Sunday funnies 12-26-10
Recapping a momentous week that heralded both the demise of the 111th Congress and birth of Jesus, here were my top 5 favorite cartoons. The irony of this 1st one by liberal Ted Rall is that President Obama compares much more closely to King Herod in another way (see Matthew 2:16)…
Speaking of the 111th, by Dana Summers at Townhall.com (see GEICO commercial for context)…
Here’s praying the incoming 112th Congress, bolstered by pro-lifers, will begin to undo the damage Obama wrought to the sanctity of human life. By Dana Summers at Townhall.com…
Yet the biased MSM lives on… by Glenn McCoy at Townhall.com… Sure wish there was more “out with the old”…
… and by Chip Bok at Townhall.com…
Dec.26, 2010 9:47 am |
Cartoons |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Love the weekly cartoons. A couple of quick thoughts:
1) I wonder if there is a more tired argument out there then the “msm bias”. On one hand, people say (and the stats show) that not many people get their news from the main stream media. On the other hand, they then argue how biased they are (typically, bias means people simply don’t agree with your conclusions.
Who even is the msm? Fox? MSNBC? ABC news? Drudge Report? Media Matters? Comedy Central?
2) The comeback kid? As the economy betters, quite possibly. First two years, we’ve gotten health care reform, financial reform, a nuclear arms treaty, repeal of don’t ask don’t tell, tax cuts, a massively successful tarp program. Just saving the economy from the brink of collapse was a good enough feat. People can say they didn’t like the change and didn’t like what the last congress did – but they sure got through a heck of a lot of legislation. It will be nice to have a couple of years of gridlock to let some of legislation have the time to work.
Jill, we have a couple hundred years to go before Congress opens its 212th term.
Yet the biased MSM lives on… by Glenn McCoy at Townhall.com…
I am sure it is pure co-incidence that the story line picked up on by all of the major leftist MSM was that Obama was the ”come-back kid” and all of that kind of silliness. There is no doubt about the bias that favors Obama and a person would have to be blind not to notice it.
In a nod to ex: Yes, there are more and more conservative and right leaning news organizations coming on line every day and they are making their mark. Without them would the tea party have succeeded as much as they did? Yet, having said that, they are still a long way off from the dominance that the legacy media has.
Jerry – who is the msm these days though? Also, with so many choices, wouldn’t the only people watching coverage you don’t agree with be in fact, people who don’t agree with you?
I mean, how often have you heard somebody say “I was a liberal, but darn it, the only news available to me was Fox, and now, the bias has reached my brain and I’m a conservative.” I mean, I like news from both sides of the aisle, but I must say, I can’t imagine that a ton of people are being swayed by the media they are watching. If you are a conservative, you watch fox. If you are a liberal, you watch msnbc. Do say that one is biased while not pointing fingers at the other would be about as illogical as it comes.
I’m just saying – who gives a flying rats behind if the mainstream media likes Obama. If you (not you personally Jerry – whoever in general) don’t like Obama, you simply watch other facets of the same mainstream media you personally like. And you have a huge issue with the other side having coverage (biased coverage, the same kind that most people like) that leans against what you like…well, then you are best off moving to Iran or China.
Grabbing my soapbox and leaving now. :-)
Who cares if the mainstream media is biased toward Obama?
Do you know why corporations pay so much for commercials? Because advertising works.
Merry Christmas Ex-GOP. Hey, bring that soapbox back! I need it for a while ;-)
Ex-RINO,
The Main Stream Media (MSM), as I understand the term, referrs to the three major broadcastnetworks, ABC, CBS, NBC, both television and radio, the national newspapers of record, Washington Post, Boston Herald, New York Times, Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times and USA Today.
National Public Radio and PBS are in a league of their own in many way, but it is not a conservative league.
The Cable networks, CNN and MSNBC being the most flagrantly biased in a steadily leftward direction.
The Associate Press and UPI.
Then there are the news magazines, Time and Newsweek.
The only major National network and cable news outlet that does NOT tilt left is FOX. Even if for arguments sake I were to concede that FOX is biased to the ‘right’ [which I do not], there is no way one network could balance out the bias of the rest of the MSM.
