The Glenn Beck Boycott Gaining Traction - FOX News Losing Money

danarhea said:

FOX News has just taken out an ad in the Washington Post:

Guess who is not in the picture. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Omfgs look at the similarities!



http://einestages.spiegel.de/hund-i..._image_document_large_featured_borderless.jpg

for some reason it aint coming up

PeteEU said:

Omfgs look at the similarities!

http://einestages.spiegel.de/hund-i..._image_document_large_featured_borderless.jpg

for some reason it aint coming up

Click to expand...

OMG! Another reference to FOX and Nazi Germany! Liberals are just getting smarter and smarter. :roll:

K-1 said:

OMG! Another reference to FOX and Nazi Germany! Liberals are just getting smarter and smarter. :roll:

Click to expand...

Who said that?

Boo Radley said:

Doesn't matter what I would do. The point is the government didn't just jump up and take the company from them, heck the government doesn't own or run the company now. GM asked for money, and the government siad yes on conditions, which not unusual.

Again, while I agree the government should not have bailed out GM or anyone else, the fact is that too has consequences that a large number of people would not like. It would be very painful to people outside GM. And politicians would feel the heat from that as well. As I keep saying, there really is a disconnect with the people here.

Click to expand...

There are always consequences for poor behavior unless you are a liberal and then you can blame someone else. Failure is an option in the real world and most likely will happen no matter how much money you throw at the problem

Conservative said:

There are always consequences for poor behavior unless you are a liberal and then you can blame someone else. Failure is an option in the real world and most likely will happen no matter how much money you throw at the problem

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but that's just hyperbolic stereotype generalization #47. What you write above in no way addresses anything I typed.

Boo Radley said:

I'm sorry, but that's just hyperbolic stereotype generalization #47. What you write above in no way addresses anything I typed.

Click to expand...

Of course you are sorry, sorry that the example of govt. spending on social programs, i.e. never achieve their desired goal and costs more than predicted. We have Medicare, we have Medicaid yet we need another entitlement program like this healthcare bill. Forcing people to buy healthcare is unconstitutional and the liberals know that thus they enacted the opt out ability. People opting out of the healthcare program is what is going to happen, you know it and I know it. I am the only one pointing that out.

Conservative said:

Of course you are sorry, sorry that the example of govt. spending on social programs, i.e. never achieve their desired goal and costs more than predicted. We have Medicare, we have Medicaid yet we need another entitlement program like this healthcare bill. Forcing people to buy healthcare is unconstitutional and the liberals know that thus they enacted the opt out ability. People opting out of the healthcare program is what is going to happen, you know it and I know it. I am the only one pointing that out.

Click to expand...

You're not giving an example, but making a generalization.

Boo Radley said:

You're not giving an example, but making a generalization.

Click to expand...

Did you read the post that showed the history of Medicare? Didn't think so. Suggest you educate yourself and get the facts, you know facts that are verifiable with actual results?

Conservative said:

Did you read the post that showed the history of Medicare? Didn't think so. Suggest you educate yourself and get the facts, you know facts that are verifiable with actual results?

Click to expand...

Yep, and I've addressed that with you many, many time already. This is the terrible program no one wants to give up. I remember.

But, you're still making a generalization and little more.

Boo Radley said:

Yep, and I've addressed that with you many, many time already. This is the terrible program no one wants to give up. I remember.

But, you're still making a generalization and little more.

Click to expand...

Your argument is the true definition of insanity, do the same thing over and over again and expect different results. Cover more people, allow an opt out and reduce costs? :rofl Do you realize how foolish that sounds?

Conservative said:

Your argument is the true definition of insanity, do the same thing over and over again and expect different results. Cover more people, allow an opt out and reduce costs? :rofl Do you realize how foolish that sounds?

Click to expand...

I don't expect different results. I fully expect people won't want to go backwards just as they have before.

Boo Radley said:

I don't expect different results. I fully expect people won't want to go backwards just as they have before.

Click to expand...

