Is Fox News bad for you?

[BobTheCoward]

But you confuse free speech rights with the right to purposefully deceive as a news broadcaster. Those are two different issues.

Nope. They are the same.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Nope. They are the same.

Then why is there a disclosure law about video news releases?

 

[332nd]

Stewart was his comedic stage name (although I guess it has since become his real name). I was claiming that he is more than just a comedian, so I thought it appropriate to refer to the real name he had until early adulthood. I'll admit also to having a slight bias ifgainst performers who create new names for themselves. There seems to be something ungenuine about it, which I suppose is consistent with the type of person who would organize a "nonpartisan" rally in DC three days before the 2010 mid-term elections in a desperate attempt to stem the Republican tide.

He might not have had a choice. I'm a professional actor & if I were to suddenly take Hollywood by storm, I couldn't use my given name. Why? Someone in SAG is already registered under that name. Granted I could approach her and ask for the rights, & compensate her for giving me the rights, but if she has a decent brand already she may refuse.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Then why is there a disclosure law about video news releases?

Because government is ran by a bunch of statists who think they know what's best for you.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

As for the clip itself, I'm a bit surprised that I have to explain this to you, but Stewart left the impression that Dr. Marc Siegel was lamenting the fact that too many people have health insurance. He wasn't lamenting that. He was lamenting the fact that too many people have health insurance AND still can't get health care. Stewart left off the all important "and." The whole point was that health insurance does not equal access to health care. And if the problem is an insufficient supply of health care resources (which it is in large part, which is why prices are so high and why provider networks are getting narrower and wait times longer), then giving people a piece of paper saying that they now have comprehensive health insurance isn't going to solve the problem.

It's a perfectly valid point, but Stewart edited the video clip to make it seem as if Siegel was a malicious idiot.

Are you sure about that? Based on the full quote that you provided, it sounded like Siegel was saying that his office is overcrowded because too many people have health insurance and are now taking advantage of it. Stewart was rightly pointing out that poor people still can't get health care, and here Siegel is complaining about the influx of patients that he doesn't want to deal with.

 

[Corsair 115]

I'll admit also to having a slight bias against performers who create new names for themselves. There seems to be something ungenuine about it...

Does this distaste extend to authors who use pen names? Damn that Mark Twain Samuel Clemens!

 

[sunmaster14]

He might not have had a choice. I'm a professional actor & if I were to suddenly take Hollywood by storm, I couldn't use my given name. Why? Someone in SAG is already registered under that name. Granted I could approach her and ask for the rights, & compensate her for giving me the rights, but if she has a decent brand already she may refuse.

Thanks for that insight. I hadn't thought about that before. Seems like a crazy system where you're likely not allowed to use your own name to break into the acting business because somebody else has already registered it, but perhaps it makes sense. It's a union thing, though, and you can probably imagine what I think of unions.

 

[sunmaster14]

Are you sure about that? Based on the full quote that you provided, it sounded like Siegel was saying that his office is overcrowded because too many people have health insurance and are now taking advantage of it. Stewart was rightly pointing out that poor people still can't get health care, and here Siegel is complaining about the influx of patients that he doesn't want to deal with.

Yes, I'm pretty sure. I tracked down the original video clip before, although I don't feel like doing it now. The main point was pretty clearly that part of the problem with our system of paying for almost all health care through 3rd party payers, i.e. insurers, is that it makes consumers price-insensitive to their consumption, and thus creates excess demand which is outpacing supply. I think almost all economists agree on this point. It wasn't specifically about the poor. It was about how comprehensive health insurance coverage was. An analogy would be car insurance which covered car washes and oil changes.

 

[sunmaster14]

Does this distaste extend to authors who use pen names? Damn that Mark Twain Samuel Clemens!

No, because unlike with the performance arts, the written work should and does stand completely on its own, independent of the person creating it. Also, there may be good reasons for the author to want to remain anonymous. There may be such circumstances in the TV and movie industry, but I think it must be extremely rare.

 

[DavidJames]

Thanks for that insight. I hadn't thought about that before. Seems like a crazy system where you're likely not allowed to use your own name to break into the acting business because somebody else has already registered it, but perhaps it makes sense. It's a union thing, though, and you can probably imagine what I think of unions.

oh, so what union is preventing me from incorporating as IBM, or creating a tissue called Kleenex?

 

[Ziggurat]

oh, so what union is preventing me from incorporating as IBM, or creating a tissue called Kleenex?

THE Union.

 

[Chuckles]

Yes, I'm pretty sure. I tracked down the original video clip before, although I don't feel like doing it now. The main point was pretty clearly that part of the problem with our system of paying for almost all health care through 3rd party payers, i.e. insurers, is that it makes consumers price-insensitive to their consumption, and thus creates excess demand which is outpacing supply. I think almost all economists agree on this point. It wasn't specifically about the poor. It was about how comprehensive health insurance coverage was. An analogy would be car insurance which covered car washes and oil changes.

Is there insurance, in the US, where you just walk in and get doctored up with no additional charges?
I thought I had a pretty good policy, but I still have to make co-pays for visits and prescriptions. My wife had multiple surgeries and, even tho we pay in over 4K a year for insurance(for her), we still had nearly 20k to pay out of pocket after BCBS payed what they were willing to.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

If you believe what they say, without applying any critical thinking, it can't be good for you.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...It was about how comprehensive health insurance coverage was. An analogy would be car insurance which covered car washes and oil changes.