Until the advent of the Rush Limbaugh types most talk TV and talk radio was presented from a predominantly left of center perspective.
Bernard Goldberg, a former CBS correspondent, wrote a expose from an insiders perspective of how the major networks ‘slant’ the news.
I will provide you with a link to a reseach piece done by the omsbudsman for the LA Times just dealing with the way the MSM distorts abortion coverage.
Any person who cannot recognize the obvious tilt to the left by the MSM is dishonest, delusional, in denial or has their head where the sun does not shine.
[Have YOU heard the ‘pop’ ….yet?]
Hi Ex-GOP Voter,
Formerly, when ABC, CBS and NBC held sway, and even when Fox started getting popular, the political conservatives were indeed under-represented among national new correspondents, producers, etc., compared to the US population as a whole.
You make a good point now – just what is the “mainstream media”? And of course there are people so far out to the extremes on both sides that they’ll always be complaining about the majority and the coverage or lack thereof that their issues get.
There are also always ebbs and flows in Presidential popularity and their (Presidents’) effectiveness ratings among the intelligentsia, etc. At this point, Obama hasn’t done too badly, even versus whatever total “wish list” he had early on. I don’t take for granted that the economy will improve during the rest of his first term, though – the times of “take your pain early,” i.e. have higher interest rates first, then cut them as re-election time nears, are no longer with us, and systemic weaknesses and foreign influences are such that that amount a President can “muscle” the economy has declined quite a bit.
Ex-Gop, I’d recommend newsbusters.org. Until Fox News consistently beats the pathetic CBS news in ratings, they’ll be out of the mainstream. Which means David against an army of Goliaths.
Hans – clicked on the link. So that is exposing mainstream media bias?
“Doonesbury hates God…”
“Liberal blogger details…”
“Linus explains true meaning of Christmas”
Yes – sure looks mainstream to me! (tongue in cheek)
Again, here’s my quick questions for the paranoid right out there:
1) How many people are being forced, against their will to watch the news channel that they decide to watch?
2) Are people who choose to read newspapers so dumb that they can’t recognize when there is bias?
Quite frankly, this seems to me to be a part of the reason Obama kicked you guy’s behind a few years ago. Those under 40 don’t get much of their news from traditional sources. To continue to moan and cry like little girls that newscasters and journalists don’t like you guys as much – it gets old. Seriously – I’ve seen about 100 links posted on this site from people, and less than 5% probably come from those “mainstream media” sources. Who gives a rip about them anyways? People piece together their news these days like people eat at a buffet. Embrace other media like the rest of the world is and quit moaning about a perceived bias. Come on people – man up.
Oh, last thing. Fox news and MSNBC aren’t news channels – they are political entertainment. Both of them are a joke.
Cranky, ack! thx! changed!
Regarding bias in the mainstream media, it’s not that “I don’t agree with you so you are biased” it’s the fact that a NEWS organization should have no bias at all! No self-respecting newsman should be reporting on the tingling going up his leg about a new President. “News” organizations should report the NEWS and only the NEWS! No opinion. That also means that they should not be omitting certain news because they don’t like it. They are to tell us what is happening and let US decide if it is a good thing or a bad thing.
Amen, Pat!
Ex:
“Jerry – who is the msm these days though?”
Ken does a good job in breaking it down. The MSM is basically comprised of the legacy media (and their more recent on-line spawn) that has been around for generations. They are entrenched in the nomenclature of elitist ruling class liberalism and arrogance.
Obamas make rare trip to church while in Hawaii
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101226/ap_on_go_ot/us_obama_church
KANEOHE BAY, Hawaii – President Barack Obama and his family took a break from their Hawaiian vacation to attend Sunday church services at a chapel at Marine Corps Base Hawaii, a rare occurrence for a president who prefers to worship [himself] in private… [I am getting a mental picture of the ‘one’ standing in front of a mirror singing praises to his own reflection.”Mirror, mirror on the wall, ‘Who’s the coolest prez of all?’]
