BBC: attempts to defend ObamaCare, ends up doing the opposite.

[Andylusion]

BBC World Service - Assignment , Kentucky learns to love Obamacare

So the BBC World Service released on July 17th, a documentary called:
"Kentucky learns to love Obamacare" (link above goes to the audio only broadcast which is 24 minutes long)

At first, I forgot I was listening to the BBC, and based on the title alone, expected a typical left-wing American Mass Media News bit fawning over the absolute perfection that is all things Obama.

And it did start off that way, with the report proclaiming the virtues of the program. But soon, even with the reporter obviously in support of the program, one after the other, people expressed their negative views, and problems with it. I remembered this was the BBC, where they actually air the views they hear. Where interviews with people, are not cut and edited until they match the views of the reporter or news agency airing the report.

The reporter went all around trying to convince people how great it was. The first guy asked "yeah but who is paying for it?" and the reporter said it was the Federal Government. To which the guy asked again "yeah..... but who is going to pay for it?" and went on to say the Federal Government doesn't make money. They can only steal money from those who do.

This is why I really like the BBC. They are still bias, still have an opinion, but even so they report both sides. If CNN, MSNBC, CBS did the same documentary, that response, and a dozen others would have been edited out.

Another lady they interviewed said she hated ObamaCare because she had a perfectly good insurance policy before that she could afford. Her insurance company gave her notice that to meet ObamaCare regulations, her insurance policy was ending at the end of the year, and she would have to chose a new policy... all of which were more expensive. The reporter, acting like a good DNC operative said "but it's better insurance than what you had".

Doesn't matter if it's better insurance, if you can't afford it. That's where I am. I had a catastrophic coverage policy for $60. But all those policies are now gone. I can't afford it. I'll pay the fine, and do without. No choice.

Which is what yet another person responded in the documentary. He said he couldn't afford it, and he'll just pay the fine, and let the government cover his bills.

They interviewed a lady whose husband was laid off. She said she signed up for the ObamaCare Coverage, and yet said she didn't like the system. The reporter was of course shocked, and asked why. Her response was that, she did not like government using health care as an issue to control people.... like New York, banning soda drinks because they caused the government health care costs.

They even went to an activist, who opened a free clinic back in the 70s, and was still there. This elderly black lady, running a free clinic, even she said the law is too expensive, and too complex. She said the law should be more plain and easy to understand, and the funding for it needs more clarity and sustainability.

The reporter was again shocked, saying she thought if anyone would be in favor of the plan, it would be this activist.

The interviews continued, another with a business owner. Owner of a small Quiznos Subs. They talked about how they simply couldn't afford the requirements of ObamaCare, and that they were cutting all the hours of their employees to get under the requirement, and if not, they would pay the fine, and if they couldn't afford that, they would close the store.

However, they found and interviewed one true supporter of ObamaCare, and massively obese women, who wanted to find out if she had diabetes. She signed up under ObamaCare, and went to the doctor, who ran the blood test on our tax money, and discovered she was not yet diabetic.

At which point the doctor said "Unless you change your lifestyle, and get your weight under control, you will be a diabetic".

At this point Shamu broke down in tears, and said "now I know, and now I can get better".

But wait... she wasn't ill to begin with. She got no treatment, no medication, no nothing. She was only told she had to lose the teletubby. Well crap, I could have told Shamu, she needed to lose the Teletuby, without going to the doctor, or spending a dollar of tax money.

That just cost us a lot of money, to tell Big Bertha that she wasn't sick, but would be if she didn't lose a backstreet boy from her dress, which absolutely anyone, and her mirror, should have been able to tell her for free.

All in all, the entire Documentary which aimed to praise Obamacare, was a nearly non-stop train wreck, of why the program was bad, not supported, and damaging to the economy.

Once again, the BBC exposed both sides, whereas our domestic media would have NEVER aired both sides. If CNN did HALF the job that the BBC does, we'd be in far better shape in our society.

 

[rdean]

BBC World Service - Assignment , Kentucky learns to love Obamacare

So the BBC World Service released on July 17th, a documentary called:
"Kentucky learns to love Obamacare" (link above goes to the audio only broadcast which is 24 minutes long)

At first, I forgot I was listening to the BBC, and based on the title alone, expected a typical left-wing American Mass Media News bit fawning over the absolute perfection that is all things Obama.

And it did start off that way, with the report proclaiming the virtues of the program. But soon, even with the reporter obviously in support of the program, one after the other, people expressed their negative views, and problems with it. I remembered this was the BBC, where they actually air the views they hear. Where interviews with people, are not cut and edited until they match the views of the reporter or news agency airing the report.

The reporter went all around trying to convince people how great it was. The first guy asked "yeah but who is paying for it?" and the reporter said it was the Federal Government. To which the guy asked again "yeah..... but who is going to pay for it?" and went on to say the Federal Government doesn't make money. They can only steal money from those who do.

This is why I really like the BBC. They are still bias, still have an opinion, but even so they report both sides. If CNN, MSNBC, CBS did the same documentary, that response, and a dozen others would have been edited out.

Another lady they interviewed said she hated ObamaCare because she had a perfectly good insurance policy before that she could afford. Her insurance company gave her notice that to meet ObamaCare regulations, her insurance policy was ending at the end of the year, and she would have to chose a new policy... all of which were more expensive. The reporter, acting like a good DNC operative said "but it's better insurance than what you had".

Doesn't matter if it's better insurance, if you can't afford it. That's where I am. I had a catastrophic coverage policy for $60. But all those policies are now gone. I can't afford it. I'll pay the fine, and do without. No choice.

Which is what yet another person responded in the documentary. He said he couldn't afford it, and he'll just pay the fine, and let the government cover his bills.

They interviewed a lady whose husband was laid off. She said she signed up for the ObamaCare Coverage, and yet said she didn't like the system. The reporter was of course shocked, and asked why. Her response was that, she did not like government using health care as an issue to control people.... like New York, banning soda drinks because they caused the government health care costs.

