Wow, O'Reilly is an asshole. "She is 'pro-abortion'." He calls Sebelius a "baby killer". There needs to be a network where this kind of assholia is targeted every day.
Just a quick medical note on this vid - the pap smears are not damaging to the cervix, it's the treatments for the abnormal findings (I'm sure you mispoke, given the comments from your wife later).
It's ironic that people opposed to health reform are actually the ones using a pro-rationing argument. Something along the lines of "more access to healthcare would swamp hospitals". Limiting access to preserve limited resources through wealth is still rationing...
What a difference a year makes. The first question at the end of this video is rather out of date. If you watch FOX News today, you will see the journalistic fact checking mixed in with the news story, such as what Glenn Beck does multiple times a day, showing exactly where and when they got the information. Sometimes Glenn and Bill will show comparisons between what FOX shows and what MSNBC shows. MSNBC is a prime example of how the White House is starting to control the media.
anyone want to DO THEIR OWN pap smears??? you can buy the tools neede online... send the sample to a lab. paps damaging to the cervix??? LOL yea well they'd LOVE me then!! monthly MEs.
Secondly, Fox news nor the democrats are attempting to discredit the generally accepted notion by physicians that increased pap smears are bad, but simply addressing the concerns regarding the governments ability to dictate to the people through socialized medicine what is best for them rather than allowing the people to decide for themselves. This is absolutely grounds for politization because of the way it exemplifies the process of socialized medicine whether your are for it or against it.
No! Fox news is a company trying to make money by reporting on politics in a conservative manner. I fully agree that PBS and the News Hour does a much better job at reporting real news in a much less biased manner. I love the News Hour! However, that does not make Fox News an awful station nor do they owe the people diddly squat. Take your liberal notion of entitlement and shove it. No one owes you anything buddy.
I'm offended on behalf of doctors at the implication by FOX and pretty much all their coverage of all health care controversies that medicine is nothing but a political wedge and doctors are nothing but especially dangerous pundits.
These republicans that call themselves "Christians" give real Christians a bad name... thanks to them more and more people hate evangelicals and don't take the path God wants all of us to take... it seems Satan uses the republican party to destroy america from within...
I lived in Canada most of my life, and I was advised by my doctor, as any American would have been under the old guidelines, to get a pap smear once every year. Clearly, even countries that already have a government healthcare system in place aren't "rationing" pap smears.
78% of conservatives get there news information from FOX NEWS, which explains WHY they are so misinformed in what's really going on in Government issues!
Actually I think Fox "News" should just remove the "News" part of it's title.
The whole fuckin thing is just a tool/mouthpiece for Rupert Murdoch and his "business buddies". There is NO journalism in simply picking up AP feeds and then spinning the stories in an attempt to backup a particular political/religious view. There's also no journalism in creating propaganda. If they want to broadcast, then by all means go ahead, but it should be renamed "Fox Editorial", or maybe "Right Wing World".
Controlclerk, you ask why the thumps down...Here is a couple of reasons: you like Glenn Beck and Bill O´reilly..........So you must be stupid!!! = Thumps down
Quite a huge amount of words you have gathered by the way!!! Nice...
I like how factual statements on here get the "thumbs down."
It just reinforces the point that some people can't deal with reality. Counter leftist spin with facts and what do they do? Make a reasoned argument? Nope. Just click the "thumbs down" and pout.
controlclerk: "I like how factual statements on here get the 'thumbs down.' ... Counter leftist spin with facts and what do they do? Make a reasoned argument? Nope. Just click the 'thumbs down'"
Your argument assumes
1) You're downrated for your "factual statements" and
2) Your downraters are "leftist"
Do you have any evidence of #1 or #2?
The ratings can actually be informative, though I wish people had to change the default setting to stop seeing downrated comments
I'm referring to my comments in response to Puzzlebox. He misrepresented some Fox coverage as, "made up stories." I corrected his assertions with no rebuttal, only two thumb downs on my comments.
I assume since I was defending Fox against lies, the only people who would have a problem with that would be Fox haters. Based on experience with people of that mindset, it's a safe assumption that they lean to the left. (I mean, c'mon, you're the "Liberal Viewer")
controlclerk wrote: "I assume since I was defending Fox against lies, the only people who would have a problem with that would be Fox haters"
You haven't presented evidence of any "lies" or of anyone "hating" Fox and I'm still waiting for evidence, beyond your unsupported assumptions, that you were downrated for "factual statements" or that those who downrated you were leftist.