Pure fear mongering. And your analogy fails unless the car washes and oil changes saved the insurer money in the long run.

All of the mandated coverage was decided by interested and knowledgeable parties and forces the insurer to save the whole system money with preventative care that actually does that.

Insurers' policies look at actuary tables. If you don't cover mammograms but you drop insurance coverage when people turn up with breast cancer, it's a logical financial decision not to cover mammograms. But those breast cancer costs show up elsewhere in the system. Insurers were literally (well documented with whistle blower testimony) gambling that death was cheaper than preventative measures.

It's a myth that mandated coverage caused any kind of shortage of services except perhaps that some preventative elective procedure services might have backed up. A sudden influx of people who previously could not get insurance may very well result in some shortages of care in some areas. But once things catch up, then there aren't going to be massive shortages of services.

 

[sunmaster14]

oh, so what union is preventing me from incorporating as IBM, or creating a tissue called Kleenex?

As Zig points out, it is in fact the government which prevents that. That's what trademark and copyright law is about. However, just as Intel found when it tried to trademark the number "586," there are certain generic words and names which you can't protect (hence the name "Pentium"). I'm pretty sure that the name "John Smith" or even "Matt Damon" can't be protected in general, although perhaps they can be for very specific uses. In the particular case Redtail was referring to, it is a labor union rule that an actor must register a name, and it must be different from any other registered name. And it is virtually impossible to get a job as an actor without being a member of a union.

 

[sunmaster14]

Is there insurance, in the US, where you just walk in and get doctored up with no additional charges?
I thought I had a pretty good policy, but I still have to make co-pays for visits and prescriptions. My wife had multiple surgeries and, even tho we pay in over 4K a year for insurance(for her), we still had nearly 20k to pay out of pocket after BCBS payed what they were willing to.

Well, now there are certain preventative services (including an annual checkup) which are entirely free, i.e. no marginal cost. But being entirely free isn't necessary to increase demand. All that's necessary is for the marginal cost the consumer pays to be less (in most cases, far less) than the true cost.

 

[sunmaster14]

Pure fear mongering. And your analogy fails unless the car washes and oil changes saved the insurer money in the long run.

If these things saved the insurance companies money in the long run, there would be no need for mandates. Your implied claim here is pure fantasy.

All of the mandated coverage was decided by interested and knowledgeable parties and forces the insurer to save the whole system money with preventative care that actually does that.

The mandates are in large part a result of lobbying by various providers who want their share of the health care pie. A lot of the comprehensive coverage, however, was driven by the tax preference given to employer provided health insurance by the Federal tax code. The more stuff that could be thrown in under the rubric of health care insurance, the more compensation the employee could be given tax-free (and tax-deductible to the employer).

 

[DavidJames]

As Zig points out, it is in fact the government which prevents that. That's what trademark and copyright law is about. However, just as Intel found when it tried to trademark the number "586," there are certain generic words and names which you can't protect (hence the name "Pentium"). I'm pretty sure that the name "John Smith" or even "Matt Damon" can't be protected in general, although perhaps they can be for very specific uses. In the particular case Redtail was referring to, it is a labor union rule that an actor must register a name, and it must be different from any other registered name. And it is virtually impossible to get a job as an actor without being a member of a union.

The actor can not use another actors name just like the examples I gave. So basically it's not the unions fault and unions are not relevant to the discussion other then to allow you to profess your your irrational hatred of them.

 

[MinnesotaBrant]

I haven't been to a McDonalds for a couple weeks so I don't know if they are still running fox news 24/7. I did go to a different McDonalds in Osseo that was running NBC news, and they actually had the volume on so you could hear it. First Time I have seen a different news program there in years. I also am squealing on the McDonalds that runs the fox news 24/7. They don't pay their satellite bill so a couple hours every evening there is a big banner in the middle telling them to pay.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If these things saved the insurance companies money in the long run, there would be no need for mandates. Your implied claim here is pure fantasy.

So the way your thinking goes you just ignore what people say that doesn't fit your world view. Perhaps if I bold it?

What I posted: Insurers' policies look at actuary tables. If you don't cover mammograms but you drop insurance coverage when people turn up with breast cancer, it's a logical financial decision not to cover mammograms. But those breast cancer costs show up elsewhere in the system. Insurers were literally (well documented with whistle blower testimony) gambling that death was cheaper than preventative measures.


Much as the free market should work in theory, so does communism on paper. In pure theory form, both ignore the human nature component.

The mandates are in large part a result of lobbying by various providers who want their share of the health care pie.

Prove it. Who are these evil lobbyists and where's your evidence any such thing occurred?

A lot of the comprehensive coverage, however, was driven by the tax preference given to employer provided health insurance by the Federal tax code. The more stuff that could be thrown in under the rubric of health care insurance, the more compensation the employee could be given tax-free (and tax-deductible to the employer).

What comprehensive coverage? Are you talking about preventative care mandates or the mandate to cover pre-existing illnesses and conditions?