Obama was the first worshipper to take communion [so much for the ‘he who leads being the servant of all and the first being last], dipping the wafer in wine before placing it in his mouth.[Then taking a long drag off his Virginia Slim, and saying to himself, and everyone else in particular, “You can’t touch this.”]
Though [b o is the humblest person he knows of] Obama speaks frequently about his Christian faith [please provide links to examples that would substantiate this claim.], his family rarely attends church services in Washington…though he does attend private services when he spends weekends at Camp David, the presidential retreat. [In that room with mirrored ceiling, floor, and walls. You know the one Bill Clinton had made for his weekend romps with the hired help.]
Obama last attended church in September, shortly after a poll was released indicating that a majority of Americans had doubts about the president’s religious beliefs.
[Most americans not only doubt b o’s claim of christian faith, a good number believe b o is a muslim. Where would they get that idea? It is certainly NOT a concept perpetuated by the MSM]
Hi Ken,
I am convinced that Obama is a man of no faith, he is a man who is what he must be for the moment. Typical of a sociopath. Rev.Wright was tossed under the bus after he and his church had served their purpose, which was to give Obama ” street cred”, and he was nothing more than an embarassment to Obama. Typical of a sociopath.
Speaking of Bill Clinton, remember his contrite church attendance after he was caught romping with the help? A master sociopath if I ever saw one.
From day one I saw nothing but evil behind Obama’s smile and those empty eyes.
One thing about Obama—he will not be budged. He is a dyed in the wool ideologue, steeped in the Saul Alinsky marxist model of redistributionist utopianism. The downside is that he will continue to flip the bird to economic conservatives and the traditional values crowd. The upside is that he is the gift that keeps on giving–his arrogance will be his undoing.
Hi Jerry,
Yes he is an ideologue, but it is his psychology and personality does not allow for any budging. Its everyone else that is wrong, not him.
His arrogance will not be his undoing, its his sociopathy that will be our undoing as a nation.
Peg – the problem is (and fundamentally, I agree with you), but people claim massive bias not on what is reported, but on what isn’t reported – so it isn’t as much how the news is reported, but what they don’t report on – which gets down to a matter of taste and perceived priority.
Jerry/Mary – you call it arrogance….if he had an ‘R’ behind his name, you would call it confidence.
His own undoing? Depends who the GOP gets to run. Like Bush after his first term, he’ll certainly be vulnerable. If a candidate gets rolled out as lousy as Kerry, he’ll get a second term. Reagan’s approval rating at this point in his presidency was under 40%. At election time, he was at 56%. A lot can happen in two years.
Mary,
If I look at our president I get the willies. He gives me the creeps. I try hard not to look at him or listen to his voice.
Hope you had a very Merry Christmas!!
EGV,
I didn’t call it arrogance.
Yes indeed a lot can happen in two years. That’s the only thing that gives me any hope at this point.
Hi Carla,
I’m more fearful as I hear what is going on behind the scenes. Expect him to rule by executive order what he cannot obtain through legislation. The new end of life medicaid “counselling” rules are a most recent example.
This man can no more move to the center than you can run a criminal organization, and its naive and foolish for Americans to think otherwise.
Thank you Carla I had a wonderful but extremely busy Christmas. This week I am being very lazy. I hope you and yours had a blessed Christmas and have a very happy new year.
“2) Are people who choose to read newspapers so dumb that they can’t recognize when there is bias?”
Ex-GOP,
Unfortunately, yes, some are. One only has to look at test scores in our public schools to answer that question . One example: when a reporter asked a young woman why she voted for Mr. Obama, said it was because he was going to give her money. When asked “where will the money come from?” she gleefully stated “it’s OBAMA’S money!”.
Mary,
Oh I hear that too. Just ram whatever through regardless of what the people think or how they vote.
Christmas was merry. Although our house seems to be shrinking with all of the kids home for vacation. :)
Janet, I was in California visiting relatives when the election coverage was getting into full-swing. Yes, those people are duped. Their “news” is anything but. I went to the mall in my old hometown, and was disgusted to find the man’s face plastered everwhere. I felt like I was in 1984, and the man hadn’t even been elected yet. These people cast their votes as if they were voting for the next American Idol rather than POTUS. If Justin Beiber ran, they would vote for him, if the media said so.
