It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

An Open Letter to the Wall Street Journal on Its Bernie Sanders Hit Piece

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 08:59 PM
link   
I just love how The Wall Street Journal left out a number of facts in the piece cited in this rebuttal article:

www.commondreams.org...

The WSJ is now a subsidary of Rupert Murdocks 'News Corp'...

SCARASM AHEAD

... we all know just how 'fair' and 'balanced' all 'News Corp' outlets are.

END SCARASM

Lets start with this one:


The Journal correctly puts the additional federal spending for health care under HR 676 (a single payer health plan) at $15 trillion over ten years. It neglects to add, however, that by spending these vast sums, we would, as a country, save nearly $5 trillion over ten years in reduced administrative waste, lower pharmaceutical and device prices, and by lowering the rate of medical inflation.

These financial savings would be felt by businesses and by state and local governments who would no longer be paying for health insurance for their employees; and by retirees and working Americans who would no longer have to pay for their health insurance or for co-payments and deductibles. Beyond these financial savings, HR 676 would also save thousands of lives a year by expanding access to health care for the uninsured and the underinsured.


Of course, Universal Single Payer, would initially cost more however the savings to the taxpayer and individuals can not be adequately measured. The noted $5 Trillion over the initial ten years listed above doesn't include business and individual savings over that time period.

As you can see in these projections:


10-year estimates of spending with the current system and HR 676 (in $ billions):

images.huffingtonpost.com...



... the aggregate cost of the current national health spending, over ten years would be $42 Trillion; under HR 676 it would be $37 Trillion; the savings would be put to use for improvements in healthcare infrastructure.

I hope the chart shows up, I'm too lazy tonight to copy and upload it. There is another chart, in the article that shows where additional revenues will come from, the savings and deficit reduction savings, etc.

It is irresponsable of a NEWS organization to only tell one aspects of a news story. Tell the whole stories with arguements for and against and let people decide for themselves.

The Wall Street Journal has shown that it has become another propoganda outlet for Wall Street.
edit on 16-9-2015 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Confused by your point other than you care not for WSJ. Are you for or against Sanders or just rabble rousing?



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

And the Huffington Post is "Fair and Balanced" ? Give me a break, both sides are full of it and there will never be any savings from any plan that comes forth as "Saving" is not in the lexicon of America's Politicians, the only thing they know how to do is raise money for their own elections and how to go about spending ours.

And considering that often they argue over to do that they waste more money figuring out how to spend the money than they actual spend and none of it ever goes toward what it should. This whole argument is wasted on the premise that there will ever be a savings from anything that comes out of Washington D.C.
edit on 9/16/2015 by DJMSN because: correction



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Now might be a good time to start debating the detailed costs of a full-blown MediCare system.

For example,

1. what would it cost individuals on a per person basis?

2. would such a system cover everything without co-pays, deductibles, etc. etc.




posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Bernie is an old tree with deep roots. He only represents a group and not a nation. If you like him, great, he will either fulfill or overshadow your destiny.




posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 10:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJMSN
a reply to: FyreByrd

And the Huffington Post is "Fair and Balanced" ? Give me a break, both sides are full of it and there will never be any savings from any plan that comes forth as "Saving" is not in the lexicon of America's Politicians, the only thing they know how to do is raise money for their own elections and how to go about spending ours.

And considering that often they argue over to do that they waste more money figuring out how to spend the money than they actual spend and none of it ever goes toward what it should. This whole argument is wasted on the premise that there will ever be a savings from anything that comes out of Washington D.C.


Actually I don't like the Huffington post. Were you aware that Andrew Briebart is a founder? And that Arianna Huffington was married to arch-conservative Rep Huffingtion that lead (and paid for) the impeachment of CA governor Grey Davis therby usurping the will of the people? No - I think the Huffington post is a tool of the corporate powers that be light.

However, the article by the WSJ was heavily biased and disingenious.