They even went to an activist, who opened a free clinic back in the 70s, and was still there. This elderly black lady, running a free clinic, even she said the law is too expensive, and too complex. She said the law should be more plain and easy to understand, and the funding for it needs more clarity and sustainability.

The reporter was again shocked, saying she thought if anyone would be in favor of the plan, it would be this activist.

The interviews continued, another with a business owner. Owner of a small Quiznos Subs. They talked about how they simply couldn't afford the requirements of ObamaCare, and that they were cutting all the hours of their employees to get under the requirement, and if not, they would pay the fine, and if they couldn't afford that, they would close the store.

However, they found and interviewed one true supporter of ObamaCare, and massively obese women, who wanted to find out if she had diabetes. She signed up under ObamaCare, and went to the doctor, who ran the blood test on our tax money, and discovered she was not yet diabetic.

At which point the doctor said "Unless you change your lifestyle, and get your weight under control, you will be a diabetic".

At this point Shamu broke down in tears, and said "now I know, and now I can get better".

But wait... she wasn't ill to begin with. She got no treatment, no medication, no nothing. She was only told she had to lose the teletubby. Well crap, I could have told Shamu, she needed to lose the Teletuby, without going to the doctor, or spending a dollar of tax money.

That just cost us a lot of money, to tell Big Bertha that she wasn't sick, but would be if she didn't lose a backstreet boy from her dress, which absolutely anyone, and her mirror, should have been able to tell her for free.

All in all, the entire Documentary which aimed to praise Obamacare, was a nearly non-stop train wreck, of why the program was bad, not supported, and damaging to the economy.

Once again, the BBC exposed both sides, whereas our domestic media would have NEVER aired both sides. If CNN did HALF the job that the BBC does, we'd be in far better shape in our society.

I had a catastrophic coverage policy for $60

That never existed. Only fool could believe such nonsense.

 

[CowboyTed]

The OP has some funny views... BBC is biased, but since it supported my view, it is still biased and they had to do it...

 

[Andylusion]

BBC World Service - Assignment , Kentucky learns to love Obamacare

So the BBC World Service released on July 17th, a documentary called:
"Kentucky learns to love Obamacare" (link above goes to the audio only broadcast which is 24 minutes long)

At first, I forgot I was listening to the BBC, and based on the title alone, expected a typical left-wing American Mass Media News bit fawning over the absolute perfection that is all things Obama.

And it did start off that way, with the report proclaiming the virtues of the program. But soon, even with the reporter obviously in support of the program, one after the other, people expressed their negative views, and problems with it. I remembered this was the BBC, where they actually air the views they hear. Where interviews with people, are not cut and edited until they match the views of the reporter or news agency airing the report.

The reporter went all around trying to convince people how great it was. The first guy asked "yeah but who is paying for it?" and the reporter said it was the Federal Government. To which the guy asked again "yeah..... but who is going to pay for it?" and went on to say the Federal Government doesn't make money. They can only steal money from those who do.

This is why I really like the BBC. They are still bias, still have an opinion, but even so they report both sides. If CNN, MSNBC, CBS did the same documentary, that response, and a dozen others would have been edited out.

Another lady they interviewed said she hated ObamaCare because she had a perfectly good insurance policy before that she could afford. Her insurance company gave her notice that to meet ObamaCare regulations, her insurance policy was ending at the end of the year, and she would have to chose a new policy... all of which were more expensive. The reporter, acting like a good DNC operative said "but it's better insurance than what you had".

Doesn't matter if it's better insurance, if you can't afford it. That's where I am. I had a catastrophic coverage policy for $60. But all those policies are now gone. I can't afford it. I'll pay the fine, and do without. No choice.

Which is what yet another person responded in the documentary. He said he couldn't afford it, and he'll just pay the fine, and let the government cover his bills.

They interviewed a lady whose husband was laid off. She said she signed up for the ObamaCare Coverage, and yet said she didn't like the system. The reporter was of course shocked, and asked why. Her response was that, she did not like government using health care as an issue to control people.... like New York, banning soda drinks because they caused the government health care costs.

They even went to an activist, who opened a free clinic back in the 70s, and was still there. This elderly black lady, running a free clinic, even she said the law is too expensive, and too complex. She said the law should be more plain and easy to understand, and the funding for it needs more clarity and sustainability.

The reporter was again shocked, saying she thought if anyone would be in favor of the plan, it would be this activist.

The interviews continued, another with a business owner. Owner of a small Quiznos Subs. They talked about how they simply couldn't afford the requirements of ObamaCare, and that they were cutting all the hours of their employees to get under the requirement, and if not, they would pay the fine, and if they couldn't afford that, they would close the store.

However, they found and interviewed one true supporter of ObamaCare, and massively obese women, who wanted to find out if she had diabetes. She signed up under ObamaCare, and went to the doctor, who ran the blood test on our tax money, and discovered she was not yet diabetic.

At which point the doctor said "Unless you change your lifestyle, and get your weight under control, you will be a diabetic".

At this point Shamu broke down in tears, and said "now I know, and now I can get better".

But wait... she wasn't ill to begin with. She got no treatment, no medication, no nothing. She was only told she had to lose the teletubby. Well crap, I could have told Shamu, she needed to lose the Teletuby, without going to the doctor, or spending a dollar of tax money.

That just cost us a lot of money, to tell Big Bertha that she wasn't sick, but would be if she didn't lose a backstreet boy from her dress, which absolutely anyone, and her mirror, should have been able to tell her for free.

All in all, the entire Documentary which aimed to praise Obamacare, was a nearly non-stop train wreck, of why the program was bad, not supported, and damaging to the economy.

Once again, the BBC exposed both sides, whereas our domestic media would have NEVER aired both sides. If CNN did HALF the job that the BBC does, we'd be in far better shape in our society.

