Fox News - NHS Creates Terrorists

[Daenerys]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c-JEx-Kfvc


Do Americans really believe this? It seems ridiculous, and the report seems to contradict itself - it says that there is less "prestige" in being a Doctor on the NHS, but then goes on to say that Islamic people become Doctors because of the prestige it brings. What?

 

[CassinoChips]

Rule #184: Take anything said on Republican Mouthpiece News Channel with a huuuuuge grain of salt.

And no, most intelligent human beings in the United States do not believe that a nationalized health care system will create terrorists. That doesn't even make any logical sense. The common thread between the men was that they were Muslim, not that they were doctors. Only some were doctors, others "worked in the health care profession," meaning they could have been janitors, for all RMNC knows.

All this is is a weak attempt to walk the American people up to a line that connects nationalized health care with terrorism, then allow our natural stupidity to take over and connect the dots. Much like they did with Iraq and 9/11, or what they did to win the 2004 election. This way, people's minds are prepared to reject a nationalized health care system because it breeds terrorism, and they can claim that any politician (Obama) who calls for nationalizing health care supports terrorism.

 

[Apolyonn]

That Obama's nothin' but a socialist terrorist...communist. I've said it all along.

But in a serious note, I second CassinoChips's criticism on Fox, I watched a whole program on how Fox would grossly exaggerate anything that was liberal. Kerry "being French" when he came back from France. Even if it was true, who the hell cares?

 

[Donald Trump]

This is Faux news, don't forget that one of their brilliant journalists working for Fox thinks that Obama hates white people. Fox is the opposite to what conservatives call the 'liberal media'. They sell ideology rather than News, on the Daily show ( hoho) they showed how one journalist who worked at CNN 18 months ago had been into hospital to have surgery. After he came out of hospital he was complaining about how terrible America's healthcare system was. Now it's apparently the 'best in the world'.
In Britain there's the Daily Mail, in which Norman Tebbit tried to link civil unions to a rise in crime, but generally most countries have far more accurate/fair providers of news, for want of a better phrase.
As for if anyone believes it, America has a massive religious right, which in the western world you can only really and ironically find in Israel. How much most people believe is not something that I know, but there are still people who believe that Obama is a terrorist and a Muslim and is his birth certificate is fake. Those people are a minority though.

 

[blakstang98]

Rule #184: Take anything said on Republican Mouthpiece News Channel with a huuuuuge grain of salt.

Considering that 4 out of the 5 major news networks support Democratic point of views, I think it's necessary from a press coverage point-of-view that at least 1 of the stations supports Republicans.

Do I think this health reform is a form of terrorism? No, I don't think that. The health reform is the most evil act America will pull off if it gets passed, but I don't think it supports terrorism.

The health reform is absolutely disgusting. So people in need of treatment will be presented to the "death panel" and THEY will decide if the person is "worthy" for treatment. This much I will say. I have a multi-handicapped sister who doesn't talk or walk because she was born with an illness. Granted my sister is 28 years old and in very good health for someone of her illness, nobody, I MEAN NOBODY ever has the right to tell my parents that she isn't worthy enough in society to get treatment if god forbid her illness starts getting the better of her. So when Joe Blow comes along and claims he needs treatment for a heart-attack he has, he gets it. Even though Joe Blow is a worthless degenerate that grew up with a silver spoon in his mouth, he will get treatment and my sister won't because she grew up in a poor family and can't talk or walk? This should never, EVER happen. What gives the government the right to choose who gets treatment? My sister is covered under my father's medical plan, why should there be a death panel to have a say?

There is no real terrorism threat from the health reform, but choosing who gets treatment and who doesn't is absolutely disgusting. When Hitler choose who lived and who died, was that right? So why is it right now? So this actually does in a small way is an act of terrorism indirectly by letting people die without treatment because they weren't good enough. Nobody should ever have to lose their life because it was chosen by someone else.

It's also funny that Dr. Kevorkian did a lot of prison time for taking lives of people WHO REQUESTED him to take their life, and yet it's ok that the government can do this? Bottom line, health reform fails in every possible way!

 

[CassinoChips]

Considering that 4 out of the 5 major news networks support Democratic point of views, I think it's necessary from a press coverage point-of-view that at least 1 of the stations supports Republicans.

One out of five does. MSNBC, who have apparently lost their minds. They used to be as neutral as CNN.

Do I think this health reform is a form of terrorism? No, I don't think that. The health reform is the most evil act America will pull off if it gets passed, but I don't think it supports terrorism.

How can something that provides health care to 9 million otherwise uncovered children be evil? Is Canada evil for having a government-run health care system? Sweden?

The health reform is absolutely disgusting. So people in need of treatment will be presented to the "death panel" and THEY will decide if the person is "worthy" for treatment.

No, they won't.