When over 90% of the people in this country have private insurance I don't call that going backwards. Our healthcare system needs improvement but there is no evidence that the Federal Govt. improves anything as there is no incentive to do so. Keep people dependent is what they do best.

Conservative said:

When over 90% of the people in this country have private insurance I don't call that going backwards. Our healthcare system needs improvement but there is no evidence that the Federal Govt. improves anything as there is no incentive to do so. Keep people dependent is what they do best.

Click to expand...

Not sure where you get 90%.

At least 15.3% of the population is completely uninsured,[1][2][3] and a substantial additional portion of the population (35%) is "underinsured", or not able to cover the costs of their medical needs.[4][5]

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States]Health care in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

The percentage of the nation’s population without health insurance coverage remained unchanged, at 15.7 percent in 2004
US Census Press Releases

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- As congressional lawmakers debate healthcare reform legislation, partly aimed at expanding coverage to the uninsured, Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index data for June reveal that 16.0% of American adults are currently without health insurance.

About One in Six U.S. Adults Are Without Health Insurance

Boo Radley;1058728240]Not sure where you get 90%.

At least 15.3% of the population is completely uninsured,[1][2][3] and a substantial additional portion of the population (35%) is "underinsured", or not able to cover the costs of their medical needs.[4][5]

Click to expand...

Health care in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The percentage of the nation’s population without health insurance coverage remained unchanged, at 15.7 percent in 2004
US Census Press Releases

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- As congressional lawmakers debate healthcare reform legislation, partly aimed at expanding coverage to the uninsured, Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index data for June reveal that 16.0% of American adults are currently without health insurance.

About One in Six U.S. Adults Are Without Health Insurance

Click to expand...

ok, let's say that is 15% and we have been over that before, how many of those 15% can afford insurance but CHOOSE not to buy insurance. How many times do we have to go over this. the true number of uninsured who cannot afford insurance is around 10 million people according to the U.S. Census. That is who we should focus on and we don't need this monstrosity to handle those people. Every liberal feel good program means well but always costs more than intended, does less than intended, never solves a problem, and never goes away. That is reality.

Conservative said:

ok, let's say that is 15% and we have been over that before, how many of those 15% can afford insurance but CHOOSE not to buy insurance. How many times do we have to go over this. the true number of uninsured who cannot afford insurance is around 10 million people according to the U.S. Census. That is who we should focus on and we don't need this monstrosity to handle those people. Every liberal feel good program means well but always costs more than intended, does less than intended, never solves a problem, and never goes away. That is reality.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter, as the new law makes them accept personal responsibility. Those who are uninsured run up the costs and we pay for them.

And the true number is a little larger than that.

So the number of Americans without insurance is actually closer to 36 million.

(snip)

Getting back to Obama's statement, he said, "Nearly 46 million Americans don't have health insurance coverage today." That is the most recent number for the U.S. Census available, but he messes it up in one way that would tend to overcount the uninsured and in another way that would tend to undercount them.

It's an overcount because it counts noncitizens. Take out the 9.7 million noncitizens and the actual number is closer to 36 million.

It's an undercount because it's old data from when the economy was doing much better, and it was for people who were uninsured for a whole year. If you wanted to look at numbers just for "today," the number would likely be higher, but by how much we can't say. (The Department of Health and Human Services survey found that there were 57.7 million uninsured at some point during the first half of 2008, but we couldn't find a breakout for noncitizens.)

PolitiFact | Number of those without health insurance about 46 million

Boo Radley;1058728303]It doesn't matter, as the new law makes them accept personal responsibility. Those who are uninsured run up the costs and we pay for them.

Click to expand...

Who determines personal responsibility, you, the govt? You just don't get it and never will. Personal responsibility belongs to the individual, not the govt. If someone can afford insurance but CHOOSE not to buy it and has medical bills, go after them. Nothing in this bill addresses that

And the true number is a little larger than that.

Click to expand...

