Looks like he's using Jon Stewart's clips there. Exactly the same cut-off points.

And people say the Daily Show isn't a good source for news

I just think he does it for ratings, if you really care about something your story wouldn't change as much as beck's. As for the advertising backlash, I don't think that matters either, the network just moved the ads to different shows. It might hurt becks income but not fox news.

^ I have to disagree on the advertising thing. Advertisers purchase time on specific shows and dates. If they're collectively moving away from Glenn Beck's, they're changing the equation for Fox News as to the profitability of Beck's show.

But I doubt it'll last, to be honest. Once the current outrage dies, advertisers will go back and Beck will continue spewing his crap.

Would that be called a "Becklash"?

Olbermann credited the Daily Show with the clips, Demon. He KNOWS it's the best news source.

Why does Olbermann have old man glasses now?

What the CRAP! (Sorry, coming in late to this Beck thing).

'Best Healthcare in the world'?

Seriously?

He says that with a straight face.

Hoooooly crapoly. What a steaming pile of crap. By no measure in no-one's book is the US even remotely the BEST in healthcare.

Except for maybe in 'profitability' for the health insurers.

My god that's some serious bald faced lying.

By no measure in no-one's book is the US even remotely the BEST in healthcare.

O RLY? Which country has the best healthcare, then? Back up your trash talk, knave!


(Olbyloon doesn't understand the "backlash" concept, as he's never been popular enough to have a frontlash).

>> ^quantumushroom:
By no measure in no-one's book is the US even remotely the BEST in healthcare.
O RLY? Which country has the best healthcare, then? Back up your trash talk, knave!

(Olbyloon doesn't understand the "backlash" concept, as he's never been popular enough to have a frontlash).

For once, QM, try to give an intelligent answer. What makes the US healthcare system the BEST, in your opinion?

I bet it's the 46th-ranked lowest infant mortality rate and 30th-ranked highest life expectancy in the world. It's just so awesome.

The WHO rankings heavily weight towards systems that have 'universal coverage'. For example, Cuba's health care system is routinely ranked among the best in the world, when the bulk of Cuban health care is quite primitive by modern standards.

In the end, WHO rankings are not so much a measurement of the quality of HEALTH CARE as much as they are a measurement of economic distribution. This screws up the debate by creating a dynamic where people can be talking about the same subject (health care) but be talking about completely different concepts (economics vs. medical quality).

Neolibs prefer to discuss topics within a framework of 'fairness'. As such, to a neolib it is irrelevant that the US has excellent health care. The most important thing to a neolib is whether or not everyone can access that health care equally. "What good is great health care if you can't afford it?" Therefore it is quite natural for neolibs to accept the WHO position that downranks top-notch health care for no reason except it is not a government supplied entitlement.

From a conservative point of view is very different. Conservatives look at one thing and one thing only...ACTUAL quality of health care. Conservatives find it irksome when neolibs slam the health care (which is good) when in reality the neolibs are not talking about QUALITY as much as they are whining about economic distribution.

<< From a conservative point of view is very different. Conservatives look at one thing and one thing only...ACTUAL quality of health care. Conservatives find it irksome when neolibs slam the health care (which is good) when in reality the neolibs are not talking about QUALITY as much as they are whining about economic distribution. >>

So as long as -one- person in a country has excellent health care, even if nobody else has -any-, then that country can claim to have the best health care in the world?

There you go...that's the basic dishonesty of the conservative view in a nutshell. "We'll accept any specious reasoning to support our predetermined positions, rather than make up our minds based on the facts."

So as long as -one- person in a country has excellent health care, even if nobody else has -any-, then that country can claim to have the best health care in the world?

Ad absurdum. Your exaggerated hypothetical premise that there is only ONE person in the United States that can afford quality health care is specious. The reality is that only a small percentage of US citizens cannot afford insurance, and even those who do not purchase insurance are routinely provided care 100% gratis. Regardless, the point still stands that the US health care is not 'inferior' by any stretch. It is excellent.

The liberal macro-economic argument that health care can only be 'excellent' when it is universally available as a government entitlement is flaccid and illogical.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
>Ad absurdum. Your exaggerated hypothetical premise that there is only ONE person in the United States that can afford quality health care is specious.


It's not exaggerated...it's precisely what your statement implies. Conservatives don't -care- about the inequalities in coverage, only some undefined "ACTUAL" quality. If inequalities have nothing to do with the quality of healthcare as you state, then my statement is exactly correct...it only takes one person to qualify a country as having excellent health care.