I had a catastrophic coverage policy for $60

That never existed. Only fool could believe such nonsense.

Yes it did. I had it. lol. In fact, my policy was $67. I got a policy for a Somalian friend, for $57 a month. You have no idea do you...

 

[Andylusion]

The OP has some funny views... BBC is biased, but since it supported my view, it is still biased and they had to do it...

All news agencies are biased. The idea of an unbiased news source, is as much a reality as an honest politician.

The only question, is that of degrees. American news sources today, are so heavily biased, that they have no problem cutting video footage to edit out anything that doesn't support their opinion.

The BBC on the other hand, is still biased.... as *ALL* news sources are... but they will actually post whatever they find, even if it doesn't support their position.

The reporter of this audio actively sought out people she believed supported Obama care. She actively attempted to find people she thought support the Obama Care cause. The title of the report is "Kentucky learns to love Obamacare" even though, the vast majority by far, did not support Obama Care.

This would NEVER have happened in a domestic news source.

If this had been Fox News, and they had found Obama Care supporters, those sections would have been heavily edited to be in the worst light.

If this had been CNN, it and they found opposition, they would have been edited to be in the worst light, or even edited out completely.

And we have examples from across the news sources. A poll on gun control by the New York Times, in which they found opposition to gun control, and instead of publishing it, they changed the questions and ran the poll again.

Yes, the BBC is still biased. Absolutely they are. Listen to the report. The opinion and political position of the BBC is very clear.

In fact, ironically, just today I listened to a report by the BBC on Democrats in Texas. The reporter ran into Democrats in Texas that support Gun Rights, and reduced regulation, and more independence from the Federal Government. The reporter was stunned, and over and over said he couldn't believe they supported such things.... making his own opinion very clear.

But.... they published what they found, even if they didn't agree with it.

That's the difference between Domestic News sources, and the BBC.

 

[Darlene]

I personally think the government is sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong. What happened to checks and balances?

 

[Andylusion]

I personally think the government is sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong. What happened to checks and balances?

The constitution is supposed to limit the scope of government. But the truth is, Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional to begin with.

So we have ditched the constitution a long time ago. It'll be hard to get it back.

As far as checks and balance... the fact is, the public voted for this. We're getting exactly what we voted for, and now we're going to hate it.

 

[CowboyTed]

I personally think the government is sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong. What happened to checks and balances?

The constitution is supposed to limit the scope of government. But the truth is, Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional to begin with.

So we have ditched the constitution a long time ago. It'll be hard to get it back.

As far as checks and balance... the fact is, the public voted for this. We're getting exactly what we voted for, and now we're going to hate it.

Is changing the constitution not an option?

In Ireland we have had about 15 amendments to our constitution in the last 20 years. I know changing ours is just a straight forward referendum of the people. So we simply vote on it and there is a minimum voter participation, so it usually packaged in with other elections.

Switzerland has one nearly every month, they can do it on-line, but there model is a lot closer to direct democracy than Ireland's.

Why you might ask?
In Europe to varying degrees our constitutions are lot larger and more constraining than the US. So Abortion for example has had about 3 amendments in the last 20 years. The disadvantage is our politicians have less power, advantage our politicians have less power.

But the main advantage is all social laws like Abortion, Divorce, Gay Marriage, Death Penalty, Neutrality... are in the constitution. So politicians don't have to have a view on it and can simply say, 'Let the people decide'. So politicians (of main parties) generally don't share their views on it and say I will act in accordance to the peoples wishes. They get paid to enact laws which are more day to day and budget decisions.
It does cut out a lot of nonsense in elections when added to a Alternative/PR voting system.

So in theory, if the Democrats wanted a Universal Healthcare system they just put it on a referendum for the people and they want it they get it (and also pay for it). It is considered very bad move to go against the will of the people, they are your masters and the main parties are fearful of the people if they don't act on the referendum to place in laws and anyway there is plenty of people which will bring them to the high/supreme court which will be quick in ordering it..

This will amuse you:
Health Minister still faces jail threat - irishhealth.com

 

[CowboyTed]

The OP has some funny views... BBC is biased, but since it supported my view, it is still biased and they had to do it...

All news agencies are biased. The idea of an unbiased news source, is as much a reality as an honest politician.

The only question, is that of degrees. American news sources today, are so heavily biased, that they have no problem cutting video footage to edit out anything that doesn't support their opinion.

The BBC on the other hand, is still biased.... as *ALL* news sources are... but they will actually post whatever they find, even if it doesn't support their position.

The reporter of this audio actively sought out people she believed supported Obama care. She actively attempted to find people she thought support the Obama Care cause. The title of the report is "Kentucky learns to love Obamacare" even though, the vast majority by far, did not support Obama Care.

This would NEVER have happened in a domestic news source.

If this had been Fox News, and they had found Obama Care supporters, those sections would have been heavily edited to be in the worst light.

If this had been CNN, it and they found opposition, they would have been edited to be in the worst light, or even edited out completely.

And we have examples from across the news sources. A poll on gun control by the New York Times, in which they found opposition to gun control, and instead of publishing it, they changed the questions and ran the poll again.

Yes, the BBC is still biased. Absolutely they are. Listen to the report. The opinion and political position of the BBC is very clear.

In fact, ironically, just today I listened to a report by the BBC on Democrats in Texas. The reporter ran into Democrats in Texas that support Gun Rights, and reduced regulation, and more independence from the Federal Government. The reporter was stunned, and over and over said he couldn't believe they supported such things.... making his own opinion very clear.

But.... they published what they found, even if they didn't agree with it.

That's the difference between Domestic News sources, and the BBC.

