Is Fox News bad for you?

[Frozenwolf150]

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.

Siegel still shouldn't have said it that way. With or without the omitted part of the quote, it can still be interpreted similarly. A better way for him to make his point, assuming he was trying to make the point you say he was, would be for him to say, "Now you've got all these hypochondriacs showing up for sniffles, stubbed toes, and bruised shins. I've got patients with more pressing health concerns to take care of." If that's what he really meant, why didn't he just say it? Why did he have to say that the problem is people have too much health insurance? It makes him sound insensitive to the people who still don't have insurance, or the people who didn't have it before but now do thanks to the Affordable Care Act.

 

[Kestrel]

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.

In the US, it is accepted that copays are needed to prevent overuse of medical services. There does not seem to be any actual evidence to back up this belief. In places like the UK where there are no copays, they don't seem to have an overuse problem.

Copays can also result in serious problems when people start avoiding needed doctor visits to avoid the copay.

Any ACA compliant policy limits the out of pocket expenses for an individual to $6,350 per year. A big improvement over your BCBS policy.

 

[GWCarver]

I get the feeling that here and around the country there are a lot of people who talk about Fox News incessantly but never actually watch it. If you watch Fox News, you will find that every progressive/liberal/Democrat talking point/filibuster imaginable is presented there daily by Alan Colmes, James Carville, Kirstin Powers, Juan Williams, and a whole bunch of others. It is so bad - for me - I only DVR Bret Baier's news hour, mainly because the people on his panel discuss the news of the day and don't try to change the subject. BTW, CNN has been doing a better job covering Iraq than Fox News recently. They actually had a reporter and cameraman ride along and tape an Iraqi/Kurdish helicopter rescue of refugees from the mountain today.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I get the feeling that here and around the country there are a lot of people who talk about Fox News incessantly but never actually watch it. If you watch Fox News, you will find that every progressive/liberal/Democrat talking point/filibuster imaginable is presented there daily by Alan Colmes, James Carville, Kirstin Powers, Juan Williams, and a whole bunch of others. It is so bad - for me - I only DVR Bret Baier's news hour, mainly because the people on his panel discuss the news of the day and don't try to change the subject. BTW, CNN has been doing a better job covering Iraq than Fox News recently. They actually had a reporter and cameraman ride along and tape an Iraqi/Kurdish helicopter rescue of refugees from the mountain today.

I watch Fox as an incessant channel surfer and your portrayal of Fox as presenting the Progressive POV is questionable.

 

[Mudcat]

I go to McDonalds a lot and that is what they all have on their flat screens 24/7. Basically Fox news is full on conservative hosts who spend a great deal of time reading all the hate mail they get as proof that they are doing a good job. Are there many Fox news lovers here I wonder? How many haters?

I go to McDonald's a lot as well, mainly for the raspberry tea, and I have to agree with the characterization that you provided. It's the reason why I bring my own entertainment. Sometimes a book, sometimes my iPad, sometimes a manga, sometimes my 3DS, and I tune out whatever conservative bilge Fox is promoting.

But to answer the thread's question, yes Fox is bad for you.

 

[Ziggurat]

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.

The SAG union is very much responsible for preventing actors from using the same name. Whether you think that's a good thing or a bad thing is up to you (and there are definitely benefits), but it makes no sense to claim that they aren't relevant to that restriction. It is, in fact, a monumentally stupid position to take.

 

[DavidJames]

The SAG union is very much responsible for preventing actors from using the same name. Whether you think that's a good thing or a bad thing is up to you (and there are definitely benefits), but it makes no sense to claim that they aren't relevant to that restriction. It is, in fact, a monumentally stupid position to take.

had you, and sun, not been blinded by a pathological hatred of unions you'd see the point was, in this example, unions are performing the same role as the government, so his hissy fit over unions was, to use your eloquence, stupid. As was your knee jerk defense of him.

 

[Ziggurat]

had you, and sun, not been blinded by a pathological hatred of unions

Strange. Nothing I said here was anti-union. In fact, I just explicitly stated that there's a benefit to the union restriction. I'm not the one blinded here, David.

you'd see the point was, in this example, unions are performing the same role as the government

I know that. I didn't contest that. In fact, if you'll consult the record, you will notice that I pointed this out explicitly as well.

Nevertheless, it does not change the fact that the SAG union is still responsible for the restriction on the use of names by actors.

so his hissy fit over unions was, to use your eloquence, stupid. As was your knee jerk defense of him.

The only thing I've defended is the centrality of the unions to the restriction on the use of names. This is incontrovertible fact, yet you keep seeking to deny it. That's particularly strange since this fact on its own is not a condemnation of the union. It is not even a claim that the restriction is a bad thing. You claim that I've engaged in a knee jerk defense, but the truth is that you've engaged in a knee jerk attack, and a misguided one at that.

