When Obama tells O’Reilly that he is not prepared to go back to a day when “pre-existing conditions…….â€â€ and O’Reilly rudely cuts him off and says “OK OK†and moves on. What an absolute JERK. The secret service ought to go in and take away his microphone. O’Reilly, I have been denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions. Health Insurance companies care nothing about providing coverage, only about what they can deny to improve their bottom line. And you “Wave your handâ€, you pompous, idiotic jerk. You are despicable. Repeal THAT, Bill.
When it comes down to it, Fox and the right wing are content to let the health Insurance companies dupe them into thinking they know something about the health care situation in this country. Listen to what Wendell Potter, former PR director for Cigna is now telling us about the Health Insurance industry in this country. He left that 6 figure job (perhaps even 7, I don’t know). But he decided he needed to tell the American people the truth about what drove him to renounce the Health Care industry. His book isâ€Deadly Spinâ€. I want to read it soon.
Fox News throws their “No spin zone†in with the SAME SPIN. They’re a part of the deception in Deadly Spin. Fox News can go to hell. What an imposter as a news organization.
my sense is the point of the first comment was to accuse O Reilly of insensitivity to those w/pre existing conditions;the responder admiited sensitivity to the issue. so the question needs to be asked of the responder-do you also find O Reilly's reaction insensitive
"It hardly furthers the issue to tell people to go to hell and accuse the other side of nefarious spin"
One person's "spin" doesn't create an automatic "counter-spin" on the part of someone who disagrees, particularly when you take into account that Insurance companies do indeed exhibit greed (which you seem to accept, and yet seem to be proposing that they should not be held to account). Wendell Potter, a former PR for Cigna chose to leave and expose the profit driven decision tree on when and when not to extend coverage. So no, there IS spin, and there is demagoguery, and it is being employed by the insurance companies, and they are lobbying and paying off Congress in the millions, including, I'm sure, some Democrats too. But this is what Obama has set out to fight.
What I don't get is how you can defend O'Reilly "waving off" Obama's talking about the pre-existing condition problem. That is not a prob;lem to be dismissed. Evil has to be confronted. And you don't do it by saying "You make some good points". MLK didn't say "Those segregationists, they make some good points"
well, no, Allan, it's not all that difficult. Other countries handle it just fine. We are FAR down on the rung of Developed Countries on this matter, and it is because of the greed of Insurance Companies. This should not be a FOR-PROFIT industry. It's not right. And I don't believe that "people on both sides have points to be made" that are equally sensitive, equally compassioinate, or equally realist. That's a " view from nowhere"
The answer does't lie in some mythical "middle".
Why is it that these other countries have no problem with socialized medicine?
I have a problem as well with your associating a passion for wanting something done about a condition of our country that millions suffer under because of the greed of a few with "demagoguery". This is not an attempt to "gain political leverage by appealing to fear or emotion (as demagoguery" is defined, but taking offense at O'Reilly "waving his hand" at Obama in dismissal of the seriousness of the problem with pre-existing conditions policies carried out by these profiteers.
The right only wishes to maintain the status quo on this, because they have not offered anything, and never have identified this as a problem to tackle until Democrats raise the issue.
Your reference to "waxing on" is condescending, and frankly, comes off as naive and callous, and blind to the faults of "the market". That's EXACTLY why the government, and MOST ALL of the other developed countries in the Western World have taken this on. People incorporations get greedy, ad the people must be protected from the rich who perpeutate this nonsense.
"Your reference to "waxing on" is condescending, and frankly, comes off as naive and callous, and blind to the faults of "the market"."
No… actually it isn't… but your response tells me there is no need to continue this discussion. Why would you want to anyway, since I am "naive".. something I have never been called before.
Have a great day as you continue in your own enlightened bubble.
well, dude, when you arrive with "demagoguery", you need to be able to accept "condescending" etc.
"Have a great day as you continue in your own enlightened bubble."
And you too, in your self-righteous mythical "middle".
And the "naive", I have to say, was something I said prefaced by "comes off as". That's not calling YOU naive. It's calling your belief in the "free hand of the market" naive. There's a difference in telling someone how sokmething comes across, and just flatly saying that YOU ARE X. "That sounded a little like X" or "cam off as X" is quite different. No?
By the way… I apologize for the accusation you are naive… That was uncalled for.
that's ok, because you said "you seem naive"…not that AM naive. No apology neccessary.
I still think "that comes off as …." is a better way to say it, though. That way, you are helping the communication and implicitly asking for clarification
So, if I may cut through your demagoguery for a moment and ask you how you propose to handle the incredible cost of those with pre-existing conditions? I am not insensitive to this: I have family members who cannot get health insurance because of pre-existing conditions. I want them to have health insurance; but those who wax on about the evil health insurance companies and pre-existing conditions have not proposed a whole lot in the way of paying for such an exorbitant increase in costs. I have no illusions when it comes to the greed of insurance companies, but neither do I truth the government when it comes to their desire to exercise power. You are clearly concerned about the former, but seem naive about the latter (at least as long as Democrats are in charge).
The point is that this is a difficult issue, and people on both sides have reasonable points to be made. It hardly furthers the issue to tell people to go to hell and accuse the other side of nefarious spin, when you obviously have spin all your own.
What say you?