This is quite common journalistic practice on this side of the pond. BBC use this to challenge the viewers preconceived views. We like to see journalists challenging interviewees rather just finding the common story..
We naturally want to see what the Tea Party member in Vermont has to say or the Democrat in Alabama.. These types are usually well informed(not always)..
BBC use this technique regularly, as do RTE(Irish national broadcaster)...

News in Europe is still arranged around the big news casts (ie. 6pm and 9pm in Ireland). Most people get their news from here, newspapers or online... 24 hour news doesn't have the same in roads unless there is a major story going on (e.g. London Riots..)
Viewing summary - BARB
Compared to the big news broadcasts:

 

[Andylusion]

I personally think the government is sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong. What happened to checks and balances?

The constitution is supposed to limit the scope of government. But the truth is, Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional to begin with.

So we have ditched the constitution a long time ago. It'll be hard to get it back.

As far as checks and balance... the fact is, the public voted for this. We're getting exactly what we voted for, and now we're going to hate it.

Is changing the constitution not an option?

In Ireland we have had about 15 amendments to our constitution in the last 20 years. I know changing ours is just a straight forward referendum of the people. So we simply vote on it and there is a minimum voter participation, so it usually packaged in with other elections.

Switzerland has one nearly every month, they can do it on-line, but there model is a lot closer to direct democracy than Ireland's.

Why you might ask?
In Europe to varying degrees our constitutions are lot larger and more constraining than the US. So Abortion for example has had about 3 amendments in the last 20 years. The disadvantage is our politicians have less power, advantage our politicians have less power.

But the main advantage is all social laws like Abortion, Divorce, Gay Marriage, Death Penalty, Neutrality... are in the constitution. So politicians don't have to have a view on it and can simply say, 'Let the people decide'. So politicians (of main parties) generally don't share their views on it and say I will act in accordance to the peoples wishes. They get paid to enact laws which are more day to day and budget decisions.
It does cut out a lot of nonsense in elections when added to a Alternative/PR voting system.

So in theory, if the Democrats wanted a Universal Healthcare system they just put it on a referendum for the people and they want it they get it (and also pay for it). It is considered very bad move to go against the will of the people, they are your masters and the main parties are fearful of the people if they don't act on the referendum to place in laws and anyway there is plenty of people which will bring them to the high/supreme court which will be quick in ordering it..

This will amuse you:
Health Minister still faces jail threat - irishhealth.com

But Europe is a mess. I don't want to be like Europe.

Here's the difference. Your political system is closer to the people. So you have some countries with good systems, and others with bad systems. If Ireland puts in place a terrible policy, it effects only Ireland.

This the Republic system we were supposed to have. Our Federal Government was supposed to only be concerned with Defense of the Nation, treaties, and interstate disputes. If two states got into a fight, the Federal government would arbitrate.

Beyond that, there wasn't supposed to be any Federal energy policy, Federal welfare, Federal Medicare, Federal Pension, Federal housing.

Or any of that. If an individual state wished to have such things, they were free to do so.

All of these concerns at the Federal level, shouldn't exist.

We've abandoned the constitution, which is why we have these problems.

Our constitution works.... when it's followed. We don't need to change it, because why bother? If we're not following what it says now... why would it matter what we changed it to? If we get back to the point that we are extensively following the constitution, then making an amendment would make sense if there is something we want to change.

But we don't need to change it... we need to follow it.

 

[Andylusion]

The OP has some funny views... BBC is biased, but since it supported my view, it is still biased and they had to do it...

All news agencies are biased. The idea of an unbiased news source, is as much a reality as an honest politician.

The only question, is that of degrees. American news sources today, are so heavily biased, that they have no problem cutting video footage to edit out anything that doesn't support their opinion.

The BBC on the other hand, is still biased.... as *ALL* news sources are... but they will actually post whatever they find, even if it doesn't support their position.

The reporter of this audio actively sought out people she believed supported Obama care. She actively attempted to find people she thought support the Obama Care cause. The title of the report is "Kentucky learns to love Obamacare" even though, the vast majority by far, did not support Obama Care.

This would NEVER have happened in a domestic news source.

If this had been Fox News, and they had found Obama Care supporters, those sections would have been heavily edited to be in the worst light.

If this had been CNN, it and they found opposition, they would have been edited to be in the worst light, or even edited out completely.

And we have examples from across the news sources. A poll on gun control by the New York Times, in which they found opposition to gun control, and instead of publishing it, they changed the questions and ran the poll again.

Yes, the BBC is still biased. Absolutely they are. Listen to the report. The opinion and political position of the BBC is very clear.

In fact, ironically, just today I listened to a report by the BBC on Democrats in Texas. The reporter ran into Democrats in Texas that support Gun Rights, and reduced regulation, and more independence from the Federal Government. The reporter was stunned, and over and over said he couldn't believe they supported such things.... making his own opinion very clear.

But.... they published what they found, even if they didn't agree with it.

That's the difference between Domestic News sources, and the BBC.

This is quite common journalistic practice on this side of the pond. BBC use this to challenge the viewers preconceived views. We like to see journalists challenging interviewees rather just finding the common story..
We naturally want to see what the Tea Party member in Vermont has to say or the Democrat in Alabama.. These types are usually well informed(not always)..
BBC use this technique regularly, as do RTE(Irish national broadcaster)...

News in Europe is still arranged around the big news casts (ie. 6pm and 9pm in Ireland). Most people get their news from here, newspapers or online... 24 hour news doesn't have the same in roads unless there is a major story going on (e.g. London Riots..)
Viewing summary - BARB
Compared to the big news broadcasts:

Yes, and it's supposed to be common in all journalism. You know... where you report what you find, not what you want. Shocking concept.

Here in the states, we have people like Keith Olbermann who just completely edit out anything in a video that doesn't support his views. That's "normal" here.

 

[CowboyTed]

I personally think the government is sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong. What happened to checks and balances?

The constitution is supposed to limit the scope of government. But the truth is, Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional to begin with.