Regardless, the point still stands that the US health care is not 'inferior' by any stretch. It is excellent.

Based on WHAT? You ignore all the numbers and just wave your hands to say it's not inferior.

Lifespan? We lose.
Infant mortality? We lose.
Cost of care? We lose.

In virtually every measurable statistic, we're nowhere near the top. That IS inferior...it's the very definition of inferior.

Stormsinger and Xax have said all that's needed to be said.

WP: Trying to dismiss the WHO figures because they favour... oooh, everyone having access to healthcare is such issue dodging crap.

And, as Stormsinger says, even IGNORING your issues, the US STILL has horrendous figures for how healthy you atually ARE as a country.

Sorry but you lose on any reasonable measure of how good your healthcare is.

It boggles the mind entirely that anyone who doesn't have a vested interest in the current system (read: someone who works for a health insurer) could possibly, in any way, be sticking up for your current system.

Amazing... really amazing.

Is it some strange inability to admit that the US is ever capable of doing anything wrong ever? Really, is that it?

Honestly, the low life expectancy in the USA is much more likely due to lifestyle than healthcare. It doesn't matter how good your hospital is if you're eating pizza and burgers every day. Look at the rate of obesity in the US vs other countries... people die here because they are killing themselves.

I asked a question about which country had superior health care to the USA's. It wasn't properly answered, and I don't expect it to be in a VS post.

There are a lot of factors socialists leave out of the equation: national population, rate of taxation, medical innovation, overall quality of care, number of doctors per 10K people. Per Pennypacker's riposte, how can anything be properly measured when a dirty mattress on the floor of a Cuban hospital counts as "free medical care"?

Almost 90% of Americans are satisfied with their pre-any-reform health care. And for the socialists among us, we already have Medicare and -caid, both already RIFE with annual fraud and abuse and going insolvent. American emergency rooms cannot turn anyone away, so Mexican ambulances will race across the border to get to our hospitals. Hospital after hospital is drained by illegals; the federal mafia does not reimburse these hospitals and they go bankrupt.

There is no justifiable argument for MOAR government anywhere except in socialist utopians' fantasies.

Quite so Psychologic. The life expectancy metrics are not reflective of the quality of US doctors, clinics, & hospitals. It has far more to do with choices of individuals regarding diet, sedentary lifestyle, and overindulgence (booze, food, smokes & drugs). Infant mortality is a strawman. When you look at the data, it is obvious the reason is America's far greater 'pre-term' birth rates which are riskier and result in higher mortality (duh) no matter how good the doctors are.

it only takes one person to qualify a country as having excellent health care.

You can rage at the conservative perspective as much as you like if it helps, but reality is what it is. Conservatives think that excellent health care equals excellent doctors, clinics, hospitals, & medicine. Neolibs think that excellent equals a socialized entitlement.

Based on WHAT?

Based on the fact that our health care is excellent. The numbers you cite have very little to do with our health care providers being somehow 'inferior' to European counterparts. They are the result of the poor choices of our citizens. In fact, American doctors are superior at identifying and quickly beginning the treatment of patient conditions. The problem is the PEOPLE want to be 'healthy' while at the same time they are smoking, drinking, drugging up, screwing around, driving stupidly, laying out in the sun, pigging out on junk food, and not exercising.

Definition of inferior

WHO is weighted strongly towards issues that are more political and economic than they are related to actual quality of health care. Regardless, I take issue with the loaded, inaccurate use of 'inferior'. That somehow implies that the US system is full of incompetent doctors, crappy clinics, lousy hospitals, and poor quality medicine. That's simply not true.

Your beef is not that we have 'bad health care'. Your beef is that we haven't scored higher on the WHO's artifically weighted list. We're #37. Oh NO! Our system is 'terrible!'... Uh - no... Just... No. You keep bragging how much better Canada is. They're #30. That's a REALLY big difference, eh hoser? :eyeroll: Just beceause the US is not #1 on the WHO's list doesn't mean our system is 'inferior'. It means: 1. That the WHO's metrics are skewed... 2. US citizens need to stop having thier kids early just to suit thier careers... 3. Americans need to quit being hedonistic, bacchinal, sluggards and start eating less & exercising more.

"But we spend SO MUCH MORE MONEY...!" This is another strawman. Americans spend more per capita on EVERYTHING. Food. Cosmetics. Widgits. Soap. Computer games. Movies. You name it - the US spends more per capita. You think maybe - just maybe - that our spending per capita on health care has more to do with our macroeconomics?

Ha ha ha ha.