 

[sunmaster14]

had you, and sun, not been blinded by a pathological hatred of unions you'd see the point was, in this example, unions are performing the same role as the government, so his hissy fit over unions was, to use your eloquence, stupid. As was your knee jerk defense of him.

Hissy fit?

Anyway, the union is not performing the same role as the government. The government, in its admittedly limited wisdom, has decided not to allow a common name to be protected in the same way as a made up name like Kleenex. That does strike me as sensible. Birth names and family names are somewhat important to people, and I don't think there would be much support for preventing one from using one's real name for most purposes in which a name is required.

In the instant case, the union prevents people from working as actors in the TV and film industry unless they are members of the union. I don't like that on principle. And then of course, in order to become a member of the union, an actor has to submit to the union's various rules, some of which may be sensible rules and some of which may be not so sensible. I haven't thought the name registry thing through sufficiently to have an opinion on it, but it does seem strange to me upon first impression. In other disciplines where name recognition is important, e.g. academia, politics, finance, literature, or music, there are no name registries yet things work ok.

 

[sunmaster14]

Siegel still shouldn't have said it that way. With or without the omitted part of the quote, it can still be interpreted similarly. A better way for him to make his point, assuming he was trying to make the point you say he was, would be for him to say, "Now you've got all these hypochondriacs showing up for sniffles, stubbed toes, and bruised shins. I've got patients with more pressing health concerns to take care of." If that's what he really meant, why didn't he just say it? Why did he have to say that the problem is people have too much health insurance? It makes him sound insensitive to the people who still don't have insurance, or the people who didn't have it before but now do thanks to the Affordable Care Act.

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.

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.

 

[sunmaster14]

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.

This only happened in the individual market (5% of the market), which was dysfunctional due to our verkakta system of tying group health insurance to employment. For the 80% of the population with group health insurance, this wasn't even an issue. It's funny that you use mammograms as an example, by the way, since there is a fair bit of controversy about their cost-effectiveness, both in terms of absolute dollars and in terms of quality of life measures.

<snip>

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

Chiropractors have evil lobbyists for one. I personally think that chiropractic care is a quack field of medicine, but I suppose it's not as bad as homeopathy.

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

I'm talking about covering procedures, therapies, and drugs which are not only only modest in cost, but are routine. When you can see a psychotherapist for a $25 copay (while your insurance pays $125), then you may as well get that treatment, even though you wouldn't think it was worth it if you had to pay the full cost. A few years ago I broke my arm (in karate class), and after surgery, my orthopedist gave me a referral for up to 16 sessions of physical therapy. At the first session, the therapist asked if I wanted her to create a plastic mold for my arm to protect it. I asked if it was covered, and she said that my insurance completely covered it. So I said "sure." It took her about 20 minutes to make, and it was pretty much worthless. I think I wore it for a few hours and then never used it. My insurer paid $400 for it. I stopped the therapy sessions after the 8th one because not only was I sick of paying the $25 copay, but I was sick of having to take time out of my work day to go to the session. Those sessions cost my insurer about $80 each. Except for the 1st one, when the therapist taught me some exercises, the sessions were of no value.

 

[Kestrel]

I watch Fox as an incessant channel surfer and your portrayal of Fox as presenting the Progressive POV is questionable.

Fox routinely presents strawman versions of the Progressive POV. A tactic that may confuse a naive viewer.

 

[DavidJames]

Chiropractors have evil lobbyists for one. I personally think that chiropractic care is a quack field of medicine, but I suppose it's not as bad as homeopathy.

In the interest of finding common ground where possible, I agree with this

 

[GWCarver]

Fox routinely presents strawman versions of the Progressive POV. A tactic that may confuse a naive viewer.

That's me, a naive viewer who is routinely fooled by strawman arguments put up on Fox News by actual Dems/progressives/liberals. So, which one of the liberals I listed is responsible for the strawman arguments on Fox News, or is it all of them? Maybe Bob Beckel?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This only happened in the individual market (5% of the market), which was dysfunctional due to our verkakta system of tying group health insurance to employment. For the 80% of the population with group health insurance, this wasn't even an issue. It's funny that you use mammograms as an example, by the way, since there is a fair bit of controversy about their cost-effectiveness, both in terms of absolute dollars and in terms of quality of life measures.

Chiropractors have evil lobbyists for one. I personally think that chiropractic care is a quack field of medicine, but I suppose it's not as bad as homeopathy.