So we have ditched the constitution a long time ago. It'll be hard to get it back.

As far as checks and balance... the fact is, the public voted for this. We're getting exactly what we voted for, and now we're going to hate it.

Is changing the constitution not an option?

In Ireland we have had about 15 amendments to our constitution in the last 20 years. I know changing ours is just a straight forward referendum of the people. So we simply vote on it and there is a minimum voter participation, so it usually packaged in with other elections.

Switzerland has one nearly every month, they can do it on-line, but there model is a lot closer to direct democracy than Ireland's.

Why you might ask?
In Europe to varying degrees our constitutions are lot larger and more constraining than the US. So Abortion for example has had about 3 amendments in the last 20 years. The disadvantage is our politicians have less power, advantage our politicians have less power.

But the main advantage is all social laws like Abortion, Divorce, Gay Marriage, Death Penalty, Neutrality... are in the constitution. So politicians don't have to have a view on it and can simply say, 'Let the people decide'. So politicians (of main parties) generally don't share their views on it and say I will act in accordance to the peoples wishes. They get paid to enact laws which are more day to day and budget decisions.
It does cut out a lot of nonsense in elections when added to a Alternative/PR voting system.

So in theory, if the Democrats wanted a Universal Healthcare system they just put it on a referendum for the people and they want it they get it (and also pay for it). It is considered very bad move to go against the will of the people, they are your masters and the main parties are fearful of the people if they don't act on the referendum to place in laws and anyway there is plenty of people which will bring them to the high/supreme court which will be quick in ordering it..

This will amuse you:
Health Minister still faces jail threat - irishhealth.com

But Europe is a mess. I don't want to be like Europe.

Here's the difference. Your political system is closer to the people. So you have some countries with good systems, and others with bad systems. If Ireland puts in place a terrible policy, it effects only Ireland.

This the Republic system we were supposed to have. Our Federal Government was supposed to only be concerned with Defense of the Nation, treaties, and interstate disputes. If two states got into a fight, the Federal government would arbitrate.

Beyond that, there wasn't supposed to be any Federal energy policy, Federal welfare, Federal Medicare, Federal Pension, Federal housing.

Or any of that. If an individual state wished to have such things, they were free to do so.

All of these concerns at the Federal level, shouldn't exist.

We've abandoned the constitution, which is why we have these problems.

Our constitution works.... when it's followed. We don't need to change it, because why bother? If we're not following what it says now... why would it matter what we changed it to? If we get back to the point that we are extensively following the constitution, then making an amendment would make sense if there is something we want to change.

But we don't need to change it... we need to follow it.

Sorry to be the first to tell you but your constitution is fully of ambiguity, way too short and dead. It is not a living constitution it is dead as old yeller Living Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia.
A Constitution is supposed to modernised to meet the need of a modern society. That is why there is amendments, the US as a country has failed to maintain their constitution and follow it, but rather find ambiguity and then pack the supreme court with judges to interpret the law that way.
No other country in the first world are running their country in such a manner. It is anti democratic, unresponsive and eventually leads to a situation that to defend Ebola you are effectively breaking the constitution because it does not react to modern day problems.

Europe is far from a mess in this way. Look in the way they can react to a lot of things going on around them. Europe has far less lobbying and they have taken far more money out of politics than the US (another fault in the US constitution.).

And by the way most of the money of those Federal programs go to Red states... It is Red congressmen and senators who have the hand out most... Just look at the federal balance of payments...

 

[CowboyTed]

The OP has some funny views... BBC is biased, but since it supported my view, it is still biased and they had to do it...

All news agencies are biased. The idea of an unbiased news source, is as much a reality as an honest politician.

The only question, is that of degrees. American news sources today, are so heavily biased, that they have no problem cutting video footage to edit out anything that doesn't support their opinion.

The BBC on the other hand, is still biased.... as *ALL* news sources are... but they will actually post whatever they find, even if it doesn't support their position.

The reporter of this audio actively sought out people she believed supported Obama care. She actively attempted to find people she thought support the Obama Care cause. The title of the report is "Kentucky learns to love Obamacare" even though, the vast majority by far, did not support Obama Care.

This would NEVER have happened in a domestic news source.

If this had been Fox News, and they had found Obama Care supporters, those sections would have been heavily edited to be in the worst light.

If this had been CNN, it and they found opposition, they would have been edited to be in the worst light, or even edited out completely.

And we have examples from across the news sources. A poll on gun control by the New York Times, in which they found opposition to gun control, and instead of publishing it, they changed the questions and ran the poll again.

Yes, the BBC is still biased. Absolutely they are. Listen to the report. The opinion and political position of the BBC is very clear.

In fact, ironically, just today I listened to a report by the BBC on Democrats in Texas. The reporter ran into Democrats in Texas that support Gun Rights, and reduced regulation, and more independence from the Federal Government. The reporter was stunned, and over and over said he couldn't believe they supported such things.... making his own opinion very clear.

But.... they published what they found, even if they didn't agree with it.

That's the difference between Domestic News sources, and the BBC.

This is quite common journalistic practice on this side of the pond. BBC use this to challenge the viewers preconceived views. We like to see journalists challenging interviewees rather just finding the common story..
We naturally want to see what the Tea Party member in Vermont has to say or the Democrat in Alabama.. These types are usually well informed(not always)..
BBC use this technique regularly, as do RTE(Irish national broadcaster)...

News in Europe is still arranged around the big news casts (ie. 6pm and 9pm in Ireland). Most people get their news from here, newspapers or online... 24 hour news doesn't have the same in roads unless there is a major story going on (e.g. London Riots..)
Viewing summary - BARB
Compared to the big news broadcasts:

Yes, and it's supposed to be common in all journalism. You know... where you report what you find, not what you want. Shocking concept.

Here in the states, we have people like Keith Olbermann who just completely edit out anything in a video that doesn't support his views. That's "normal" here.