I told you who I was responding to. If you want to know the lies, check our back and forth. He said things that were untrue, most likely hearing it from a source that was lying. It took less than 2 minutes to research what he said and post the truth. Due to the specific nature of his accusations, I doubt he saw them firsthand. He likely picked them up from someone who dislikes Fox News. I responded to his assertions, straightened the record, and received thumbs down rather than a rebuttal.
There's a reason they are "assumptions." Assumptions, by their very nature, aren't supported by provable evidence. I would think a "lawyer" would know that.
controlclerk wrote: "He said things that were untrue, most likely hearing it from a source that was lying"
"Untrue?" "A source that was lying?" Based on what? I see NO evidence supporting the validity of your assumptions about supposed "lies," supposed "hating," or supposed "leftists" who supposedly downrate your comments because of supposed "factual statements."
Why not just admit you jumped to conclusions w/o evidence to support the validity of your assumptions?
So, someone says that Fox "made up" 3 very specific stories, and I have to assume they pulled that out of thin air?
Watching the actual coverage of the stories proves they weren't "made up"- unless you think the depth of Fox's falsehoods extend to massive conspiracies in which they get someone in the Philly school system to lie.
The Beck accusation can only be made by someone who hadn't actually watched what he said (ignorant) or someone who is willingly lying about his position.
The only way they could be familiar with it at all (other than watching it, making the person a liar) would be to hear the distorted version from someone else.
The accusation about rationing is due to the person not understanding the healthcare debate. Even the current bill Reid got cloture on has provisions that are seemingly veiled attempts at rationing according to the CBO report. That's hardly a "made up story."
There are 3 SPECIFIC accusations toward Fox news. Why would someone...
... accept that assertion without checking the facts unless they were predisposed to believing that Fox is indeed, "making stuff up"? If they are predisposed to that idea, would you deem them a Fox supporter or someone who doesn't like Fox?
That takes care of the "untrue," "lies" and "hating" of Fox news.
Regarding the leftist disposition- You're the liberal viewer. Your fans are "liberal." That equates to "leftist" by most understandings of the words.
controlclerk wrote "That takes care of the 'untrue,' 'lies' and 'hating' of Fox news"
No, you've mainly supported your assumptions just with other assumptions. "Hating" and "lying" require evidence of intent and you don't have any, nor do you know the politics or the motivations of the people who downrated your comments.
Why not just admit you jumped to conclusions w/o evidence to support the validity of your assumptions?
So in other words, you're not going to check on what was said, you're just going to tell me I've given no "evidence" of the lies about Fox's coverage.
I quoted an indivdual in one of the stories he mentioned that countered his assertion. I said for the record that Beck did the opposite of what he said, which is provable with a simple google search. I can't put links here and I know you know how to type. I showed that the assertion regarding rationing is supported. Check my assertions.
Instead of checking up what I've said, you just say I haven't done what I did and are now playing semantic games. I countered the lies.
If my assertions are wrong, then prove them wrong. You can't, so you'll play your word games and bring up proving intent, as if now I have to find the articles that twisted the stories and prove they did it deliberately.
I guess I could go the easy route and say they aren't "lying" so much as just being unable to comprehend what the people were saying.
So, since "proving intent" is something most lawyers can't even do, I'll just say that the people perpetuating those un-truths are just stupid.
How dumb you have to be to take someone's position and think it's the exact opposite of what was said is something of a mystery, but I guess they've done it.
fox news posted a video on their youtube about this 3 days before your video (watch?v=o7tKOpW3hVs&feature=related)
i don't know if you saw it, but they brought in two doctors to discuss whether or not less pap smears were dangerous, but i have to ask, was this story put in with the one sided republican view of "rationing"? if it was then you are in the wrong.
but if it wasnt then i agree with you, they should have found a doctor and run this story with the other one to avoid spreading fear
Impeach OBAMA! Go to my channel, subscribe and find out why you should sign the petition. Please save Our country and stop the game playing all the lying!