See: This and this

The point is, don't believe everything you read on Facebook. And also, Sarah Palin is insane.

Bottom line, health reform fails in every possible way!

Except that our current system is broken. So it needs to be reformed.

Here's a situation for you. My girlfriend has had a kidney stone before. Her family has a history of kidney stones. She purchases a health care plan. The health care company, without informing my girlfriend, attaches a rider to her plan that puts her kidney stones under the phrase "pre-existing condition." This essentially means that if she gets a kidney stone at any point up to February 2010, the insurance company will not pay for it.

How much sense does that make? The health insurance company refuses to cover the medical condition that is essentially the only reason she needs health insurance. So what are her options if she gets a kidney stone, knowing that she'll have to pay the medical bills in full? Spend a day and a half in writhing agony? Unable to sleep, eat, or get out of bed? And let me tell you, Tylenol ain't gonna do jack for that pain, brutha.

Now imagine this situation with your sister. Let's say, for whatever reason, she has to have a new insurance policy. Now, because she has this pre-existing condition, she won't be covered under the new policy for any procedure/consultation/doctor's visit in general for the next 18 months.

Does that make any sense? Any sense at all?

My girlfriend went to the hospital about two months ago. And was diagnosed with a kidney stone. The bills for the two ER visits are approximately $7000. And the insurance company won't cover it. You tell me how a nationalized health care system (which, by the way, isn't what Obama is pushing for) wouldn't be better.

 

[blakstang98]

No, they won't.

See: This and this

The point is, don't believe everything you read on Facebook. And also, Sarah Palin is insane.

Just because a government based website states something as FACT, it does not necessarily mean its true. Even the government wouldn't be so stupid as to say the reform does this and this, and then say something different on their website, they will protect their investment. If you're asking me to believe the government and disbelieve Palin, I'll have to politely decline that offer. She is the only common sense politician around these days, or former politician I should say.

And to go off topic for a second, why is it that people continue to bash Palin, even though she's not in a political seat anymore? You'd think people would just accept and be happy with the fact that she didn't become VP. Not to mention nobody ever gives a valid answer for why she is hated. Are all political women supposed to be like Hillary? I grow tired of continuous Palin hating. /rant

Except that our current system is broken. So it needs to be reformed.

Here's a situation for you. My girlfriend has had a kidney stone before. Her family has a history of kidney stones. She purchases a health care plan. The health care company, without informing my girlfriend, attaches a rider to her plan that puts her kidney stones under the phrase "pre-existing condition." This essentially means that if she gets a kidney stone at any point up to February 2010, the insurance company will not pay for it.

How much sense does that make? The health insurance company refuses to cover the medical condition that is essentially the only reason she needs health insurance. So what are her options if she gets a kidney stone, knowing that she'll have to pay the medical bills in full? Spend a day and a half in writhing agony? Unable to sleep, eat, or get out of bed? And let me tell you, Tylenol ain't gonna do jack for that pain, brutha.

Now imagine this situation with your sister. Let's say, for whatever reason, she has to have a new insurance policy. Now, because she has this pre-existing condition, she won't be covered under the new policy for any procedure/consultation/doctor's visit in general for the next 18 months.

Does that make any sense? Any sense at all?

My girlfriend went to the hospital about two months ago. And was diagnosed with a kidney stone. The bills for the two ER visits are approximately $7000. And the insurance company won't cover it. You tell me how a nationalized health care system (which, by the way, isn't what Obama is pushing for) wouldn't be better.

Well, the first thing I'll tell you is that your girlfriends insurance plan sucks. Mediocre plans should cover kidney stones. Naturally some plans are better than others. Again, this doesn't mean that the governments plan is a good one. We won't know for sure until it happens, IF it happens.

My sister is always covered, she has an illness that isn't a typical one that many kids have like Autism or Down Syndrome, it's much worse. If Palin is going to be concerned because of her Down Syndrome baby, then I think my family has a legitimate point in being concerned. At least Palin's child will grow up and be able to talk and walk and be able to "contribute" to society in some way, unlike my sister.

We can agree that the health system in America is broken, but their idea of fixing it will make things worse. If they propose it in a different way, then maybe I can agree with what they propose, but this way is totally wrong.

 

[CassinoChips]

Just because a government based website states something as FACT, it does not necessarily mean its true. Even the government wouldn't be so stupid as to say the reform does this and this, and then say something different on their website, they will protect their investment. If you're asking me to believe the government and disbelieve Palin, I'll have to politely decline that offer. She is the only common sense politician around these days, or former politician I should say.

Factcheck.org is run by the University of Pennsylvania, not the government.

