Now You Know Why I Call Them Faux News

From CNN: 3/22/2011
CNN correspondent rejects Fox report on human shields

And if we can't trust them on matters of this magnitude and this easily disputed, can you really trust them when they talk about Obama's secret socialist intentions or how many people showed up at a rally organized by one of their pundits or climate change for that matter.

Want To Stop Terror Funding? Stop Watching Faux News!

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Parent Company Trap
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

When you watch Faux News, you are funding terrorists! I mean, aside from getting fake, politically slanted opinions of the news.

Game Change

Some very good insights into the real Sarah Palin and how she really doesn't know anything. Not only is she not qualified to be a commentator on Faux News, well, ok, maybe Faux News but certainly no real news network but the McCain camp found out she wasn't qualified to be Vice President which most certainly would make her unqualified to be President. Of course, if you watch these guys being interviewed by Sean Hannity on Faux, he never asks about this part of their book. No coincidence there.




And note that no other figure in the book "Game Change", is claiming that any of their accounts were false; only Sarah Palin, but reluctantly. When Bill O'Reilly asked if these guys were lying, she changed the subject before finally, reluctantly saying they were lying for the most part. And then after discussing the stories about Palin in the book, O'Reilly blows the story off by saying one of the authors was a liberal who worked for NY Magazine thus "proving" the story must be a lie because only liberals would lie. He also fails to mention that the other author of the book, Mark Halperin is a political analyst for Time Magazine and when appearing on Hugh Hewitt's conservative Christian radio talk show, Halperin claimed he agreed with everything Hugh was saying and on his blog constantly references Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Matt Drudge far more than he makes references to their liberal counterparts. In other words, there is no reason to assume that anything in this book is false.

Fair and Balanced

Notice the political party Faux News associated him with.

This is not the first time this has happened:

Starting to see a pattern? Either Faux News is incredibly dumb and unreliable or they are they ones who make up lies and are incredibley biased.

Now you know why they are a joke in the liberal world; they report news as they would like it to be, not as it is. 

Speaking of the way they would like it to be, imagine the world with no black rappers (AKA the whitest, most ridiculous thing ever):

This shit is real! Drill baby drill!!

 Megan Kelley???

And lets not forget that their latest presidential hopefull just admitted to an affair about a week after their biggest anti-gay marriage/pro marriage/anti-Clinton advocate, John Ensign got caught boning his campaign managers wife.

Seriously, unlike Faux News, I don't make this up.

Now, who's fair and balanced?

Fox News' Fair and Balanced Take on National Healthcare with Rebuttal

The fact that 5 NHS doctors were just arrested in relation to the latest attacks says that the UK screening process for foreign doctors is shitty, not that a universal health care system breeds terrorism. There are a zillion other universal health care systems in the world and we’ve never heard anything like this from anywhere else.

You know, they could have just given Sicko a bad review, was this really necessary? One of the things they failed to mention is that doctors from around the world leave places with national healthcare to try to make it rich in America, If America had national healthcare and the government no longer allowed Doctors and Hospitals to rip people off, then the doctors in those other countries would have no incentive to leave Britain for instance, and go elsewhere to practice. The fact is the United States is one of the only industrialized nations without national healthcare. If the United States had national healthcare then the only other options doctors would have would be in the third world where they would make even less money than a state run system. Therefore, places like Britain wouldn't have to import so many doctors and the United States would become a less desirable destination for doctors from the Middle East.

The other thing the critics of national healthcare fail to realize is that we don't have to copy anyone else’s imperfect system. We have the freedom to design our own system which would eliminate the short coming of other countries healthcare systems. That being said, our current system has plenty of faults as well. Since when do Americans get the help they need right away? Since when do Americans not have to wait to see their doctor or to schedule a surgery?? Sure, with the way everything is now, maybe the government couldn't bear that magnificent of a financial burden but that's not the problem, it's the solution.

So, how could we afford to provide everyone with healthcare? That's simple, you take the 528 billion dollar tab that Americans already pay out in life and health insurance premiums and you feed that into the new system just like our social security deductions. Americans who are already paying premiums will now continue to pay that same rate but now in the form of a tax that goes towards healthcare. The only difference would be that they will no longer have to pay deductibles and copays. You can also take the 200 million per year the industry spends on lobbying congress. You also regulate costs and put price caps on drugs and medical procedures and services just like Wal-Mart does to their vendors. The main thing is you would go from a system that benefits from keeping us sick and medicated to a system which focuses on keeping us healthy. At last, if you wan't to provide healthcare to the people in the US, you stop bombing people in Iraq only to provide them with free medical care when dealing with their burns.

Here are some facts:

*The American healthcare system is already the most expensive in the world.
*Americans already spend over 2 Trillion dollars, 16% of their GDP or $6,697 per year, on healthcare and that number will only increase over the next couple of decades.
*In Canada, they spend 9.7% of their GDP on healthcare for everyone.
*The US Government is already the largest insurer in America and government programs already account for over 44% of healthcare expenditures.
*More than 30% of US healthcare costs go towards administrative overhead which could be greatly reduced under a single national system.
*Germany, Australia, Canada and Sweden all provide national healthcare and have more nurses per capita than the US.
*Sweden, Germany and France all have more doctors per capita than the United States.
*There is a nurse shortage in the United States.
*Americans spend roughly $200 million per year for prescription drugs.
*For prescription drugs, Americans spend more than 50% more than what is paid by people in other industrialized nations because costs aren't monitored by any oversight.
*Over half of all family bankruptcies today are caused by medical bills.
*There are more than six prescription drug company lobbyists for every United States Senator.
*Society already pays for the gang/gunshot victims, the drug overdoses and other uninsured emergency room visitors in the form of higher taxes, hospital costs and insurance premiums for everyone.
*With private healthcare, Americans have one of the highest infant mortality rates and lowest life expectancy rates in the industrialized world and this administration claims it is pro-life.
*For the money Americans spent on health care last year, we could have hired a group of skilled physicians, paid each one of them $200,000 to care for just seven families, and provided healtcare for every single American citizen.

*Instead,we have spent about $440 Billion so far in Iraq and estimates speculate it could cost over 1 trillion before wars end.

Yes, in case you are wondering, I saw Sicko this weekend.

If you are wondering how we could afford to pay for national healthcare look at the numbers below.

Quick math with annual round numbers:

520 billion in health/life insurance premiums we are already paying so we can obviously afford this part
110 billion in useless wars (which we are currently spending)
600 billion in overhead savings (30% of 2 trillion)
100 billion if we paid what Europeans pay for prescription drugs
3 billion in aid to Israel
200 million in lobbying money
= Approximately 1.3 trillion dollars

I just paid for over half of a national healthcare system without raising taxes, cutting services or hiring terrorists and putting over 810 billion dollars back into consumers hands. Guess what an average 6% sales tax on 810 billion dollars would be?? Its about another 48 billion dollars. Add that to the list of sources that could fund a national healthcare plan without any additional costs. That's not counting the savings that would come from taking a preventative approach to healthcare which would keep people from getting sick as opposed to waiting until they're sick and then profiting from them when they become sick.

Imagine how competitive a company like GM would become overnight if they no longer had to bare the burden of health care and could again compete with companies such as Toyota, Honda and Volkwagen who have no such concerns due to their country's national healthcare plans. Sure, this would hurt insurance industry stocks but imagine what it would do for every other company in this country that provides health coverage for their employees. They could afford to hire all the laid off insurance employees.