Obama can not get impeached out of office by a petition, signing that is more of a waist of time then waiting for Obama to actually do something illegal.
Impeach OBAMA! Go to my channel, subscribe and find out why you should sign the petition. Please save Our country and stop the game playing all the lying!
I consider myself a constitutionalist and don't support FOX News or the Republican party, and must agree with you on this. How do scientific findings that were not politically driven become about liberal rationing. I will tell you, it distracts from the real story, people may have gotten cancer in the past from mammograms. The Republican and Democratic Parties are globalist/fascist not liberal or conservative. Peace.
I'm saying that both parties are funded and directly influenced by international monopolistic corporations, private think tanks/ foundations, foreign global government bodies that are not loyal to US sovereignty. Globalization, corporatism/fascism/non free market economy with private interest in control of our republic. Not sure if that was what you wanted me to clearify, hope it did. The 2 parties have voters believing they are separate. I'm saying both are globalist/fascist.
Funny how all these people claim that CNN and MSNBC are all liberally biased, but no one ever shows any examples of that bias, whereas you can find hundreds of examples on youtube alone of Fox News' disgusting bias.
You have to be retarded to think that the news is not biased,all American main stream media....is this some revelation to you??....Fox can be bad, but good grief..ABC,CBS,NBC,MSNBC...have got to be the most pathetic excuses for new channels EVER!!!...BEYOND PATHETIC...
Yeah, all mainstream news leans to the right. Except MSNBC which usually stays just little left of center. There's hardly any true Left in this country anymore.
...age of annual mammograms, another preventative measure. That leaves out the many women who's breast cancer didn't care that they weren't 50 yet. Colonoscopy's will probably be the next thing, who knows?
These issues of cost effeciency go away when people are paying for their own treatments. I doubt many people want to be treated based on statistics or trends. I know people who've been wrongly treated due to this kind of "statistical" thinking.
If you want to pay above and beyond the baseline for more than normal care (note I said "more", not "better"), you're welcome to do it. I'm sure you can find a doctor willing to take your money.
I, personally, will stick with what the Scientists say the odds are.
What I find ironic about this whole thing is the disconnect between the preventive medicine (the pap) and the argument that it's not cost efficient, putting it under the category of "waste."
I mean, one day I hear about "getting rid of waste" in the medical industry and the next they're saying we should "practice prevention." This is how we're supposed to save money. But in this case, it seems preventative measures are wasteful. How many other things will become wasteful? We've raised the
One of the major problems with our current health care system is doctors order many more tests than are necessary.
I don't think anyone would argue that additional paps, colonoscopies, mammograms, or other tests are justified if there is reason.
I recently went to the doctor for athlete's foot. While writing a prescription to treat that, the doctor also ordered a fasting blood sugar test for diabetes. And she did so without explaining why it was necessary.
One reason so many tests are ordered is due to malpractice claims. I used to work in a clinic so I have a little experience. People's expectations of the medical field are way too high, IMO. Getting behind the scenes shows how often the answers aren't known, so tests are used to rule things out.
Testing you for diabetes could be due to something the doc noticed about your feet. Diabetes affects circulation in the extremities. It's possible (however the doc should have told you why).
I don't think the point is to say that "pap smears are wasteful" so we're getting rid of them. I think it's closer to "having a pap smear every year when you're under 30 is wasteful". The idea is not to remove the entire procedure, as a waste, to save money... it's to use the procedure wisely.
By doing what you propose, fox news would actually become a news organization and not a political operation. It is against their political interest to debunk ridiculous controversies.
FOX 'News' should lose their license to broadcast. The airwaves that they use belongs to the People, not just a handful of wealthy ones. Also, no foreigner should be able to license ANY of our airwaves! Fuck Rupert Murdoch, he'll be sucking cocks in hell in no time....
Yup. Amazing the US is amongst the highest (the highest?) percentage of GDP spent on health and yet is still amongst the lowest in terms of desirable outcomes. I kinda like that euphemism, "desirable outcome". I consider not dying and remaining ambulatory and in control of all my faculties and able to enjoy a pain free life kind of desirable.
That is the dumbest part. The US spends more public money PER CAPITA than most other western countries and yet it only has 60% or so covered maybe. Less than ~30% on actual government plans as I understand it and another ~30% or so or private plans of some kind and another 15% or crappy plans that don't really pay for anything.
