happy people are with their insurance mean then? What is this link addressing? What do you content it proves?

The few is the population as a whole. Why do you refuse to understand this. You literally are using the same arguments the Democrats used to institute Jim Crow laws. You can’t just take freedom away from the “few” without taking it from the whole. You need to stop looking at the world as a collective. We aren’t. We are a group of individuals with free will. Taking the free will from one, takes it from everyone.

Because unless we know why the differences are there, how can we know that the costs of the government run solution won’t balloon up to match those of private insurance?

Why are you so afraid of finding out the cause?

You can say this all you want, but it is laughably silly as a stand alone argument. Care to elaborate with any sort of logical progression?

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Is the European comment a veiled attempt to place some of the blame on it’s financial woes on their government run health-care?[/quote]

It wasn’t veiled at all. Of course some of the blame falls on government run healthcare. Everything the government does in that situation has blame in cause.

Protip: saying something over and over doesn’t make it true.

[quote]http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/In-the-Literature/2002/Oct/Medicare-vs--Private-Insurance--Rhetoric-and-Reality.aspx
[/quote]

Okay, what does this survey about how happy people are with their insurance mean then? What is this link addressing? What do you content it proves?

The few is the population as a whole. Why do you refuse to understand this. You literally are using the same arguments the Democrats used to institute Jim Crow laws. You can’t just take freedom away from the “few” without taking it from the whole. You need to stop looking at the world as a collective. We aren’t. We are a group of individuals with free will. Taking the free will from one, takes it from everyone.

Because unless we know why the differences are there, how can we know that the costs of the government run solution won’t balloon up to match those of private insurance?

Why are you so afraid of finding out the cause?

You can say this all you want, but it is laughably silly as a stand alone argument. Care to elaborate with any sort of logical progression?[/quote]
Funny how the countries with the highest taxation and the most government services are the ones least effected.

You can continue to deny that every other country spends at least half as much as we do on healthcare all you want. But the denying of something over and over again does not change the facts.

Why hasn’t the government run healthcare services of other countries blown up like America’s market-based healthcare?

Why are you afraid to admit to the evidence? I know why, because it can call into question your whole economic theory and that is too dangerous to your ego.

Do you deny that knowledge is essential for true freedom?

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Funny how the countries with the highest taxation and the most government services are the ones least effected.[/quote]

Do you have any examples and can you link to a substantive case that proves this as true?

Where did I deny that? I didn’t. You aren’t even arguing with what I write at this point…

Yes, other countries, based on the stats you linked to appear to spend less, per capita on healthcare.

The question is WHY?

I don’t know, that is why I asked all those questions a few page back that you refuse to address in any meaningful way.

Have you figured out why salaries and litigation would increase costs yet?

Good god, just because one course of action works in one area, doesn’t mean it is going to work everywhere. That is assuming that it actually works…

I’m not even doing what you are claiming here. Do you have this thread confused with a different one? WTF are you even talking about?

Seeing as I’m the one looking to find the cause of things, the one actually looking to expand the conversation, to gain knowledge, this seems like a baseless statement coming from the poster who ignores facts and circumstances on a regular basis.

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]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]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]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

Funny how the countries with the highest taxation and the most government services are the ones least effected.[/quote]

Do you have any examples and can you link to a substantive case that proves this as true?

Where did I deny that? I didn’t. You aren’t even arguing with what I write at this point…

Yes, other countries, based on the stats you linked to appear to spend less, per capita on healthcare.

The question is WHY?

I don’t know, that is why I asked all those questions a few page back that you refuse to address in any meaningful way.

Have you figured out why salaries and litigation would increase costs yet?

Good god, just because one course of action works in one area, doesn’t mean it is going to work everywhere. That is assuming that it actually works…

I’m not even doing what you are claiming here. Do you have this thread confused with a different one? WTF are you even talking about?

Seeing as I’m the one looking to find the cause of things, the one actually looking to expand the conversation, to gain knowledge, this seems like a baseless statement coming from the poster who ignores facts and circumstances on a regular basis. [/quote]

Here is a link which shows the refusal of Iceland to cut social spending and bailout the bankers and their economy has recovered.

While you blindly fish for answers while the public has to suffer. It isn’t enough for you that every other country in the world who practices government run healthcare along with segments of the U.S. healthcare spend half as much is not proof enough for you. There are reasons and the overall reason is that market-based solutions don’t work in healthcare, but this is not obvious to you because you are blinded by ideology. It is too difficult for you to admit this despite the evidence so you have to fish for ideas in the hopes of saving your economic theory of markets. Sad but true.

Yes you are denying the evidence as shown by your loyal adherence to “the market”.

I know that government run healthcare costs much less than market-based run systems as shown time and time again by the evidence around me. I do not have to be an expert to tell the difference. I just look at the overwhelming evidence and make a choice. You deny the evidence so you can hold on to your infantile fantasy of the “free market”.

All the reasons you question about why the system is so much more expensive can most likely be attributed to the logical consequence of the system.

[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]Zeppelin795 wrote:
you can hold on to your infantile fantasy [/quote]

Pot meet kettle.

God you are horrid to try and have a fruitful discussion with. Talking points, projection, and lazy thinking is ALL you ever offer in an exchange, outside of random spots of rational thought, which I’m convinced at this point are an accident, you barely even address what someone posts in your response. Let alone stay on the topic of any one of your posts that came before.

I give up… For now. This is hopeless.

I just wish other countries had tried communism before so we could see if it works better… Oh wait.