Actually that is one big difference back here. The American 1st amendment is always right doesn't always hold. News Organisations have to show balance in reporting and can get reported and investigated if it is believed they are misinforming the public.

It is dangerous ground but it does work, politicians don't get involved in any investigations, to do so is a nail in your coffin and probably a heavy fine from the court of Human Rights in Europe.

The TV stations have been done more times for misreporting than accusation of political interference. The rules are simple, you can't have a guy rambling on how they think a guy is wrong without him being given the right of reply. Same thing with criticising any organisation or company, they have to offered equal time to defend themselves. Pundits are allowed but they are clearly stated as coming from a side.

Honestly things like Bill O'Reilly Factor, Hannity, Maddow, Chris Mathews would be thrown out in a day in European TV... Reasons being they are anchors who are not impartial, no right of reply and half of what they say would break out slander or libel laws.

By the way there is more complaints about sports pundits than political pundits... By the way professional sports people don't enjoy the same protection, amateurs do. This is done at more of a respect and manners thing rather than law..

 

[Andylusion]

I personally think the government is sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong. What happened to checks and balances?

The constitution is supposed to limit the scope of government. But the truth is, Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional to begin with.

So we have ditched the constitution a long time ago. It'll be hard to get it back.

As far as checks and balance... the fact is, the public voted for this. We're getting exactly what we voted for, and now we're going to hate it.

Is changing the constitution not an option?

In Ireland we have had about 15 amendments to our constitution in the last 20 years. I know changing ours is just a straight forward referendum of the people. So we simply vote on it and there is a minimum voter participation, so it usually packaged in with other elections.

Switzerland has one nearly every month, they can do it on-line, but there model is a lot closer to direct democracy than Ireland's.

Why you might ask?
In Europe to varying degrees our constitutions are lot larger and more constraining than the US. So Abortion for example has had about 3 amendments in the last 20 years. The disadvantage is our politicians have less power, advantage our politicians have less power.

But the main advantage is all social laws like Abortion, Divorce, Gay Marriage, Death Penalty, Neutrality... are in the constitution. So politicians don't have to have a view on it and can simply say, 'Let the people decide'. So politicians (of main parties) generally don't share their views on it and say I will act in accordance to the peoples wishes. They get paid to enact laws which are more day to day and budget decisions.
It does cut out a lot of nonsense in elections when added to a Alternative/PR voting system.

So in theory, if the Democrats wanted a Universal Healthcare system they just put it on a referendum for the people and they want it they get it (and also pay for it). It is considered very bad move to go against the will of the people, they are your masters and the main parties are fearful of the people if they don't act on the referendum to place in laws and anyway there is plenty of people which will bring them to the high/supreme court which will be quick in ordering it..

This will amuse you:
Health Minister still faces jail threat - irishhealth.com

But Europe is a mess. I don't want to be like Europe.

Here's the difference. Your political system is closer to the people. So you have some countries with good systems, and others with bad systems. If Ireland puts in place a terrible policy, it effects only Ireland.

This the Republic system we were supposed to have. Our Federal Government was supposed to only be concerned with Defense of the Nation, treaties, and interstate disputes. If two states got into a fight, the Federal government would arbitrate.

Beyond that, there wasn't supposed to be any Federal energy policy, Federal welfare, Federal Medicare, Federal Pension, Federal housing.

Or any of that. If an individual state wished to have such things, they were free to do so.

All of these concerns at the Federal level, shouldn't exist.

We've abandoned the constitution, which is why we have these problems.

Our constitution works.... when it's followed. We don't need to change it, because why bother? If we're not following what it says now... why would it matter what we changed it to? If we get back to the point that we are extensively following the constitution, then making an amendment would make sense if there is something we want to change.

But we don't need to change it... we need to follow it.

Sorry to be the first to tell you but your constitution is fully of ambiguity, way too short and dead. It is not a living constitution it is dead as old yeller Living Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia.
A Constitution is supposed to modernised to meet the need of a modern society. That is why there is amendments, the US as a country has failed to maintain their constitution and follow it, but rather find ambiguity and then pack the supreme court with judges to interpret the law that way.
No other country in the first world are running their country in such a manner. It is anti democratic, unresponsive and eventually leads to a situation that to defend Ebola you are effectively breaking the constitution because it does not react to modern day problems.

Europe is far from a mess in this way. Look in the way they can react to a lot of things going on around them. Europe has far less lobbying and they have taken far more money out of politics than the US (another fault in the US constitution.).

And by the way most of the money of those Federal programs go to Red states... It is Red congressmen and senators who have the hand out most... Just look at the federal balance of payments...

A living constitution, is pointless, and should be ditched anyway. The entire point of having a constitution, is that it is static, and set in stone.

If the constitution is 'living' and changes with the time, and "has a dynamic meaning" that can change on the whims of whoever reads it, then it's a worthless document of no value.

Who is to say that tomorrow freedom of the press really means..... insert whatever whim of 'dynamic meaning' they want?

The whole point of having a set in stone rules of conduct, is to have a set in stone rules of conduct.

We have a living constitution now. People just do whatever the heck they want in Washington, and pass whatever law they feel like, regardless of it's constitutionality. All the problems in our society, stem from that lack of having clear cut rules.

Funny how thousands of years after Hammurabi's code, we're now reverting back to how it was before. The whole point was, that before, there were no set laws, and justice and laws were 'dynamic', and no one knew for sure what was right or wrong, or what the rules were. Hammurabi set the laws in stone for all to see, and understand. So that both the law givers, and law abiders knew what the rules where.

Now thousands of years later, we're reverting back to a system of "dynamic law" where what the law means today, may not mean that tomorrow, and no one can say for sure what the rules are, because it depends on "associated views contemporaneous society should be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases".... which means the constitution could mean absolutely anything depending on the whims of society.....

