ABC turns programming over to Obama; news to be anchored from inside the White House

o i love how whenever its a conversation that opposes obamas views or bashes him the first thing to come out is well you wasnt saying that when bush was in office.hahaha. I think there were alot of people hating on bush too. And then we got well hes better then bush. Bullsh#t bush wouldnt even try half the stuff obama is doing and you want to know why because obama knows everyone just follows him and dont care what he does. I am now finally admitting it AMERICA IS OFFICIAL DEAD. No resurrection. No comeback. Just like all other empires they rise and then they fall. And guess what we were pretty big so you know whats next.

kind of like going to a vet to get your checkup or your surgery or any healthcare needs taken care of.

reply to post by bakednutz


Bad example! Veterinary hospitals are often the model of efficiency in both operation and saving money. I have run a vet hospital for over 30 years. We have almost NO government interference AND almost no threat of lawsuits so malpractice insurance for us is only $250 not $250,000. Makes a heck of a difference!

I wish they WOULD model human care a little more like what we do in vet med. We charge $5000 for a hip replacement, you pay $100,000 for the same surgery. Now why the big difference? Mostly liability. Liability needs to be limited. This is a good time to talk about this issue!

The high price paid by MDs for malpractice insurance IS passed on the patients in their bills. What is the $250,000 used for? To pay for litigation, something that increases medical expense and accomplishes next to NOTHING but fatten the lawyers.

People think their chance at medical litigation might make them rich someday, will punish those mean, nasty drug companies, etc, etc. when all it does is fatten up the lawyers and keep the Nancy Pelosi's in power!

I estimate the costs human medicine could be reduced 50% if litigation, malpractice and government regulation was not a factor!

reply to post by WizardVanWizard


you make some good observations about government health care, and how it's apt to work out depending on size of population and distribution of said population. naturally this isn't the kind of thing that's discussed here.

if there is one thing the US government has gotten really good at, it's separating the population and directing it into the hands of political supporters (of the moment). I think we can assume the same for health care. This is not so much about what "the people" need but how more money can be directed to the chosen ones.

i don't know if i will watch the official infomercial (though they are insisting it won't be that) but i'm sure it will pretend to be the best for the most people. in fact it will be the best for a few people, and those won't be the ordinary citizens.

there are so many things that could be done to improve the health care system short of the government taking it over, but obama and co are insisting that it will be/is the cause of the next economic collapse so we'll get another unread bill rushed through congress before they break for summer vacation.

I looked up the FCC regulations, and it seems to me that there are two that are relevant.

News Distortion. The Commission often receives complaints concerning broadcast journalism, such as allegations that stations have aired inaccurate or one-sided news reports or comments, covered stories inadequately, or overly dramatized the events that they cover. For the reasons noted above, the Commission generally will not intervene in such cases because it would be inconsistent with the First Amendment to replace the journalistic judgment of licensees with our own. However, as public trustees, broadcast licensees may not intentionally distort the news: the FCC has stated that “rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest.” The Commission will investigate a station for news distortion if it receives documented evidence of such rigging or slanting, such as testimony or other documentation, from individuals with direct personal knowledge that a licensee or its management engaged in the intentional falsification of the news. Of particular concern would be evidence of the direction to employees from station management to falsify the news. However, absent such a compelling showing, the Commission will not intervene. For additional information about news distortion, see www.fcc.gov...

Political Broadcasting: Candidates for Public Office. In recognition of the particular importance of the free flow of information to the public during the electoral process, the Communications Act and the Commission’s rules impose specific obligations on broadcasters regarding political speech. ·

Reasonable Access. The Communications Act requires that broadcast stations provide “reasonable access” to candidates for federal elective office. Such access must be made available during all of a station’s normal broadcast schedule, including television prime time and radio drive time. In addition, federal candidates are entitled to purchase all classes of time offered by stations to commercial advertisers, such as preemptible and non-preemptible time. The only exception to the access requirement is for bona fide news programming (as defined below), during which broadcasters may choose not to sell airtime to federal candidates. Broadcast stations have discretion as to whether to sell time to candidates in state and local elections. ·
Equal Opportunities. The Communications Act requires that, when a station provides airtime to a legally qualified candidate for any public office (federal, state, or local), the station must “afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office.” The equal opportunities provision of the Communications Act also provides that the station “shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast” by the candidate. The law exempts from the equal opportunities requirement appearances by candidates during bona fide news programming, defined as an appearance by a legally qualified candidate on a bona fide newscast, interview, or documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject covered by the documentary) or on–the–spot coverage of a bona fide news event (including debates, political conventions and related incidental activities).

