Is Fox News bad for you?

[sunmaster14]

So going back to post #59:Your premise that the problem is because insurance covers CAM makes zero sense. My MD does not do chiro. So how does the "comprehensive coverage" you are complaining about result in any shortages?

You keep attacking strawmen. The video clip I originally posted was from November 2013, before the ACA's mandates were even in force. And I never claimed that coverage of CAM was the fundamental problem with health care in this country. The coverage of non-scientific therapies barely registers on the health care waste-o-meter. I only responded to your demand for evidence of mandate lobbying by giving you an obviously outrageous example (two actually, although the homeopathy lobbying was for the NHS in the UK). If chiropractors can successfully lobby for coverage, it shouldn't be difficult to infer that other kinds of providers are lobbying for coverage of their expensive therapies, medicines, procedures, or tests.

In addition, the whole Libertarian premise is that the private medical care system is balanced by supply and demand market forces suggests there should be no shortage of health care providers.

Yes, that's correct. But we don't have a free market in health care unfortunately. The market has been distorted by the tax code and various regulations and mandates which followed, and finally by Medicaid and Medicare. It is extremely difficult, even impossible in many cases, to find out the cost of a medical procedure before committing to it. It is even more difficult to negotiate the price, thanks to Medicare's "most favored nation" rules.

And again you ignore what doesn't fit your world view. From my post above:

I didn't ignore it because it doesn't fit my world view. I ignored it because it is irrelevant to the discussion. Hey, if ACA discourages the use of CAM, then I'm all for it. I have always agreed that there are many good things in ACA. I just don't think they outweigh the bad. More importantly, there is an enormous opportunity cost that we're paying, which the "good" doesn't even come close to balancing. The health care system needed a structural change, and it was certain that it would be difficult to pass and implement a structural change, both politically and operationally. And yet all of this effort has been expended to get us something that doesn't even fix the fundamental problem with our system, which is that the tax code encourages us to pay for health care through health insurance provided by our employers.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Freedom of speech means that not all speech will be something that you agree with. I'd rather have access to the opposing point of view and let it speak for itself than block it out. I watch and listen to NPR and Fox for just that reason. I can't form a valid opinion if I only hear one side of the argument.

 

[Trakar]

Freedom of speech means that not all speech will be something that you agree with. I'd rather have access to the opposing point of view and let it speak for itself than block it out. I watch and listen to NPR and Fox for just that reason. I can't form a valid opinion if I only hear one side of the argument.

Are you trying to imply that NPR and FOX are at opposite ends of some political spectrum?

 

[DavidJames]

Are you trying to imply that NPR and FOX are at opposite ends of some political spectrum?

I'm surprised how many think anything to the left of fox is extreme left wing.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

I don't agree with your analysis. The fundamental problem really is that people have too much health insurance. That it covers too much and that it insulates the people who have it from the true cost of their consumption.

You're over-generalizing, and also failing to consider all the people who are still without health insurance, or who have insufficient health insurance. This is the same mistake Siegel was making.

In any case, this is about Stewart's dishonest editing. He cut off a quote in mid-sentence where there wasn't even so much as an anomalous pause. If that is fair game, then it is possible to mispresent and mock anything that anybody says about anything. And given the way Stewart mixes real news and a political agenda with his comedy, his dishonest editing is particularly harmful.

Except you just said above that yes, the fundamental problem is that people have too much health insurance, and they're over-consuming by taking advantage of it every chance they get. This is the very sentiment Stewart was condemning. He wasn't changing the meaning of what Siegel said.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Getting back to the OP, I remembered this study from a few years ago. It found that the most informed people were viewers of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. Coming in very close behind them were audiences of The O'Reilly Factor and The Rush Limbaugh Radio Show. Mind you, equally informed were people who watch The News Hour with Jim Lehrer and listeners of NPR. However, it goes to show that there's a correlation between how informed you are and how partisan you are. In order to become interested and truly invested in politics, you need to become passionate and emotional, which makes you more likely to block out, mock, and berate the other side. In other words, group polarization. It's especially bad in places on the Internet, where people can form insular circles of those who agree with them and block out everyone who disagrees.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Getting back to the OP, I remembered this study from a few years ago. It found that the most informed people were viewers of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. Coming in very close behind them were audiences of The O'Reilly Factor and The Rush Limbaugh Radio Show. Mind you, equally informed were people who watch The News Hour with Jim Lehrer and listeners of NPR. However, it goes to show that there's a correlation between how informed you are and how partisan you are. In order to become interested and truly invested in politics, you need to become passionate and emotional, which makes you more likely to block out, mock, and berate the other side. In other words, group polarization. It's especially bad in places on the Internet, where people can form insular circles of those who agree with them and block out everyone who disagrees.