My opinion about Bernie Sanders - he's the best we've got - I don't care for his 'hawish' ways but we need a President focused on the domestic front - rather then focused on military intervention in soverign nations on behalf of corporate interests.

Regarding Health Care - while I support the ACA I do condemn it's huge flaws. It is a massive give away to Big Med, still leaves millions underinsured and unwilling to go to the doctor because of huge co-pays and deducibles...

See:


More Americans Gain Health Coverage, But Many Can’t Afford to Use It: Doctors Group
WASHINGTON -


at:

www.commondreams.org...

But it a small step in the correct direction, the next step is HR 676 and the WSJ piece 'cherry-picked' which facts to publish and which not to publish. The Huffington post article was more conprehensive about ALL the facts - potential costs and potential savings then the WSJ.

If you are opposed to the Huffington Post I'm certain you can find the authors piece elsewhere.



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Hilary's super pacs attack on Sanders coincided with WJ's hit piece and 3 attack post on Sanders here at ATS, interesting timing.

While the older generation had flocked to Fox and the conservatives, Sanders is drawing a lot of the younger generation to support him:


A new poll released by Chegg Media Center on Tuesday finds Sanders the overwhelming favorite on college campuses, drawing 59 percent of the student vote.

Former first lady Hillary Clinton, considered the Democratic favorite going into the election, draws just 18 percent support from the coveted college bloc, while Vice President Biden — who is yet to commit to a presidential run — sits at 14 percent support among university students.


source

Looks like Sanders has the right values for the millennial's and they are our future!



posted on Sep, 16 2015 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

I have to agree. And all that doesn't even factor in the billions saved by not having insurance companies siphoning money out of the health care industry. Or the savings with hospitals not having to charge $100 for an aspirin to make up for losses elsewhere.

The problem with a single payer system is that tax dollars spent for the benefit of American citizens is tax dollars that could have gone towards bombing countries Israel doesn't like, or given out as foreign aid, or new spying equipment for the NSA ...



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 12:20 AM
link   
I think it is funny how Bernie is considered untouchable by the liberal left. The Wall Street Journal simply spelled out the facts of what Bernie's ridiculous proposals will cost the American tax payers without all the normal media spin. Now people are salty because the truth is out. Too bad.



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 01:07 AM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Oh I agree with you. I find them all just entertaining nowadays which what they have become...entertainment. I suppose as I have gotten older I do have a tendency to lean more right than left but still float some where in the middle most of the time, just hate the spin that we allow them to put on everything today.

And it really doesn't matter who owns what as its not about truth and consequences anymore but about ratings and money, and how they can get reelected. Being from Louisiana I am use to colorful politicians, which is actually an understatement, but its where when the people voted in term limits that every Republican became a Democrat and Democrats became Republicans rather than give up the control and power they hold and somehow still won reelection.

Just shake my head at the circus acts now, as it just doesn't matter, as nothing they do is for us but only how they can maintain control, power and gather more of the almighty dollar for their own pockets.



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 01:38 AM
link   
I found the OP's claim that the $37 trillion resolution would save money on the $42 trillion we'll be spending, and THEN proceeds to explain how those savings will be spent, hilarious...

So, we're not "saving" anything, just spending the money on something else.

Yeah, that sounds just dandy...

I find it interesting how all we hear about is how our nation is in debt to the tune of over $18 trillion and we'll never be able to pay that off, and yet somehow, a resolution that will spend an additional $37 trillion instead of $42 trillion, while the remaining $5 trillion goes elsewhere, is a good thing.

The logic is amazing.

This is nothing more than a Bernie Sanders disciple defending their comrade, and attacking anyone who says otherwise.



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 06:37 AM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Were you also aware that Breitbart left because he saw what they did and didn't agree with it?



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Hmmm...

So what I am gathering is the media outlets skew information to paint a picture they want to portray? Wow....

And that picture helps further their bottom line? Man...