FCC regs

It seems to me that although this is not a political campaign in the election sense of the word, it is still a political campaign, and only one side will be presented. it is being presented in such a way that it is the only correct and accurate way, coming from this white house. if this was done after all the votes were over, to inform the public what it all means, that would be fine, but it seems to me that a broadcast network is being used to promote one side in a political debate and that the opposite side is not only going to be presented but won't evven be allowed to buy time to make their view known.

it's not that i'm against obama's plan. i don't know what his plan is. but it seems to be in volation of everything that he should be allowed to present it as the inevitable plan before it has been hashed out.

this appears to be in violation of the law. another thing in violation of the law. where does it all stop?

reply to post by earlywatcher


Exactly. Whether the plan is good or crappy is not the point. This is the wrong way to deliver it. No matter how "hand picked" the question-askers are by ABC, I mean, come on...it's still a *ahem* private network broadcasting, basically, yeah an infomercial for this plan; an un-stand-up-to-able offering of it to the American people.

If he was really too cool for school like he tries to look like he is he'd hook up the old switchboard and take calls from the (un hand-picked) public. That would be some Town Hall meeting.

And yes, like you said, your gov't is very good at leading people into the trendy side of the coin. That is what worries me about this...tptb got a slickster MC-ing their whole production. He's a very good salesman, and he'll be sure to be hip and reveal the plan's downfalls and how it isn't perfect, and say that he's considered all the 'fringe' opinions from all sides, etc, etc... but then he'll get that twinkle in his eye and twitch his nose and rattle his friggin' Change around like a ring of keys.

And, btw, earlywatcher thanks for those FCC regs. Interesting stuff. Let's see what kinds of loopholes there are/magically appear hahaha

I am astonished that everyone is only talking about the one-sided 'journalism', and not about the more basic medical problems being perpetuated in our hospitals and dr. offices. You want to stay healthy? AVOID HOSPITALS! They are paid to treat unhealthy people, and get nothing for healthy. It is not in their best interest to keep you healthy. There are good people in the 'industry', I am sure. But the whole environment, the 'civ' of health care, is one of payoffs, and bribery in a politically correct manner. People refuse to eat well, exercise, or avoid dangerous behaviors, and then want to pay someone to fix their 'sins'. So the industry obliges, while making the sorcerers in 'pharmaceuticals', rich. If we allow motorcars to be built, many blacksmiths will be out of work. For the good of the country, I say outlaw motorcars. If we promote health, there will be a lot of people out of work in health care. And the dentists stick the most poisonous metal into our mouths, causing massive health fallout. HALF of heart attacks occur in people with low cholesterol. Diabetes? A little cinammon acts better than insulin, but there is no money in it. I could go on all day, but know that they are promoting a big, fat, lie about disease and health. You DON'T NEED them. The US is rather low in health care, and in education. Not that they have ever mattered to America. Not. Like most everything else in America, we have a problem, Houston.

reply to post by WizardVanWizard


they don't seem to bother with loopholes anymore. too much effort and no point. they are in violation of so many laws lately what with taking over industries and appointing czars that if this was a nation of law they'd be shut down. but we can't quite figure out how to enforce law when the lawbreakers are in charge of the machinery.

Anyone here ever watch the movie 'Sicko'? Anyone?... *crickets*...

The healthcare system in the USA is beyond corrupt. We're going to fix it. This is how we fix it.

I agree that most government employees leave something to be desired on the customer service front. How about better performance standards?

reply to post by Gregarious

You want to stay healthy? AVOID HOSPITALS! They are paid to treat unhealthy people, and get nothing for healthy.

Great insite Gregarious!