Don't care so much about coverage as what percentage of those covered (and those not covered) have good outcomes from their medical excursions. I do not care if I'm "covered" if I wind up in a coma, testicle free, blind, paralyzed, etc... I also want data on what outcomes (like being cured and made well, etc.) I experience.
Yup, I can't wait for some government-run healthcare. Right now I pay about $100 bucks a month in health care for... well... literally nothing.
Any doctors I see or prescriptions I buy or anything all comes out of pocket until I reach $2500 for the year. All I have is catastrophe coverage... if I get hit by a bus, I'm covered. Other than that, I'm basically throwing away $1200 a year.
No offense Allen but your wife is hot as hell. There's nothing like having a brilliant woman to share your life with. And she's pretty. You lucky bastard.
Why would FOX (aka FAUX) News criticize policies on Pap-Smears when it's known globally that Scarah Failin studies for her own Pap-Test annually?
GOP = Great Obsolete Pity
GOP GOAL: Lose another 58 Senate & House Seats AGAIN over the next 3 elections & continue to have no RELAVANCY in National Politics today. ~(Wet Brain) Glenn Beck
As a woman, I find it really funny that, in this debate, people still find it necessary to throw conservative and liberal party lines around (accusing each other of various things we always accuse each other of) instead of focusing on the seriousness of the matter; the matter being unneeded medical procedures that often do more damage than good. Especially when it comes to female health care, some of the debates going on are seriously discriminatory and hurtful. Instead we fight over labels.
Um, for the individual yes, but, people would say (I don't agree with them though) that insurance markets don't ration nationally, because of changes in demand and supply etc. However, I would say back to this that nationalised HC changes with every annual budget and changes when (in the UK) the NICE or local NHS trusts change their decisions, which is all the time. So, in my opinion, if you call universal healthcare rationing, so is insurance based ones, but people will say otherwise no doubt.
WHY do they think that taking capitalism out of health care will make it worse? Maybe, if people actually give a hit about each other, then people would get the health care they need when they need it without the greed.
And the fact that they are making this a political campaign instead of bluntly making health care better is disgusting. I truly believe a large group of the republicans who are against the health care reform are only doing it because it is a democrat ideal.
The fundamental problem is that the goals of capitalism are in may areas incompatible with health care. Not everyone can afford to pay for it. Capitalist ideas do not encourage CURING anyone but finding ways to endlessly TREAT those that can afford to pay. Is any pharmaceutical company really looking to CURE anything?
Think about it.
A good health care system has, as its primary goal, to cure or treat sick people in that order and leave the healthy ones alone. For Pay systems don't do that.
You guys have found or shown that because doctors (hospitals) cannot turn away the REALLY sick it actually ends up being more expensive NOT to have everyone covered anyways...in part because everyone is covered it is in the interest of the system to have as few sick people as possible. Their goals match the goals of the patients.
It has been said before. I get sick for a few days, I go to the doctor and get some meds, ~$400. If you wait until you have to go to emergency it will cost thousands.
I saw a study done somewhere, and sadly I cannot reference it here at the moment, that some group checked up on a bunch of homeless and discovered that because they spent so much time in the hospitals they were costing close to half a million at times $500K!! per year when public housing and food would cost less than 1/20th of that.
thank you..............now please explain that to all the idiots in this country. i spoke 15 yrs ago,(when my 2 daugthers and i were denied medicaid) at a welfare reform meeting: i told them my Dr. was the ER, i had no other place to take my children.....and they could bill me. how i wish we could have had healthcare. people don't get it......capitalism can only flurish in a strong democracy, what we have here is fascism.
Well more to the point that Capitalism is not actually harmonious with Democracy. What we have (and you more than us but not by much) is a democracy on paper but so much of the government is influenced strongly by those with money.
It is more of an oligachy than anything else. With 5% of the population reaping 95% of the wealth you can argue (quite easily) that we are not that much better off than we were under a Monarchy (when the King wasn't insane at least).
Well I think FOX is absolutely correct in this simply because they have Bill O'Reilly at FOX. We all know the miracle healing properties Bill O and his magic luffa sponges have on women. Also, I for one would trust FOX over medical expertise, because who is better qualified to know how many paps are needed than that bunch of cunts at FOX?