Hi X,
As I have said before, I’ve stopped wondering how people as cultured, educated, and intelligent as the Germans were led to their destruction by their blind devotion to an Austrian street thug.
Ex:
“Fox news and MSNBC aren’t news channels …Both of them are a joke.”
You are half right. Who is the Fox equivalent of Keith Olberman? C’mon, the guy needs to be in a padded cell. And moving over to the big three, is Katie Couric someone to be taken any more seriously than the obvious partisan (and liar) that she replaced, Dan Rather? Did anyone at Fox make up a whopper about Obama right before the election similar to Rather’s hatchet job on Bush?
The MSM tells us time and again that Fox is just so terrible and out of it and apparently a lot of people believe them. But to put Fox in the same category as the distant planet MSNBC is another thing altogether. Actually Fox is more in tune with the current mood of the majority of the electorate than are the big three.
Mary:
I agree. Obama’s sociopathy is serious business. I do think though from a purely political perspective that his continued attempts to ram through his agenda in the Chicago way is why his popularity will continue to erode. The American people understand a bully pulpit, but they do not want to see a bully at the pulpit.
Ex-GOP Voter December 28th, 2010 at 6:34 am
…”people claim massive bias not on what is reported, but on what isn’t reported – so it isn’t as much how the news is reported, but what they don’t report on – which gets down to a matter of taste and perceived priority.”
Heres the link to the article written by the omsbudsmen for the L A Times [not a conservative or a pro-lifer, just a RARE intellectually honest newsguy/journalist.].
He puts the lie to the canard that ‘MSM bias’ is just a matter of ‘taste and perceived priortiy’.
http://www.latimes.com/features/food/la-me-shaw01jul01,0,5601598.story
Mary
December 28th, 2010 at 9:36 am
“As I have said before, I’ve stopped wondering how people as cultured, educated, and intelligent as the Germans were led to their destruction by their blind devotion to an Austrian street thug.”
Mary,
I know you know this, but the dismal decades following Germany’s loss of WWI probably contributed to the German people being a little more willing to overlook the eccentricities of the paper hanger pulpit meister.
Things did improve markedly in many areas in Germany under Hitler and the NAZI’s reign of error and terror.
[That Jesse Owens performance at the 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin did put a damper on the Aryan ardor for a little bit, but the ‘volks’ got over it.]
Desperate people longing for a savior will overlook a lot of warts if the up and coming ‘one’ looks like he/she might deliver the goods.
Ex-RINO,
An excerpt from the introduction from David Shaw’s 3 part series that ran in the L A Times in July of 1990:
A comprehensive [L A] Times study of major newspaper, television and newsmagazine coverage over the last 18 months, including more than 100 interviews with journalists and with activists on both sides of the abortion debate, confirms that this bias often exists.
Responsible journalists do try to be fair, and many charges of bias in abortion coverage are not valid. But careful examination of stories published and broadcast reveals scores of examples, large and small, that can only be characterized as unfair to the opponents of abortion, either in content, tone, choice of language or prominence of play:
* The news media consistently use language and images that frame the entire abortion debate in terms that implicitly favor abortion-rights advocates.
* Abortion-rights advocates are often quoted more frequently and characterized more favorably than are abortion opponents.
* Events and issues favorable to abortion opponents are sometimes ignored or given minimal attention by the media.
* Many news organizations have given more prominent play to stories on rallies and electoral and legislative victories by abortion-rights advocates than to stories on rallies and electoral and legislative victories by abortion rights opponents.
* Columns of commentary favoring abortion rights outnumber those opposing abortion by a margin of more than 2 to 1 on the op-ed pages of most of the nation’s major daily newspapers.
* Newspaper editorial writers and columnists alike, long sensitive to violations of First Amendment rights and other civil liberties in cases involving minority and anti-war protests, have largely ignored these questions when Operation Rescue and other abortion opponents have raised them.