Let's all go back to living in caves..... good heavens. Soon people will be dragging their knuckles on the ground and carrying clubs... unless of course the dynamic interpretation includes 'club control laws'.

 

[Darlene]

I personally think the government is sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong. What happened to checks and balances?

The constitution is supposed to limit the scope of government. But the truth is, Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional to begin with.

So we have ditched the constitution a long time ago. It'll be hard to get it back.

As far as checks and balance... the fact is, the public voted for this. We're getting exactly what we voted for, and now we're going to hate it.

That's the problem with the majority of the population (or at least a great deal of it). They agree to something they don't understand.

 

[Andylusion]

I personally think the government is sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong. What happened to checks and balances?

The constitution is supposed to limit the scope of government. But the truth is, Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional to begin with.

So we have ditched the constitution a long time ago. It'll be hard to get it back.

As far as checks and balance... the fact is, the public voted for this. We're getting exactly what we voted for, and now we're going to hate it.

That's the problem with the majority of the population (or at least a great deal of it). They agree to something they don't understand.

Which goes back to the founding fathers, and why originally only wealthy land owners were allowed to vote.

Only people who had something to lose, could vote in the elections. And that's because the people who have something to lose, have the motivation, and people who are wealthy, have the time, to educate themselves on the issues.

I have often said, 'never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers'. Some think I'm implying that all people are mentally deficient.

But that's not what I mean. Average people simply don't have the time to educate themselves on all the issues, enough to know truth from fiction. Others don't care. If I own nothing, and have nothing, when someone in government says they are going to raise taxes and give to x group.... no matter how bad that policy might be economically... why do I care? I have nothing now. Maybe I can benefit from the policy?

This is why the left is always in favor of more voter turn out. They know their policies don't stand up to educated criticism. Thus they try and attract the most uneducated, the people with the least to lose.

 

[CowboyTed]

I personally think the government is sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong. What happened to checks and balances?

The constitution is supposed to limit the scope of government. But the truth is, Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional to begin with.

So we have ditched the constitution a long time ago. It'll be hard to get it back.

As far as checks and balance... the fact is, the public voted for this. We're getting exactly what we voted for, and now we're going to hate it.

That's the problem with the majority of the population (or at least a great deal of it). They agree to something they don't understand.

God forbid that the people living today get what they want? A bit of direct democracy could sort out a lot of issues.

This is the method of government of most first world countries and is also the type of democracy the US imposed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The US Constitution has been hijacked by the minority in areas like election reform.... Where the vast majority of the people want alterations but are stopped by the status quo. So what are ye gettin, a supreme court packing politics to get the decisions you want.

This seems to be against any idea of both democracy and representative democracy.

The rest of the world has simple way to change there most fundamental of laws... Ask the people to vote and majority calls the shots, none of them see a tyranny of the majority. Actually we have political system which give far more say to diverse minority views than US.

I personally think the government is sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong. What happened to checks and balances?

The constitution is supposed to limit the scope of government. But the truth is, Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional to begin with.

So we have ditched the constitution a long time ago. It'll be hard to get it back.

As far as checks and balance... the fact is, the public voted for this. We're getting exactly what we voted for, and now we're going to hate it.

That's the problem with the majority of the population (or at least a great deal of it). They agree to something they don't understand.

Which goes back to the founding fathers, and why originally only wealthy land owners were allowed to vote.

Only people who had something to lose, could vote in the elections. And that's because the people who have something to lose, have the motivation, and people who are wealthy, have the time, to educate themselves on the issues.

I have often said, 'never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers'. Some think I'm implying that all people are mentally deficient.

But that's not what I mean. Average people simply don't have the time to educate themselves on all the issues, enough to know truth from fiction. Others don't care. If I own nothing, and have nothing, when someone in government says they are going to raise taxes and give to x group.... no matter how bad that policy might be economically... why do I care? I have nothing now. Maybe I can benefit from the policy?

This is why the left is always in favor of more voter turn out. They know their policies don't stand up to educated criticism. Thus they try and attract the most uneducated, the people with the least to lose.

Your premise negates the need for any election. A dictator seems to be what your happy with or being run by a rich oligarch.

You are actually equating money with knowledge.

Europe seems to be perfectly happy with a a referendum system, are you now saying it works in Europe because we are smarter?

Maybe it because unlike you a majority of people believe they live in a society and the wealthier in society are not better (All men are created equal...). But you think some people are more important than others which is fundamentally against the founders wishes on any level...

But I really do think you explain to people that they are too ignorant of issues to run themselves, A lot the worst dictators in our history opened with that line...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

BBC World Service - Assignment , Kentucky learns to love Obamacare

So the BBC World Service released on July 17th, a documentary called:
"Kentucky learns to love Obamacare" (link above goes to the audio only broadcast which is 24 minutes long)

At first, I forgot I was listening to the BBC, and based on the title alone, expected a typical left-wing American Mass Media News bit fawning over the absolute perfection that is all things Obama.

And it did start off that way, with the report proclaiming the virtues of the program. But soon, even with the reporter obviously in support of the program, one after the other, people expressed their negative views, and problems with it. I remembered this was the BBC, where they actually air the views they hear. Where interviews with people, are not cut and edited until they match the views of the reporter or news agency airing the report.

The reporter went all around trying to convince people how great it was. The first guy asked "yeah but who is paying for it?" and the reporter said it was the Federal Government. To which the guy asked again "yeah..... but who is going to pay for it?" and went on to say the Federal Government doesn't make money. They can only steal money from those who do.

This is why I really like the BBC. They are still bias, still have an opinion, but even so they report both sides. If CNN, MSNBC, CBS did the same documentary, that response, and a dozen others would have been edited out.

Another lady they interviewed said she hated ObamaCare because she had a perfectly good insurance policy before that she could afford. Her insurance company gave her notice that to meet ObamaCare regulations, her insurance policy was ending at the end of the year, and she would have to chose a new policy... all of which were more expensive. The reporter, acting like a good DNC operative said "but it's better insurance than what you had".