"I think Fox News is more than enough reason to reinstate the fairness doctrine"
Really? If you get your wish, than you can forget YOUR freedom of speech as well. Sad to think that you can't handle any opposing points of views or facts presented to you. You opt for just shutting up the oposition, but remember, everyones first amendment rights go out the door with the fairness doctrine, including your right to post your simple little thoughts here on YouTube.
Not sure about the fairness doctrine, but some laws allowing prosecution of people for spreading blatant lies would be very useful. That would of course apply to all sides of any debate.
i don't think you understand the fairness doctrine. it's an FCC guideline from the 1940's thru the 1980's that mandated that broadcasters must present equal representation of all sides of a controversial issue. it wouldn't affect first amendment rights at all, especially considering that it wasn't even a federal law. it only had consequences regarding FCC licensees. if it were in place today, fox news could be accountable for its uneven presentation of national issues.
Actually, Fox is the most balanced in regard to giving equal time to opposing sides. At least that's what a recent non-partisan study showed.
The Fairness Doctrine would mostly affect MSNBC- mainly Olbermann who gives zero time to anyone who disagrees with him. You may or may not like O'Reilly, but you have to give him credit for at least debating the other side on his show on about a daily basis. Olbermann's show is an ego stroke the whole time, with hardly ever a dissenting voice.
that's probably true, but honestly i find msnbc less offensive because it's bald on the face about its slanted presentation: they're just being competitive by providing an alternative to fox. fox news will often present both sides but with one side very poorly represented.
if it wasn't for fox news pandering to libertarians (and ripping off Ron Paul's support base) they wouldn't have such a drastic lead in ratings and maybe an honestly balanced news network would have a chance - if there was one
I've yet to see Olbermann or Maddow admit their own bias. Keith still calls himself a "journalist" yet takes any chance he can to attack any conservative bias he sees.
Fox's opinon shows are pretty up-front about their biases. Hannity, for example doesn't try to pretend that he's an objective journalist, like Olbermann and Maddow do. Matthews has been getting better, though. Beck's a libertarian and doesn't hide it. O'Reilly is a populist.
... is that the bias of the presenters don't take away from the facts they present. As far as political news stories go, Fox has been breaking more of them than their competition. Beck's exposed people with questionable beliefs in the administration and with O'Reilly's help they've revealed some of the corruption in ACORN. Fox has been the only network to give time to the current scandal being called, "Climategate." They're is doing a good job on these issues that alot of people care about.
Well one of Fox's biggest problems is being in such a rush to air with breaking news. This climategate thing is a joke, statistical reduction is a routine part of managing research data. And Glenn Beck isn't an honest libertarian, he's a showboat who's using the libertarian plank to bolster his viewership and it's rather disgusting. If he was really a libertarian, why the whole 9/12 farce when he could have hosted and supported a Campaign for Liberty event?
Beck's just eking out his own niche, that's all. I don't agree with him on everything. But I think he's done a good job at vetting the people in charge, the media's supposed to do but hasn't. They seem more concerned about "fact checking" Sarah Palin than the people who's decisions actually matter. I wouldn't be so quick to brush off this e-mail thing. There's a long history from that group about not releasing data. The hockey stick's been shown to be bad science- that may just be the tip.
I also have yet to see anything on Fox's news broadcasts nearly as egregious as Contessa Brewer's attempt to hide the race of a black man carrying a gun at a rally so she can then talk about "racism" being a factor behind the protesters bringing guns.
How about Sean Hannity using footage from a Glenn Beck rally and insinuating that it was from a more recent, much less popularly attended rally in order to magnify the disparity over health care? There's examples everyday, check LiberalViewer's page for a Fox News Bias playlist for nearly a hundred examples. At the end of the day all of the 24hr news channels need to be held to a higher standard of journalism.
I agree that the standard needs to be raised. However, what Brewer did wasn't on an opinion show, it was on their actual, "news" show. I haven't seen something like that on Fox's hard news programs.
Also, Hannity has since apologized. Brewer hasn't. That doesn't condone what was done (you have to wonder if Hanntiy would have if he hadn't been called out by Stewart) but at least he did. Brewer's been called out and hasn't corrected the record yet.