I'm talking about covering procedures, therapies, and drugs which are not only only modest in cost, but are routine. When you can see a psychotherapist for a $25 copay (while your insurance pays $125), then you may as well get that treatment, even though you wouldn't think it was worth it if you had to pay the full cost. A few years ago I broke my arm (in karate class), and after surgery, my orthopedist gave me a referral for up to 16 sessions of physical therapy. At the first session, the therapist asked if I wanted her to create a plastic mold for my arm to protect it. I asked if it was covered, and she said that my insurance completely covered it. So I said "sure." It took her about 20 minutes to make, and it was pretty much worthless. I think I wore it for a few hours and then never used it. My insurer paid $400 for it. I stopped the therapy sessions after the 8th one because not only was I sick of paying the $25 copay, but I was sick of having to take time out of my work day to go to the session. Those sessions cost my insurer about $80 each. Except for the 1st one, when the therapist taught me some exercises, the sessions were of no value.

Alt med coverage including chiropractors was already mandated by state laws and had nothing to do with the ACA.

You have some pretty bad information there. Gee, I do believe believing false facts was prevalent in the studies comparing Fox News watchers to non-watchers.
Obama care and CAM

Practitioners of so-called “complementary and alternative medicine” currently enjoy a certain measure of government largesse in the form of state laws mandating coverage of their services by private health insurance plans. The federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (often referred to as the Affordable Care Act, or “ACA,” and sometimes as “Obamacare”) has the potential of putting a significant dent in this forced coverage of pseudoscientific health care.

All states require private health insurers to cover certain health care services by law. These mandates can be in the form of requirements that specific health care services or treatments be covered, that certain providers be covered, or that certain populations be covered.

Mandates are ubiquitous, inconsistent among states and costly

Turns out the ACA provides disincentives for states to continue mandating CAM:

The individual states will continue in their role as health insurance regulators, although they must now operate within the parameters of the ACA. As mentioned, state functions include management of the ACA-mandated health insurance exchanges, where federal subsidies are available to assist those who cannot afford the premiums. Importantly, the ACA prevents federal subsidies from paying for state mandates which exceed EHBs, as defined by HHS. States will be required to pick up the tab for the extra cost of non-EHB mandates themselves. This is a huge disincentive for states to keep mandates that do not fall within the EHB definition. ...
If you find this less than a perfect recipe for the delivery of science-based medicine, it is nevertheless a vast improvement over the current system of state mandates, where coverage is too often based on the lobbying efforts of special interest groups.

The preventative care mandates were evidence based. Evidence accumulates and recommendations change. It's the age groups and risk factors that resulted in changed recommendations for mammograms. I'm not aware the ACA mandates mammograms outside the age and risk factor guidelines.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Fox routinely presents strawman versions of the Progressive POV. A tactic that may confuse a naive viewer.

I've seen plenty of straw men on Fox claimed to be Progressives' actual arguments.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

In the interest of finding common ground where possible, I agree with this

Well you might be interested then to know these lobbyists are more active at the state level and had little input into the ACA.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's me, a naive viewer who is routinely fooled by strawman arguments put up on Fox News by actual Dems/progressives/liberals. So, which one of the liberals I listed is responsible for the strawman arguments on Fox News, or is it all of them? Maybe Bob Beckel?

Huckabee Uses Atheist Straw Man To Continue Fox's Fake 'War On Christmas'

Fox Creates Straw Man To Attack Obama Over Income Inequality




Fish in a barrel.

 

[sunmaster14]

Alt med coverage including chiropractors was already mandated by state laws and had nothing to do with the ACA.

Talk about strawmen. Where did I say that this had anything to do with ACA? I was talking about the fundamental problem our system had before ACA, which, by the way, ACA does little to fix.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Talk about strawmen. Where did I say that this had anything to do with ACA? I was talking about the fundamental problem our system had before ACA, which, by the way, ACA does little to fix.

So going back to post #59:

He was lamenting the fact that too many people have health insurance AND still can't get health care.

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?

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.

Unless you add more people to the ranks of the insured.



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

Turns out the ACA provides disincentives for states to continue mandating CAM:

The individual states will continue in their role as health insurance regulators, although they must now operate within the parameters of the ACA. As mentioned, state functions include management of the ACA-mandated health insurance exchanges, where federal subsidies are available to assist those who cannot afford the premiums. Importantly, the ACA prevents federal subsidies from paying for state mandates which exceed EHBs, as defined by HHS. States will be required to pick up the tab for the extra cost of non-EHB mandates themselves. This is a huge disincentive for states to keep mandates that do not fall within the EHB definition. ... If you find this less than a perfect recipe for the delivery of science-based medicine, it is nevertheless a vast improvement over the current system of state mandates, where coverage is too often based on the lobbying efforts of special interest groups.