So the number of Americans without insurance is actually closer to 36 million


Getting back to Obama's statement, he said, "Nearly 46 million Americans don't have health insurance coverage today." That is the most recent number for the U.S. Census available, but he messes it up in one way that would tend to overcount the uninsured and in another way that would tend to undercount them.

It's an overcount because it counts noncitizens. Take out the 9.7 million noncitizens and the actual number is closer to 36 million.

It's an undercount because it's old data from when the economy was doing much better, and it was for people who were uninsured for a whole year. If you wanted to look at numbers just for "today," the number would likely be higher, but by how much we can't say. (The Department of Health and Human Services survey found that there were 57.7 million uninsured at some point during the first half of 2008, but we couldn't find a breakout for noncitizens.)

PolitiFact | Number of those without health insurance about 46 million[/url

Click to expand...

Regardless of the number no one has addressed the actual number of people that can afford insurance but choose not to purchase it and you haven't addressed that either

If you don't have insurance, and you need medical care, and you could afford insurance but not the care, you're not being responsible. This is fairly easy to understand.

And we'll find out who can afford insurance once they start having to buy it. :lol:

Boo Radley said:

If you don't have insurance, and you need medical care, and you could afford insurance but not the care, you're not being responsible. This is fairly easy to understand.

And we'll find out who can afford insurance once they start having to buy it. :lol:

Click to expand...

And what happens IF you are wrong? MA has had its costs rise and healthcare has not improved there. You seem very willing to spend taxpayer money on a program that doesn't go into affect for years that you claim will lower costs. If it doesn't then what?

Conservative said:

And what happens IF you are wrong? MA has had its costs rise and healthcare has not improved there. You seem very willing to spend taxpayer money on a program that doesn't go into affect for years that you claim will lower costs. If it doesn't then what?

Click to expand...

Again, tax payers are paying now, before reform, and it doesn't seem to bother you. And this is not exactly like MA's plan. We are also free to make improvements as it moves along. But doing nothing simply means you keep paying for others with no desire to stop. I find that odd.

Boo Radley said:

Again, tax payers are paying now, before reform, and it doesn't seem to bother you. And this is not exactly like MA's plan. We are also free to make improvements as it moves along. But doing nothing simply means you keep paying for others with no desire to stop. I find that odd.

Click to expand...

Yes, taxpayers are paying now but no where near the cost of this healthcare program but I digress. We can do better than this by closing the borders, allowing for competition across state lines, eliminate meaningless law suits. Nothing in this addresses those problems thus we will continue to pay for illegals, continue to pay for law suits in premiums and now we will pay higher premiums as people opt out leaving the risk pool polluted with high risk individuals.

Logic and common sense seem to escape you.

Conservative said:

Yes, taxpayers are paying now but no where near the cost of this healthcare program but I digress. We can do better than this by closing the borders, allowing for competition across state lines, eliminate meaningless law suits. Nothing in this addresses those problems thus we will continue to pay for illegals, continue to pay for law suits in premiums and now we will pay higher premiums as people opt out leaving the risk pool polluted with high risk individuals.

Logic and common sense seem to escape you.

Click to expand...

How would you know? few see what their employers are paying for them, and how that effects employment and other cost concerns. We don't really have anyone measuring what hospitals pay and how much they mark up. Premiums have risen consistently, all while reducing actual coverage on the whole. Hard to argue we know the new program will be worse.

And no one will close the boarder. We'll stomp our feet, yell, hate, and be upset, but neither party will do this. You might ask yourself why.

Boo Radley said:

How would you know? few see what their employers are paying for them, and how that effects employment and other cost concerns. We don't really have anyone measuring what hospitals pay and how much they mark up. Premiums have risen consistently, all while reducing actual coverage on the whole. Hard to argue we know the new program will be worse.

And no one will close the boarder. We'll stomp our feet, yell, hate, and be upset, but neither party will do this. You might ask yourself why.

Click to expand...