"Clusterfox."

WIN

QM: I asked a question about which country had superior health care to the USA's. It wasn't properly answered, and I don't expect it to be in a VS post.

Let me answer, from personal experience.

I have mentioned on the sift a number of times about my son who has a host of congenital heart defects. Here in Melbourne Australia we have some of the best heart surgeons in the world, we have access to them, he has had a number of operations and is doing great now. We've spent months in total in hospitals getting fantastic care, and have not been out of pocket once other than the cost of medicine, which is heavily subsidized such that a month worth of medicine (which he has daily) would come to around $12 or so.

There is a large community on the web of parents of children with heart conditions, and those in the US are always mentioning how MUCH money they have to spend to have these procedures done on their children. Fundraisers have to take place, houses have to be remortgaged etc.

It's NOT right to be in a position where you NEED life saving procedures and yet have to wait until you can find the money.

THAT is what is wrong with the US system, and THAT is what will ALWAYS put it below other countries like Australia, the UK etc. where we get access to still world class services and yet do not end up in financial difficulty because of it.

If you think that a system which limits access to life saving procedures to those with access to lots of money is right, well, good on you, you're either very rich, plan to never get sick, or have some unwavering belief that your health insurance will never turn down a claim.

THAT is what is wrong with the US system, and THAT is what will ALWAYS put it below other countries like Australia, the UK etc. where we get access to still world class services and yet do not end up in financial difficulty

Your post is full of what can only be described as disingenous exaggerations. "Here Down Under, every citizen gets free health care, doesn't pay a dime, there are no waiting lines, and our care is world class. You poor, poor Americans... No one can afford care, you wait months for all your services, and your doctors & facilities are the equivalent of a witch doctor pulling up a cot in a shanty..."

BS. Not that I put much stock in the WHO list, but if the Aussie system is SO grand then why are they #32 on the list and the US is #37 despite being private? Clearly not all is beer and skittles in Oz's health care system. Anyway, I'm not impressed by anecdotal evidence. Know why? Because I've got my own story about how GREAT the US health care system is. I won't bore you with the details, but I consider getting a half-million in medical care for a total of $5K out of my pocket (tax free) to be a pretty good deal. "Oh yeah - but I got that much and it was FREE..!" Uh - bull. Taxes, copays, and such added all together and adjusted for currency exchange and you guys are paying as much (or more) in relative terms for your so-called 'free' system.

Regardless, the sentiment of your post demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of basic economics. Simply because something is necessary or important does not mean it should become a federal government entitlement - and CERTAINLY it doesn't mean it can or even should be 'free'.

*sigh*

Nice of you to invent things which I never said. I never said that the Australian system was perfect by any means, there are plenty of things which can make it better. But the crux of it is that when it comes to having treatments to keep you alive or well, you should NEVER be having to stop before seeking treatment and thinking 'gee, can we afford this'.

That just SHOULD NOT cross your mind.

But seeing as you have this insane logic where you think it's ok that you had to pay $5K out of pocket lump sum right there to get your treatment then you have a mindset completely different to mine. I find it infinitely better to be paying taxes ongoing that I don't notice, taxes that are taken out consistently and put to good use, rather than having something happen and having to cough up THOUSANDS of dollars that I don't have.

Seriously, do you think that everyone puts aside the amount that we pay in taxes for a rainy day? Sure it's a good idea to always put aside money, but... you know... things come up, and well, look we have that money we put aside, let's use it to do X or Y. In our system, and that of other countries that have public health. We ongoing pay our taxes, and as such when things come up, well, we CAN'T have spent our 'health savings' as it's handled for us. And yes, some people will get more value out of the system than others. But if you begrudge someone getting more money spent of them for health care then truly you are a heartless, money grabbing bastard.

But I keep seeing Americans having fund rallies and setting up websites to ask for donations to pay for treatment for cancer or other such life threatening ailments. And yet you think this is a good way to be, that people constantly have to find a way to raise thousands of dollars to get treatment to keep themselves alive?

You have rationalized the insanity that you only paid $5000 for your treatment. Well, good on you for being able to FIND $5000. Most people would have a hard time coming up with that sort of money out of the blue.

Simply because something is necessary or important does not mean it should become a federal government entitlement - and CERTAINLY it doesn't mean it can or even should be 'free'.

HUH!? The very definition of 'Necessary' is that it's needed, that it's a service that is mandatory. And you're sitting there, typing away that it's bad economics for a government to provide that?

