Fox News may not the bastion of news integrity, but if I were Maddow I wouldn't exactly be calling them out. I've seen my share of terrible work, bias, and sleeping on the job from all the cable news networks. One of my 'favorites' is the Campbell Brown interview of former Governor Jesse Ventura (YouTube vids were pulled ). In comparison to the anchors mentioned by HaricotVert these new guys are, IHMO, a joke.

I've seen enough information (and not from FOX) that imply a great deal of shenanigans going on behind the scenes of Obama's administration. So where is the hard hitting investigative journalism? I tuned in one day (no doubt in a fit of insanity) to find CNN discussing Michelle Obama's White House garden and the plant breakdown. A garden... I think my new favorite clip is Arianna Huffington & Ben Stein asking Wolf Blitzer: WTF is up with you guys covering this Ballon Boy all day? You know there's actually serious shit happening right now (note: i paraphrased a bit there)

I gotta agree with Ron on this, but it's nice to see some real back and forth. I just wish we could get some real debate instead of some 5 min talking points roundtable on Larry King or something. Interesting notes I've heard but never see discussed:

* Given a single payer system: How will preventative medicine work in principal? If person A begins smoking and gets lung cancer, does that person get the same deal as everyone else? Or more likely, if person A is obese and as a result has to have more treatments for a particular problem, does that give the government or the people paying the right to decide what he can and can't eat? Just thinking. (Following along with the ban of Trans-fats, and the talk about a soda tax)

* With the close ties of the healthcare cos and the government now, what incentive would they have to sever the relationship? A million in campaign funds pre-single payer is the same as a million post-single payer. This is what I've heard some people refer to as the rise of Medical Industrial Complex(An obvious play off the old Military Industrial Complex term).

* Why isn't closer examination given to US healthcare pre-HMOs? I might be missing something, but this didn't seem to be a hot button issue in the 10's, 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's?

* Why is the term 'insurance' used so incorrectly? If I used the term fire insurance the way some are using health insurance, people would start looking at me funny. The catastrophic-centric part seems neglected and now it covers everything from a skinned knee to a tumor. Can we give it a new name or something to differentiate? Maybe just use health care?

* Assuming the GAO's analysis that the US government is effectively broke, and social security is essentially a ponzi scheme, how does that factor in to the debate? Or put generally, given the last 8 years of Bush (including a Patriot Act, 9/11 & Katrina), what evidence is there that any major new system will be run any better and cost any less?

* Following along with the post about laws changing to define rights: If we have a framework to change the laws, and the right to healthcare is HUGE change, why isn't an official constitutional amendment being put forth that makes the responsibilities clear? Seems that if we could draft something as dumb as 'no alcohol', something can be proposed in regards to healthcare.

Just thinking out loud here. I have lots more questions (including the role of States) if anybody is still awake at this point