I know why the borders will not be closed, political. Politicians are more interested in keeping their jobs than doing their jobs. That is exactly what happened here as politicians used the issue to appeal to people like you and you bought their rhetoric while ignoring the content of the message. There is nothing in this bill that lowers what companies pay and in fact will drive up costs to companies. My healthcare premiums are going to go up because of this bill as will yours. People opting out leave more in the system with serious health issues affecting the risk pool.

You and others continue to demonize private business yet ignore the real culprit, an out of control govt. that now has exceeded 3.8 trillion dollars in size this year and still growing. There is no example of the govt. ever doing anything less costly and more effeciently than private business. You know it and I know it but the difference is I am the only one admitting it.

Conservative said:

I know why the borders will not be closed, political. Politicians are more interested in keeping their jobs than doing their jobs. That is exactly what happened here as politicians used the issue to appeal to people like you and you bought their rhetoric while ignoring the content of the message. There is nothing in this bill that lowers what companies pay and in fact will drive up costs to companies. My healthcare premiums are going to go up because of this bill as will yours. People opting out leave more in the system with serious health issues affecting the risk pool.

You and others continue to demonize private business yet ignore the real culprit, an out of control govt. that now has exceeded 3.8 trillion dollars in size this year and still growing. There is no example of the govt. ever doing anything less costly and more effeciently than private business. You know it and I know it but the difference is I am the only one admitting it.

Click to expand...

I have never demonized business. really, you need to put down the I hate liberals play book and listen to the argument before you.

If more people are covered and able to pay their bills, there will less need for hospitals and others to mark up prices which in turn cause insurance companies to mark up their prices. This could in fact eventually lower costs. Again, not as effectively as a public option or a single payer, but it's a change we don't have if we do nothing.

Boo Radley said:

I have never demonized business. really, you need to put down the I hate liberals play book and listen to the argument before you.

If more people are covered and able to pay their bills, there will less need for hospitals and others to mark up prices which in turn cause insurance companies to mark up their prices. This could in fact eventually lower costs. Again, not as effectively as a public option or a single payer, but it's a change we don't have if we do nothing.

Click to expand...

So there it is, those evil hospital management marking up their prices because of healthcare costs being paid for by the taxpayers? That is total BS, there are a lot that go into hospital costs that would be controlled by a bigger infrastructure and competition, not more demand for the services from a few.

Conservative said:

So there it is, those evil hospital management marking up their prices because of healthcare costs being paid for by the taxpayers? That is total BS, there are a lot that go into hospital costs that would be controlled by a bigger infrastructure and competition, not more demand for the services from a few.

Click to expand...

I never said they were evil. You really do need to put that play book down. And they themselves claim they have to mark prices up to cover those who can't pay. It's not a secret.

WASHINGTON — The average U.S. family and their employers paid an extra $1,017 in health care premiums last year to compensate for the uninsured, according to a study to be released Thursday by an advocacy group for health care consumers.

Families USA, which supports expanded health care coverage, found that about 37% of health care costs for people without insurance — or a total of $42.7 billion — went unpaid last year. That cost eventually was shifted to the insured through higher premiums, according to the group.

Study: Insured pay 'hidden tax' for uninsured health care - USATODAY.com

More Than 25 Million Americans Underinsured, Study Finds

More than 25 million Americans with health insurance did not have sufficient coverage for their medical expenses in 2007, according to a study released Tuesday in the journal Health Affairs.

Online NewsHour: Analysis | Underinsured Numbers Increase | June 10, 2008 | PBS

Results
Faster growth in health care costs had greater adverse effects on economic outcomes for industries with larger percentages of workers who had ESI. We found that a 10 percent increase in excess growth in health care costs would have resulted in 120,803 fewer jobs, US$28,022 million in lost gross output, and US$14,082 million in lost value added in 2005. These declines represent 0.17 to 0.18 percent of employment, gross output, and value added in 2005.

Conclusions
Excess growth in health care costs is adversely affecting the economic performance of U.S. industries.

RAND | RAND Health | Employer-Sponsored Insurance, Health Care Cost Growth, and the Economic Performance of U.S. Industries