Your thinking, which would seem to be the thinking of the right wing, is a thinking I will NEVER come around to, because it is, at it's core, unjust and created by those who already HAVE money, who already CAN afford to self pay for things. It gives NO allowances for those who can't afford $5K medical treatments or $40K a year school fees. If there is a way you can have a government fund and pay such that these basic NECESSITIES are provided for all who need them, and do so in such a way that you are not stopping those who work hard from becoming successful, (Which, hey, we have plenty of rich people here you know, there's nothing stopping hard work making you shiteloads of cash in Australia) how can you be against that, I really don't get it.


>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
THAT is what is wrong with the US system, and THAT is what will ALWAYS put it below other countries like Australia, the UK etc. where we get access to still world class services and yet do not end up in financial difficulty
Your post is full of what can only be described as disingenous exaggerations. "Here Down Under, every citizen gets free health care, doesn't pay a dime, there are no waiting lines, and our care is world class. You poor, poor Americans... No one can afford care, you wait months for all your services, and your doctors & facilities are the equivalent of a witch doctor pulling up a cot in a shanty..."
BS. Not that I put much stock in the WHO list, but if the Aussie system is SO grand then why are they #32 on the list and the US is #37 despite being private? Clearly not all is beer and skittles in Oz's health care system. Anyway, I'm not impressed by anecdotal evidence. Know why? Because I've got my own story about how GREAT the US health care system is. I won't bore you with the details, but I consider getting a half-million in medical care for a total of $5K out of my pocket (tax free) to be a pretty good deal. "Oh yeah - but I got that much and it was FREE..!" Uh - bull. Taxes, copays, and such added all together and adjusted for currency exchange and you guys are paying as much (or more) in relative terms for your so-called 'free' system.
Regardless, the sentiment of your post demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of basic economics. Simply because something is necessary or important does not mean it should become a federal government entitlement - and CERTAINLY it doesn't mean it can or even should be 'free'.

The way you discuss things tells me a lot about you. You say some very interesting things that are typical of the standard neolib perspective. “Taxes are put to good use… Things are handled for us… Government should pay for basic necessities… How can you be against that, I really don’t get it.” These comments show very nicely the wide gap between neolibs and conservatives.

My medical care story shows how a conservative does things. I took money from my paycheck, saved it, and used my intelligence and industry to take care of a problem. A neolib prefers to take money from everyone’s paycheck, give it to the government, and assumes the government will handle any problems.

From your perspective, your method is more ‘fair’ because everyone is covered. I will now shock you silly by telling you how you are completely wrong. A government system is LESS fair, causes MORE suffering, and increases human injustice. How’s that for an opener?

Your primary error is that you assume simply because a government plan is in place, that it results in the problem being ‘solved’. I reject that. Just because everyone is covered under a government plan doesn’t mean they are CARED FOR. Public systems are rife with inefficiency, waste, graft, denied service, delays, and rationed care. For example…

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/ian-birrell-why-i-dont-believe-that-the-nhs-is-sacrosanct-1775088.html

http://freep.com/article/20090820/BUSINESS06/908200420/1319/

This system is causing distress, hurting people, and denying health care. The SAME SYSTEM you say is ‘fair’. It also pulls money out of the economy, restricts economic freedom, and imprisons the people in a bureaucratic net in which their very lives are budget items at the whims of an uncaring, unfeeling, politically mercurial government. This is the epitome of UNJUST and UNFAIR.

You recoil in horror at the thought that people have to (gasp!) PAY for health care. You pay for food, shelter, clothing, transportation and other necessities, right? Why should health care be an exception? Paying for things in a free market drives down prices, creates competition, and causes providers to improve their goods and services. Insurance plans in the US are more than affordable. It isn’t hard.

And like most neolibs – your most egregious logical fallacy is that you assume because there are poor people, that there MUST be a government system in place to care for them. In a word - bullcrap. The needs of the truly poor can easily be managed at a state and municipal level through private charitable contributions and volunteerism.

That’s how a conservative solves the problem of ‘the poor’. They work. They give money. They volunteer time. That’s our ‘system’. Just because our chosen system is different, doesn’t mean we don’t have one.

Your chosen method to address the needs of a small minority of poor people is to put EVERYONE (rich, poor, middle class) into a huge government system whether they need it or not. In the process you have no problem surrendering your freedoms and liberties to a massive government which historically has been shown both to be untrustworthy, abusive, inefficient, and incompetent.

Why are you against making personal contributions and volunteering as a means of helping the poor? “I don’t see how you can be against that. I really don’t get it.” SeewhutIdidthere?