And to go off topic for a second, why is it that people continue to bash Palin, even though she's not in a political seat anymore? You'd think people would just accept and be happy with the fact that she didn't become VP. Not to mention nobody ever gives a valid answer for why she is hated. Are all political women supposed to be like Hillary? I grow tired of continuous Palin hating. /rant

I don't hate her, I just think she's nuts. And honestly, I don't hate her any more than I do most politicians. She just makes it easy because of some of the crazy stuff she says/does.

Well, the first thing I'll tell you is that your girlfriends insurance plan sucks. Mediocre plans should cover kidney stones. Naturally some plans are better than others. Again, this doesn't mean that the governments plan is a good one. We won't know for sure until it happens, IF it happens.

You're right there, it does suck. But it's what she can afford. And some coverage is better than no coverage.

My sister is always covered, she has an illness that isn't a typical one that many kids have like Autism or Down Syndrome, it's much worse. If Palin is going to be concerned because of her Down Syndrome baby, then I think my family has a legitimate point in being concerned. At least Palin's child will grow up and be able to talk and walk and be able to "contribute" to society in some way, unlike my sister.

Palin's concerned for reasons that she made up herself and doesn't actually need to be concerned about.

We can agree that the health system in America is broken, but their idea of fixing it will make things worse. If they propose it in a different way, then maybe I can agree with what they propose, but this way is totally wrong.

I agree. Until they nationalize it and make it free to all, Obama's plan will not significantly improve matters. Realistically, all he's trying to do is introduce the government as a player in the insurance game, low-balling the cost of other companies, and forcing them to match those costs or lose business, thus making health insurance overall less expensive. It may help matters slightly, but the overall impact it would have would be negligible.

 

[Flagg]

Guys you need to wake up. It's not a case of Fox being a bad republican news site, virtually all media is tied into sensationalistic fear mongering.

For the last 30 years, the Media has been abusing the whole freedom of speech thing, literally lying through its teeth and often enough that people begin to think its true after awhile. There's an apt saying here, if you sling enough shit, eventually it will stick.

SCARE. SCARE. SCARE. Its what the media does and its why the majority of people are becoming sheep they think they need a government to protect them.

Suggesting that the NHS is a breeding ground for terrorists is ludicrous. We'll forget that the reason that is being said on FOX is because they dont want a Universal Health Care system in the states, which I understand is a somewhat contentious issue right now.

When I was about 10 years old, me and my friends at the weekends or on holidays would leave our houses of a morning and come home in the evening. We'd play football, play in the woods, whatever our imaginations would allow. And you know what, all of us are here today. Yet the Media will tell you of the threat of the paedophile bogey man, as if this monster has only just crawled out from under a bed in the last 5 years or so. Kids today do not get the freedom that their parents were allowed when they were young and you know why? If its not things like this, its the threat of terrorism, someone is murdered and its National News for a day or so! Slowly but surely, we are being boxed into comfort zones.

Media scare mongering.

 

[Shu]

I think the only major concern is if they nationalize health care for everyone, pharmacies might lose their patents on certain things. If this is true, then a lot more people will be out of jobs. I'm not saying patents are great, but they do make it so that all the phony, malicious, meds stay off the street. I mean imagine if you are were in need of insulin and thanks to certain diabetic institutions losing their patents, someone buys a generic brand of insulin. Well the insulin backfires and causes side affects such as too low of blood pressure which causes anemia and so therefore the person has to take x amount of glucose in order to counter balance their state.

How scary would that crap be?

I personally wouldn't mind if they nationalized it, but I think the better step would be to offer health insurance at better rates and easier qualifications. (excluding illegal immigrants) - another issue all in itself.

 

[Apolyonn]

How scary would that crap be?

Not as scary as a clip from a surveillance camera of an ambulance racing to some random street, wheeling out a patient, leaving them in the middle of this street, and racing out of there; patient wakes up in a hospital nightgown, looking around, last thing they remember is being in the hospital. Five minutes later, someone from the business that the woman is standing in front of walks out, asks if the woman needs help...

And that actually happens.

I agree with your last statement, but wouldn't a state-controlled healthcare system mean that the state controls all the drugs distributed? And if they control the drugs...a patent seems kind of unnecessary, no?

 

[Shu]

To be honest I don't know how it would work? I mean I'm not saying it couldn't, I just don't know. If the state could regulate it, then I think it would be excellent. That is the main concern though. If all patents are dropped, I think a lot of chemists would be out of a job, along with sales reps. Not to say Pfizer was ever doing a "great" job, but I do respect that I'm able to get pain meds when I need it for my knee at a moderate price.

I mean that article is pure crap in my opinion because if Doctor's are in their profession merely due to money, then I'm scared for myself. Otherwise I think Nationalized health care would be down right awesome to have. Hince why I love Canada =).

 

[Donald Trump]

To be honest I don't know how it would work? I mean I'm not saying it couldn't, I just don't know. If the state could regulate it, then I think it would be excellent. That is the main concern though. If all patents are dropped, I think a lot of chemists would be out of a job, along with sales reps. Not to say Pfizer was ever doing a "great" job, but I do respect that I'm able to get pain meds when I need it for my knee at a moderate price.