Television is probably more vulnerable to charges of bias on abortion than are newspapers and magazines. The time constraints and ratings chase intrinsic to most television news programs often lead to the kind of superficiality and sensationalism that result in bias. In addition, says Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, the “insular culture that produces network newscasts” create an “implicit bias (that) is more pervasive . . . than in the print media.”
But throughout the media, print and broadcast alike, coverage of abortion tends to be presented–perhaps subconsciously–from the abortion-rights perspective. When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Webster case a year ago Tuesday that states could have more latitude in regulating abortion, for example, ABC News termed the decision “a major setback for abortion rights.”
Couldn’t it also have been called “a major victory for abortion opponents”?
Hi Jerry,
The point is that Obama is in power and that gives him the ability to rule by executive order and appointment. Hopefully with this new congress and senate we can get this under control. I’m very fearful Jerry because I know what type pf personality we are dealing with and I’m not sure what we can do about it at this point. He’s already made a grab for the internet and snuck in the medicare “end of llife” guidelines. One underestimates a sociopath at their own peril.
Hi Ken,
I am familiar with the history that led to Hitler’s rise to power but the fact remains the German people were mesmerized by a sociopath they viewed as leading them to their salvation. Hitler had the “perfect storm” to enable his rise to power. One cannot deny the man was mesmerizing. The military buildup helped spur the economic boom, and freedoms were eroded little by little as people viewed the loss of liberty a small price to pay for economic security and national pride.
Foreign dignitaries felt Hitler could be placated and compromised with. Hitler regarded such individuals as “worms”. Many admired him. They proved to be useful idiots.
I have to admit Obama was mesmerizing and charasmatic. It was the first huge red flag that went up for me.
Jerry – are you serious? I don’t watch MSNBC nor Fox – again, I don’t consider either to be news – but I’ve seen many times the comparison of him to O’Reilly or Glenn Beck. None of those guys are news people – they are political entertainers.
Ken – 1990? In the world of media – that might as well be 500 years ago. Now, I believe there is a slight lean left of most media, but Fox gives the hard right lean for the rest of you!
Janet – again though…think she’s a heavy reader of the NY Times? Wall Street Journal? Come on…
Ex:
Yes, I AM serious. Are you? Even as you trash Fox you did not take on the subject of CBS’s and Rather’s credibility for running the smear against Bush prior to the 2004 election. And yet you roundly criticize Fox as though their newscasts are not credible, but you give no examples of similar malfeasance. And what about Katie Couric–are we REALLY suppose to take her seriously??
Olberman cannot hold a candle to either Beck or O’Reilly, both in his dismal ratings and in the fact that he is truly unbalanced. I do not pretend to agree with Beck or Bill on everything, but for the most part they have the right idea.
Mary:
Our man-child president is indeed a troubling character and I share your concerns. Will we be able to make it through two more years?
Now that we have restored at least some balance of power to Washington we do have mechanisms to impose discipline on spending and the nature of legislation that will be considered in the House. This is huge!
We will find out shortly how the new leadership exercizes their new power. I really hope they come charging out of their corner with everything they have got. We have a lot of work ahead of us and no time to waste.
It would be great to be able to participate in setting legislative priorities. If you had a chance, what would be your recommendations to Speaker Boehner?
Jerry – we can start with these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/544223/top_five_most_biased_news_anchors.html?cat=9
I don’t watch Couric, nor did I watch Rather…but I’ve seen the view that both lean left. To even argue though that fox doesn’t lean right? Seriously? Half of their anchors are former or near future candidates for the GOP. The rest probably contributed to the million dollar donation to the GOP governor’s!
I think you’ve got your blinders on with this one. It is fine to like them, but it is pretty common knowledge that fox political entertainment = GOP.
Hi Jerry,
Our president can best be described as being on training wheels.
I can best answer your question by telling you what I wrote to my new republican congressman-elect:
With all respect congressman-elect, my support comes with a set of conditions.
I do not for a moment doubt the ability of Republicans to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory so consider yourself an errant employee on probation with your very irate employer (the people of our district) breathing down you neck every moment.
The electorate is informed, vigilant, and angry. You will be answering to us on a regular basis.