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
I think it is funny how Bernie is considered untouchable by the liberal left. The Wall Street Journal simply spelled out the facts of what Bernie's ridiculous proposals will cost the American tax payers without all the normal media spin. Now people are salty because the truth is out. Too bad.


He's not untouchable but all the attacks so far from the Right and elsewhere are without credibility. Even now you claim the WSJ is just presenting the facts when it's been shown they are only showing half the story. But you just ignore that information like a well programmed drone because it will cause you to rethink your opinions. It's much nicer to stay in your little "Fox Hole" of Right Wing Propaganda. Why I don't know because those on the Right couldn't care less about helping you or anyone else like you but still you stay loyal to them. But that's your choice.



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

So you're saying that Congress is suddenly not corrupt when it comes to spending and there will be plenty of oversight and checks & balances, and all of our precious dollars will be wisely invested in making people best able to compete in a competitive free market society?

If you aren't saying that, then you are not refuting what's really bothering me about Bernie Sanders' plan for America.



edit on 17-9-2015 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Current polls have Hillary Clinton with 294 Electoral College votes in 2016 [examiner.com]

If that is true all the polls mean nothing for the other candidates.. If Hilary goes to jail (doubtful) then we may have something to talk about...otherwise accept your first woman president.
edit on 17-9-2015 by 727Sky because: ..



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 06:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
Looks like Sanders has the right values for the millennial's and they are our future!



Ah, yes. Youthful voters. The same starry-eyed, well-meaning people that ranted and screamed that an Obama administration would totes bring about a radical improvement in America and be soooo different than a Hillary Clinton administration.

Now that we are near the end of Obama's second term, I cannot think of one way his administration was different than a Hillary Clinton administration would have been.

And that is not a good thing.

Youthful voters are not aware of how corrupt Congress and the federal government is...yet. That's why they believe that Bernie should let Congress 'help' America with all the dollars they can stuff in their pockets.

It's just what Congress was hoping for!



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

Hillary's scandal will be enough to bring down her campaign and keep Bernie from having to fight dirty or get media attention. That way, he will emerge the nominee looking like an honest-to-gosh lovable, grassroots underdog.

Congress wants their $18 trillion dollar check from Bernie. He is the Establishment's choice.

That's how it looks to me anyway -- as a non-partisan who is justifiably cynical.

Hillary won't be charged or see prison, that's not part of the plan.
edit on 17-9-2015 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
Looks like Sanders has the right values for the millennial's and they are our future!



Ah, yes. Youthful voters. The same starry-eyed, well-meaning people that ranted and screamed that an Obama administration would totes bring about a radical improvement in America and be soooo different than a Hillary Clinton administration.

Now that we are near the end of Obama's second term, I cannot think of one way his administration was different than a Hillary Clinton administration would have been.

And that is not a good thing.

Youthful voters are not aware of how corrupt Congress and the federal government is...yet. That's why they believe that Bernie should let Congress 'help' America with all the dollars they can stuff in their pockets.

It's just what Congress was hoping for!


Still much better than the older, weary voters who do the same thing over and over.

The older-not as wise as they think they are-voters gave us Ford, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr. Clinton, Bush Jr,

Not exactly a good record. We're done voting. We screwed up this country. Let the younger voters do what they will. Can't be any worse than those guys. And that's just the president. The congress is a whole other issue!



posted on Sep, 17 2015 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing
Still much better than the older, weary voters who do the same thing over and over.

The older-not as wise as they think they are-voters gave us Ford, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr. Clinton, Bush Jr,

Not exactly a good record. We're done voting. We screwed up this country. Let the younger voters do what they will. Can't be any worse than those guys. And that's just the president. The congress is a whole other issue!


I won't be giving them my vote to defile and I won't be an accessory to their corruption -- there are no choices for anyone other than youthful starry-eyed, well-meaning voters who really don't have a clue. So it looks like their votes will be exploited once again by the Establishment.

And Congress is not a whole other issue. They will do the spending. Their dirty hands are all over the platforms of every candidate who is running.



new topics




 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join