I mean that article is pure crap in my opinion because if Doctor's are in their profession merely due to money, then I'm scared for myself. Otherwise I think Nationalized health care would be down right awesome to have. Hince why I love Canada =).

If America believed so much in a free market then they would import most/all the drugs they need. There was a book published not too long ago by the vice-CEO (or whatever the equivaelnt in America is) of one of the major pharmaceutical companies. He said it would be far cheaper too import the drugs they need from places like Canada, and so American citizens would save a lot on healthcare.
What people seem to forget about Universal health care is that you can still have private health care. It's just greed, people don't want to pay tax for something they don't benefit from.

 

[Apolyonn]

If America believed so much in a free market then they would import most/all the drugs they need. There was a book published not too long ago by the vice-CEO (or whatever the equivaelnt in America is) of one of the major pharmaceutical companies. He said it would be far cheaper too import the drugs they need from places like Canada, and so American citizens would save a lot on healthcare.
What people seem to forget about Universal health care is that you can still have private health care. It's just greed, people don't want to pay tax for something they don't benefit from.

How would that be cheaper? I don't know that importing drugs would be great for the economy, as Shu's pointed out a few times. I don't think it's the drug companies that need the reforms so much as the health insurance agencies. Even just reforms would be better than what we have now, like back in the day when the government stepped in and pwnd big-city bosses, and Andrew Carnegie...or should I say Mr. Monopoly.

I mean that article is pure crap in my opinion because if Doctor's are in their profession merely due to money, then I'm scared for myself. Otherwise I think Nationalized health care would be down right awesome to have. Hince why I love Canada =).

I watched a video on countries that use Universal healthcare systems. Canadians seem to have it pretty well, especially considering how much the American media seems to put it down. Except, there was a scene of a British drug store...there was only drugs. I guess to someone who's grown up with Walgreens, CVS, etc. it seemed a little eerie. Efficient, I'm sure, but...eerie.

 

[Shu]

If America believed so much in a free market then they would import most/all the drugs they need. There was a book published not too long ago by the vice-CEO (or whatever the equivaelnt in America is) of one of the major pharmaceutical companies. He said it would be far cheaper too import the drugs they need from places like Canada, and so American citizens would save a lot on healthcare.
What people seem to forget about Universal health care is that you can still have private health care. It's just greed, people don't want to pay tax for something they don't benefit from.

First off that would never happen though. I won't say that it is a bad thing in what you are saying, but USA is too paranoid of overseas pharmaceutical products. If we don't brew it ourselves then it is very difficult to do testing to see if it does, just another waste of money. As well if we don't make it ourselves it is harder to tax the product. (although if you notice everything is taxed when it is imported, hince the reason you have to pay a fee for getting alcohol into our country)

And yes, it does have to do with taxing. We as Americans our taxed out the arse, even if we don't ever see benefits. (ever wonder why you are paying medicare tax and yet don't have health insurance your self?) A lot of our taxes from health care already are way above and beyond the needed. Most people call it communism to even think of doing away with the tax, or even universalizing the health care, but they are just capitalistic pigs. I mean there is capitalism then there is extreme capitalism. This falls WAYYYY into the extreme capitalism.

I mean we are willing to buy military weapons free of tax (irony) yet not able to get helpful drugs that could maybe help cure our Nation's diseases. It seems backwards.. WAY backwards.

How would that be cheaper? I don't know that importing drugs would be great for the economy, as Shu's pointed out a few times.

Well actually I was mostly pointing out that if we remove patents because of the universal health care stuff, I believe our drugs that we need won't be as readily available anymore due to either over consumerism or phony products. As well another point would be people losing their jobs, and god knows we don't need anymore unemployment.

 

[CassinoChips]

First off that would never happen though. I won't say that it is a bad thing in what you are saying, but USA is too paranoid of overseas pharmaceutical products. If we don't brew it ourselves then it is very difficult to do testing to see if it does, just another waste of money. As well if we don't make it ourselves it is harder to tax the product. (although if you notice everything is taxed when it is imported, hince the reason you have to pay a fee for getting alcohol into our country)

Protective tariffs: An American tradition since 1812. It's the only reason the American auto industry survived since World War Two. We'd end up doing the same with pharmaceuticals, protecting the American companies while the government profited on the imports.

And yes, it does have to do with taxing. We as Americans our taxed out the arse, even if we don't ever see benefits.

No we aren't, relatively speaking. The US Federal Government is one of the weakest governments in the world in terms of ability to tax. The framers designed it that way. The European countries have much, much, MUCH more taxation thrown at them. The US generally floats in the neighborhood of 25-28%. Belgium, for example, is above 50%.