Doesn't matter if it's better insurance, if you can't afford it. That's where I am. I had a catastrophic coverage policy for $60. But all those policies are now gone. I can't afford it. I'll pay the fine, and do without. No choice.

Which is what yet another person responded in the documentary. He said he couldn't afford it, and he'll just pay the fine, and let the government cover his bills.

They interviewed a lady whose husband was laid off. She said she signed up for the ObamaCare Coverage, and yet said she didn't like the system. The reporter was of course shocked, and asked why. Her response was that, she did not like government using health care as an issue to control people.... like New York, banning soda drinks because they caused the government health care costs.

They even went to an activist, who opened a free clinic back in the 70s, and was still there. This elderly black lady, running a free clinic, even she said the law is too expensive, and too complex. She said the law should be more plain and easy to understand, and the funding for it needs more clarity and sustainability.

The reporter was again shocked, saying she thought if anyone would be in favor of the plan, it would be this activist.

The interviews continued, another with a business owner. Owner of a small Quiznos Subs. They talked about how they simply couldn't afford the requirements of ObamaCare, and that they were cutting all the hours of their employees to get under the requirement, and if not, they would pay the fine, and if they couldn't afford that, they would close the store.

However, they found and interviewed one true supporter of ObamaCare, and massively obese women, who wanted to find out if she had diabetes. She signed up under ObamaCare, and went to the doctor, who ran the blood test on our tax money, and discovered she was not yet diabetic.

At which point the doctor said "Unless you change your lifestyle, and get your weight under control, you will be a diabetic".

At this point Shamu broke down in tears, and said "now I know, and now I can get better".

But wait... she wasn't ill to begin with. She got no treatment, no medication, no nothing. She was only told she had to lose the teletubby. Well crap, I could have told Shamu, she needed to lose the Teletuby, without going to the doctor, or spending a dollar of tax money.

That just cost us a lot of money, to tell Big Bertha that she wasn't sick, but would be if she didn't lose a backstreet boy from her dress, which absolutely anyone, and her mirror, should have been able to tell her for free.

All in all, the entire Documentary which aimed to praise Obamacare, was a nearly non-stop train wreck, of why the program was bad, not supported, and damaging to the economy.

Once again, the BBC exposed both sides, whereas our domestic media would have NEVER aired both sides. If CNN did HALF the job that the BBC does, we'd be in far better shape in our society.

I had a catastrophic coverage policy for $60

That never existed. Only fool could believe such nonsense.

$1 Billion wasted developing the only website on the planet that can't tell you when someone bought your product

Based on a total "If you like your plan, you can keep it" Lie

How many of the"42MM uninsured" are now covered?

Biggest Fail since FDR's 2 terms of failure

 

[Darlene]

I want less government and more freedom. That's the Libertarian view (Liberals want just the opposite).

 

[Andylusion]

I personally think the government is sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong. What happened to checks and balances?

The constitution is supposed to limit the scope of government. But the truth is, Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional to begin with.

So we have ditched the constitution a long time ago. It'll be hard to get it back.

As far as checks and balance... the fact is, the public voted for this. We're getting exactly what we voted for, and now we're going to hate it.

That's the problem with the majority of the population (or at least a great deal of it). They agree to something they don't understand.

God forbid that the people living today get what they want? A bit of direct democracy could sort out a lot of issues.

This is the method of government of most first world countries and is also the type of democracy the US imposed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The US Constitution has been hijacked by the minority in areas like election reform.... Where the vast majority of the people want alterations but are stopped by the status quo. So what are ye gettin, a supreme court packing politics to get the decisions you want.

This seems to be against any idea of both democracy and representative democracy.

The rest of the world has simple way to change there most fundamental of laws... Ask the people to vote and majority calls the shots, none of them see a tyranny of the majority. Actually we have political system which give far more say to diverse minority views than US.

I personally think the government is sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong. What happened to checks and balances?

The constitution is supposed to limit the scope of government. But the truth is, Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional to begin with.

So we have ditched the constitution a long time ago. It'll be hard to get it back.

As far as checks and balance... the fact is, the public voted for this. We're getting exactly what we voted for, and now we're going to hate it.

That's the problem with the majority of the population (or at least a great deal of it). They agree to something they don't understand.

Which goes back to the founding fathers, and why originally only wealthy land owners were allowed to vote.

Only people who had something to lose, could vote in the elections. And that's because the people who have something to lose, have the motivation, and people who are wealthy, have the time, to educate themselves on the issues.

I have often said, 'never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers'. Some think I'm implying that all people are mentally deficient.

But that's not what I mean. Average people simply don't have the time to educate themselves on all the issues, enough to know truth from fiction. Others don't care. If I own nothing, and have nothing, when someone in government says they are going to raise taxes and give to x group.... no matter how bad that policy might be economically... why do I care? I have nothing now. Maybe I can benefit from the policy?

This is why the left is always in favor of more voter turn out. They know their policies don't stand up to educated criticism. Thus they try and attract the most uneducated, the people with the least to lose.

Your premise negates the need for any election. A dictator seems to be what your happy with or being run by a rich oligarch.

You are actually equating money with knowledge.

Europe seems to be perfectly happy with a a referendum system, are you now saying it works in Europe because we are smarter?

Maybe it because unlike you a majority of people believe they live in a society and the wealthier in society are not better (All men are created equal...). But you think some people are more important than others which is fundamentally against the founders wishes on any level...

But I really do think you explain to people that they are too ignorant of issues to run themselves, A lot the worst dictators in our history opened with that line...

Maybe you should just stop being a jackass that shoves words into peoples mouths they didn't say? Maybe your parents didn't teach you how to communicate decently with other people, and they should be slapped for the walking pile of crap you have become?

Grow up.