The measure of health systems like ours, Canada's and the EU's is how many people utilize the system. The assumption is what? We are all unhealthy and we must be trying to access the system!

The exact opposite is reality! The fewer people who access the system the healthier the people!

Access to healthcare doesn't make you healthier my friends but pretty much exactly the opposite. Obviously if you need a wound sutured or a bone set you need to be seen. The more medication you recieve, however, doesn't make you more healthy in most cases! Medication is not a panacia!

All medications have side effects and most people can only manage a few medications without running into complications that can be serious, not benificial, life shortening, etc.

More healthcare doesn't = better life!

And I have 35 yrs. in a health care field, BTW.

Somehow this thread has diverted into a healthcare thread. The topic is about an independent prime time news being used as a mouthpiece for the current administration. ABC will not even allow ads on at the time of this show that are opposed to Obama's plan.

Enjoy your change comrads!

reply to post by on_yur_6


Welllll....."ABC" is the 'American Broadcast Company'!!!

edit: OK, before the flaming arrows arrive....the American Broadcasting Corporation.

I dunno....blaming advertisers?? Sheesh!

I'd think that ANY network would welcome any advertising dollars. Hard to imagine they'd shun money......

[edit on 6/18/0909 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by FritosBBQTwist
This country is already in the pits economically, and providing a bigger socialized health care venue will only make things worse.

Why?

Its more "welfare" (promotes laziness)
Higher taxes
Those qualified get paid less

All for a BIT cheaper of health care, that is, for those who can not pay for it by normal means.

I will just say this. LOOK AT CANADA. THEIR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IS A FLUKE. Over worked, under paid doctors, fleeing the country. Enough said.

I'm an avid ATS reader, I love a lot of the forums that are on here...but seriously it's replies like this that diminish my confidence in my American neighbors(I'm aware this is not the view of everybody below the border). We all know there is a NWO agenda being pushed, and our liberties are slowly (but surely) being taken away. Especially on your side of the border, you guys are getting it a lot worse than us in Canada. However, do not for one second try saying that our Health Care system is a fluke. If I break my hand, need a heart transplant, blood transfusion, foot surgery or ANYTHING, I get it for free. Sure, if it's not too serious I may end up waiting several hours to get treatment, but at LEAST I know I will get that treatment. I have no idea whether Obama's plan is to make your health care system like ours (probably not, I don't trust him either) but if he were to do that, be #ing thankful. You clearly have no idea how great it is to have free health care. Me and my friends always talk about how we'd rather wait a hospital for 5 hours for a broken foot than to have to pay a ridiculous fee to have it fixed. We are having a huge influx of nurses and doctors that are graduating from university and each year those numbers rise. Next time you think about bashing Canada's "flawed" system, maybe think twice about researching it a little bit. If you don't want it like us, fine, but don't try telling us that your #ed up health-care system is even close to ours. Enough said.

reply to post by huntsfromcanada


do your tv stations turn over programming to one party to get their legislation passed?

I saw this today and thought it was interesting to see the other side of this debate.

I hope it hasn't been posted before.

reply to post by Tartarspoon


Big difference between a "journalist" tagging behind the VP riding his bicycle and a president running a "news" from the oval office.

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


Now to be sure, it is odd that the president is letting ABC create what is pretty much an infomercial from inside the white house. But it's not the first time that a news channel has been inside and exclusive.

Course, it seem that no matter what this guy does the right wingers are going to cry fowl and say it's the end of the world.

Then probably there is going to be some shooting somewhere in the country as "retaliation for the abuse of power"

Back during the days of the USSR, there was a saying I came across: Ve Pravda, ne pravda. Or, in the newspaper named truth, there is no truth.

I wonder who the Information Czar will be?

I have heard that Herr Doktor Goebbels, Reichsminister der Volksaufklärung und Propaganda is making a comeback.

"That propaganda is good which leads to success, and that is bad which fails to achieve the desired result," he wrote. "It is not propaganda’s task to be intelligent, its task is to lead to success."

Change you can believe in. Ignore the man behind the curtain.

I see another takeover in the horizon.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/66b58faa5bf36eed.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by Alxandro


then he can change the name to OBC, the obama broadcasting network, and tell us lies all day every day without interruption