I do NOT want to hear of your ability to compromise and reach across the aisle. I don’t want to hear how everyone likes you. You are not being sent to Washington to be everyone’s friend. You are being sent to represent the interests of the people of your district.
When the American people voiced their objections to “health care reform” our former congressman and senator, along with many others, responded with their middle fingers in the faces of the voters. We in turn used our middle fingers in the voting booth. Our middle fingers continue to work very well and we will not hesitate to vote with them again.
Ex-GOP, If you’re going to consider that pathetic Wikipedia article, I would once again suggest that you have another look at Newsbusters. And read beyond the headlines. Of course it’s a conservative site. But don’t just hold up a cross and look away. Read it.
How do you explain a reporter who seemed so even-handed many thought he should have been picked as host of ABC’s Sunday morning show, actually congratulating the President for a bill being passed!? This is journalism?
As for Fox News, they have several liberals: Geraldo Rivera, Shepherd Smith, Arthel Neville. Greta Van Susteren used to be but has been agreeing that Washington is fiscally nuts. And Bill O’Reilly maddeningly plays the Devil’s Advocate for the Left, giving them the benefit of the doubt way too often (as if they would give him any credit).
Hans – okay, you don’t like the wiki posting (inaccurate? too much info?)
Let’s just do a quick sweep of Fox News site – 9:51 Central time, Wed night. Right to the opinion page:
– Feature opinion is about how Obama is not a moderate, but is a dreaded liberal
– Other featured opinion is a fluff piece written by Bachmann, a Republican
– Opinion three – how Obamacare will feature rationing
– Opinion four – why oil is good
– Opinion five – how the green hype will make us fat (seriously – it is out there…)
– Opinion six – a how to guide for the Republicans to be “golden” in 2011
– Opinion seven – why the START treaty is bad
– Opinion eight – “it’s a wonderful country” – there was a counteracttack against big government
– Opinion nine – Santa is too fat
So, we have 7 conservative leaning pieces, 1 fluff piece by a GOP house member, and a story about santa being fat.
Yup – pretty fair and balanced.
Should I try again in a couple of days Hans?
Mary:
All of our new (and current) congressmen and women ought to get that kind of letter. I couldn’t agree more–we do not want to hear about compromise before we even get started. We are at war against those arrogant ruling class types who ignored the wishes of the majority. And then there were the so called blue dogs who did not stand up against the democratic leadership who were running our country into bankruptcy by massively expanding entitlement programs. Now that we have wrestled the gavel away from crazy Nancy I would like nothing better than seeing an aggressive legislative agenda with a determined sense of urgency aimed at dismantling and defunding the excesses of the past four years. The last thing I want to see is “happy days are here again” big happy grins and across the aisle glad handing even as the public continues to get fleeced.
Ex:
Here is your math:
Story runs on Fox
Fox is bad
Therefore story is bad
Actually, of the stories you mentioned above most are mainstream in one way or another. I suppose the one about Santa was good for a chuckle.
Really, we need to hear MORE, not fewer stories about why oil is a good thing. And what is wrong about attacking big gov? The START treaty–some very big names against this. Rationing??–you might want to check out the latest backhanded way the Obama admin is inserting that into our health care system.
Oh, that’s right–if you don’t watch Fox or read the Wall Street Journal you probably won’t hear about it so I guess I will have to point out that if you love the women in your life maybe you should take the extra effort to seek out and seriously consider the merits of big gov’s (Obamacare) latest intrusion into cancer management drugs being withdrawn and the REAL reason why they were withdrawn.
A good place to start is by reading this link:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203513204576047742746513406.html
“A good place to start is by reading this link:”
Yes, an opinion piece written by a former lawyer for both the Reagan and Bush administrations. No bias there.
I respectfully suggest that you use Google. It is your friend.
It tells me there were sound medical reasons for the FDA acting as it did, and this comes from sources like “Business Week,” which you might consider a left-wing, commie-pinko publication.
Frankly, I don’t know why I wasted my time on this. Talking with my dining room table would be more productive.
Jerry – I don’t understand the confusion here.
9 links – which of those do you not see as an idea that is more right leaning than left? Any of them?