That "knowledge" mostly consists of knowing the names of current people in the government, one foreign leader, Putin, and a few people running for office. I don't think that's a valid measure of knowledge of facts.

 

[GWCarver]

Fish in a barrel.

Perhaps you are blasting away at your own reflection? My post was about actual liberals on Fox bringing their own viewpoints, and I even named some of them. If Dems want to pretend the liberals on Fox News don't present their own viewpoints/talking points, there isn't much I can do about it. It's not like I'm unfamiliar with the Dem talking points.

The points about Fox News hosts using strawman arguments are themselves strawman arguments in this discussion.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You claimed Fox presents liberal POVs. It doesn't. They present a lot of straw men under the pretense that is the liberal POV. I posted some of the straw as evidence.

Whatever other issues you have are not my problem.

 

[Francesca R]

I don't know. Is not having access to Fox News good for me?

 

[sunmaster14]

You're over-generalizing, and also failing to consider all the people who are still without health insurance, or who have insufficient health insurance. This is the same mistake Siegel was making.


Except you just said above that yes, the fundamental problem is that people have too much health insurance, and they're over-consuming by taking advantage of it every chance they get. This is the very sentiment Stewart was condemning. He wasn't changing the meaning of what Siegel said.

No, it wasn't. He was mocking the idea that too many people have health insurance (and dishonestly implying that's what Siegel was saying). One of Stewart's following quips was "too many people have health insurance, ... and food, and shelter." Siegel's idea (which I share) is that health insurance is too comprehensive. The essence of insurance is (or should be) financial. It is a financial contract which transfers risk from one party to another for a cost. Health insurance today has morphed into a government-subsidized, prepaid health plan.

 

[Ziggurat]

You claimed Fox presents liberal POVs. It doesn't. They present a lot of straw men under the pretense that is the liberal POV. I posted some of the straw as evidence.

Whatever other issues you have are not my problem.

You have made a serious logical mistake. If A and B are not mutually exclusive, then evidence that someone does B does not constitute evidence that they do not do A. And in this case, the two activities are not, in fact, mutually exclusive.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You have made a serious logical mistake. If A and B are not mutually exclusive, then evidence that someone does B does not constitute evidence that they do not do A. And in this case, the two activities are not, in fact, mutually exclusive.

Feel free to post links to Fox presenting liberal POVs in a non-straw man format.

 

[Ziggurat]

Feel free to post links to Fox presenting liberal POVs in a non-straw man format.

It's not my claim, it's not my responsibility to support it. I'm just pointing out the gaping logical hole in your argument. Your response simply does not refute the claim in any way, shape, or form. If you want to argue that the claim is unsupported, well, that's something entirely different, but you didn't make that argument. You made a transparently illogical one instead.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I supported my position. You want the negative proved. In this case we are all familiar with Fox News. The claim that they present the liberal POV in any kind of fair and balanced way is not the default position.

 

[Ziggurat]

I supported my position.

No, you didn't.

You want the negative proved.

Yes, I do. Because you claimed the negative. If you don't want to prove a negative, don't claim a negative. Quite simple, really, and yet it eludes you still.

In this case we are all familiar with Fox News. The claim that they present the liberal POV in any kind of fair and balanced way is not the default position.

What you mean "we", white girl?

Argument ad populum is a fallacy, and is no better than your previous illogical argument.

Plus, you moved the goalpost. Your previous claim was that Fox News only presented straw man versions of liberal positions, but that's a different claim than saying that they don't present liberal positions in a "fair and balanced way".

You really aren't doing well here, SG.

 

[ehcks]

Yes, I do. Because you claimed the negative. If you don't want to prove a negative, don't claim a negative. Quite simple, really, and yet it eludes you still.

It's fine to claim negatives, because that allows one, single point of evidence to disprove the claim. Have you one?

 

[Ziggurat]

It's fine to claim negatives

I never said it wasn't. All I ever said was that SG's claim was unproven. And that was true when I said it and as of this post remains true. Since I never made the counterclaim (that was GWCarver), I feel no need to prove it. Go ask him for proof of his claim if you want it.

 

[ehcks]

I never said it wasn't. All I ever said was that SG's claim was unproven. And that was true when I said it and as of this post remains true. Since I never made the counterclaim (that was GWCarver), I feel no need to prove it. Go ask him for proof of his claim if you want it.

She made a negative claim, and instead of disproving it, you're asking her to prove it. Don't you also post about theoretical physics, but suddenly you're asking for logical impossibilities?

 

[Ziggurat]

She made a negative claim, and instead of disproving it, you're asking her to prove it.

Well, yes. Because that's the way things work: the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.

Don't you also post about theoretical physics, but suddenly you're asking for logical impossibilities?

If it's impossible to prove a claim, then perhaps one should refrain from making it. Don't blame me for that.