I’m just saying – Hans was having a fit about Fox being seen as conservative leaning. I don’t give a tiny rats behind if they lean right…just don’t pretend they don’t. They lean right – MSNBC leans left. It is why I call them both political entertainment – I just don’t see them as news.
Jerry – in regards to the article and Avistin (or Bevacizumab). Call your insurance company and ask if they cover it. Many have dropped it because studies show that it doesn’t cure anything – it prolongs life an average of a couple of months, and comes at a cost of $100K per patient.
In your readings on Avistin and as a fiscal conservative, how could you support insurance companies paying for that? And if you can’t support insurance companies, why would you mandate the government pays for it? It sounds like a bridge to nowhere type project – lots of money with very little benefit.
mp says:
“Frankly, I don’t know why I wasted my time on this. Talking with my dining room table would be more productive.”
How often do you have conversations with your dining room table?
ex says:
“In your readings on Avistin and as a fiscal conservative, how could you support insurance companies paying for that? And if you can’t support insurance companies, why would you mandate the government pays for it? It sounds like a bridge to nowhere type project – lots of money with very little benefit.”
Boldly spoken. You might want to talk to families and women who have been the beneficiary of this drug. Just because there may be “very little benefit” to you personally should not be a factor here.
Actually, I DO support insurance companies–as I have been saying all along. And another thing we have touched on several times already was again confirmed in the article: i.e. how HARD it is to get a government mandate changed versus the often successful efforts to get insurance companies to change.
You may change your tune about Obamacare once one of your loved ones cannot get treatment due to a government agency ruling. You really ought to stop and consider what you are supporting.
One more thing: Do you now acknowledge that rationing WILL be a part of Obamacare?
ex says:
“Jerry – I don’t understand the confusion here.
9 links – which of those do you not see as an idea that is more right leaning than left? Any of them?”
If the standard you are using is the left leaning big three as speaking for the center then all things to the right of that will be “right leaning”. Of course this is precisely the problem. Since when are issues of “oil” and the national defense implications of START “right leaning?” They only become “right leaning” when the spinmeisters of the left tell you they are so.
Jerry –
It appears that you are of the thought that if a patient wants it, government or insurance companies should give it to them regardless of, well, anything. If there was a study that said that flying people with cancer to Hawaii would prolong their lives a couple of months – well, seems like you’d want Uncle Sam to open up our checkbook. I’m being a bit dramatic…but you do seem to say that whatever the patient wants, they should get it paid for – no questions asked.
You speak on things though like they haven’t been happening already. Insurance companies deny coverage now…Medicare denies coverage now. Health Care reform isn’t going to be the cause of coverage being denied.
And rationing is the same thing. Care is rationing right now as many people can’t afford health care. Care is rationed right now as insurance companies and the government denies coverage.
I think you and me mean two different things when we say rationing. I say rationing is when care that could be received is not given through a decision or because of financial reasons (to me, it is rationing if a poor person can’t get preventative care).
I believe you think rationing is when people don’t get exactly the type of care they want, even if they get other care. Somebody wants a drug that costs 100K a year – if they are given something else, I believe you think that is rationing. Yes?
Jerry
Those articles on Oil and the START treaty became “right leaning” when I read them (the START treaty more than the oil one). I mean…:
“With a strong assist from an Obama administration determined to validate its embrace of Russia’s government, the Washington foreign policy establishment has successfully advanced a U.S-Russia treaty that at best could be irrelevant to today’s world, but in fact will make the threats we face more dangerous.”
If this had happened four years ago, and Obama was flipped with Bush, you would say the article leans to the left.
Ex:
Happy New Year!
ex claims: “It appears that you are of the thought that if a patient wants it, government or insurance companies should give it to them regardless of, well, anything. If there was a study that said that flying people with cancer to Hawaii would prolong their lives a couple of months – well, seems like you’d want Uncle Sam to open up our checkbook. I’m being a bit dramatic…but you do seem to say that whatever the patient wants, they should get it paid for – no questions asked.”
No, I never said or implied any of the above. There are checks and balances to everything. The point is that medical decisions should not be government mandated or controlled.
ex claims: “Health Care reform isn’t going to be the cause of coverage being denied.”
Excuse me; what is rationing if not the denial of health care?
ex claims: “Care is rationing right now as many people can’t afford health care. Care is rationed right now as insurance companies and the government denies coverage.”
Even before any Obamacare rules are implemented to any significant degree there is still universal de facto health care in our country. This will not change because of Obamacare–it will simply become more expensive and treatment options made less accessible for all of us as we employ bureaucrats in 159 new agencies and as we are all made to abide by the rules they will implement.
I will remind you that the biggest proponents of rationing are your democratic congressmen and your hero Obama who voted themselves the gold standard health coverage even as they seek to limit or otherwise make more costly health care coverage for the rest of us.
ex claims: “I say rationing is when care that could be received is not given through a decision or because of financial reasons (to me, it is rationing if a poor person can’t get preventative care).”
The first part of the above does not differ one iota from my contention that “financial reasons” are what prompted the gov, by dishonest sleight of hand, to deny Avestin to impose rationing. And how easily you jumped on the rationing bandwagon as you agreed that these patients should be denied the opportunity to use Avastin. I might ask: what is the cutoff point on the cost of a drug–if it were half as expensive would you go for that? How does one make that decision? Why should a health care decision for a daughter/sister/mother/spouse become a political issue that “ex” in Wisconsin should have a say in?
The second part of the statement about preventative care borders on the nonsensical. How is it necessarily a “rationing” issue if someone can’t get preventative care? There are multiple factors to be taken into consideration, things such as location of care providers (if the patient is nowhere close to specialized treatment center does that count as rationing?). There are also individual economic decisions at play–if I decide to go to one of the fine casinos in your home state of Wisconsin and gamble away all of my money why should you, ex, and you fellow citizens bail me out when it comes to my not being able to afford “preventative care”. You seem to want the utopian model of health care where everyone regardless of their personal decisions has a “right” to have others pay for their health care even though they have made shortsighted (or selfish) personal decisions in their lives.
ex claims: “I believe you think rationing is when people don’t get exactly the type of care they want, even if they get other care. Somebody wants a drug that costs 100K a year – if they are given something else, I believe you think that is rationing. Yes?”
All I am saying is that government controlled and mandated rationing has no place in our republic. Once we open that pandora’s box everything becomes politicized.
Again–how is it your business ( and likewise my business for you) that my family can or cannot afford a particular procedure? And yet you seem to think it IS your business that someone is denied Avastin. The only reason you think that is because health care is becoming more and more socialized and politicized–thanks to Obama–and what you are supporting WILL in some manner or form come back to bite you–either in fewer health care options or higher costs or both.
I might add that those persons denied Avastin are being denied their rights if others have received the drug–this opens up yet another endless lawyer friendly litigation scenario.
ex claims @ 8:36: ”If this had happened four years ago, and Obama was flipped with Bush, you would say the article leans to the left.”
No, because the heart of the matter would have been different.
Jerry –
You quite truly want it both ways. You seem to be a fiscal conservative, but here you are saying that the government should pay for a very risky, expensive drug that gives little benefit. But later you say that the output of all of this will be much higher costs. Well, costs will certainly be much higher if we continue to roll out a blank check.
What you seem to be arguing for is a government type run healthcare – anybody gets whatever they want. Correct me if I’m wrong, but in your world, who doesn’t get a drug like Avistan? (by the way, the official word of the drug from the NE Journal of Medicine was that it extended life for 4.7 months at a cost of between 43K and 55K a year). In a country with limited financial resources, do you argue that we should just short change others care to pay for something like Avistan, or raise taxes overall?
Maybe I should just take the approach that others have taken with me…if somebody really wants a drug like Avastin, they should go to their local church, and ask for the $43K-$55K from them!
I understand your concern – I just don’t see how you can continue advocating that we do the same thing over and over and hope to get different results. We have a health care system that has been out of control for over a decade – we need a different path – and this free spending, blank check approach with no guidelines or fiscal discipline – it just isn’t something that is sustainable.