Really? How about the completely made up stories that Fox has? I think making up a story completely is worse than distorting the truth of a real story. I watched Orielly rant about "Gay gangs" for a good fifteen minutes showing video clips of two girls fighting. (Finding out later that the two girls were fighing over a boy) How about Beck making up that Obama will send people to consentration camps. How about this story that the republicans are making up that we are "rationing" Healthcare?
Well, the difference between you and I is that I don't think there are degrees of bad journalism. You apparently have no problem with a liar if they represent your side.
I didn't see the "gay gangs" segment, but according to the chief executive of the Philly school system, Paul Vallas, there was a problem of gay girls fighting other girls. O'Reilly simply reported it.
Beck also didn't make up a concentration camp thing, he researched the internet rumor and said they don't exist.
In regards to rationing, they didn't say we "are" rationing care. They make the logical observation that if you add millions of patients while cutting funding and not adding more doctors, rationing will happen. It's happened in every other socialized medicine system. If you think we can add millions of patients, cut funding and not bring in more doctors without rationing care, I'd like to here how that would be accomplished. I'm all ears.
How are we not rationing care now? What do you think that the millions that aren't getting health care now are doing when they can't go see a doctor? If everyone who needs to see a doctor can go see a doctor it will save billions from people people using ERs as their primary care. What about all the wasted money that goes to insurance company profits. If that money was redirected to training more doctors and opening more clinics the waits wouldn't have to be that long.
We're not rationing care because the people who pay for it, get it (for the most part). The problem of dropping coverage still needs to be addressed though.
Regarding insurance company profits- they make 2 cents on the dollar. Chocolate bars are more profitable. If profits are the problem, the medical supply and drug companies are the real bandits. They make almost 20 cents profit for every dollar.
You can't simply, "train more doctors," They're not ditch diggers, you know. They have to get through medical school (it's not a tech school or jobs program).
Our population to doc ratio is much higher than the other countries who have socialized medicine and they still have problems with rationing or simply not being able to afford the best drugs, like Britain not being able to afford the best breast cancer meds for example.
To add to the millions of more patients, less funding and no more doctors, we have the fact that many doctors may not treat people with the government insurance for the same reason many doctors are dropping Medicare patients- they don't get paid in full in a lot of cases.
So again, how are we going to do this without rationing care?
I think that is a horrible idea, that means even if the truth is quite clear as long as someone else has an opposing view of it they get equal time on the airwaves.
No, the Fairness Doctrine only applied to "controversial issues of public interest". If the truth is clear, then the FCC would throw out the complaint.
And technically, the first amendment applies to all American citizens, even the misinformed.
I am a subscriber and i admire what you are doing. but i think it would be worth your while to move on from fox news, and tackle the news media in general.
Well this points to a problem with all for profit news media. They tend to seek conflict, and authority malfunction. There are many example of science covered as a political conflict.
that would be really great but I'm sure it takes up plenty of his free time just to cover one network. The Daily Show has a whole paid staff to monitor all the major channels and they can barely get away from Fox News as it is.
The Daily Show just doesn't try hard enough. They're not immune to their own bias either.
I mean, did they miss Chris Matthew's saying it wasn't illegal for an army major to talk with the enemy? What about Olbermann recently twisting the words of Peter Johnson to mean the exact opposite of what he said? Olbermann is a literal gold mine of bad journalism. But they leave him alone for some reason.
Good points Allen, also the wife making an appearance very informative. I believe Fox should give the facts as they are to women in regards to pap smears and cervical cancer screenings, rather than drumming controversy.
You assume every fox viewer is a conservative supporter or even a Fox News supporter. I watch Fox news with the hope that one day they will actually provide ....news...and not just politically charged commentary.
We need more freeom-of-choice in healthcare, and insurance or a public insurance does not provide that.
Anyone should be able to get as many screenings as they want, but they should be reliable for the costs. Meaning, insurance makes no logical sense and ends up rationing care when it is used for "everyday" healthcare needs, instead of high risk and low prob. occurences.
Costs will only increase with our managed care healthcare system, no matter if the rich are paying the bill or not..
okay, let me just put this out there. sometimes, pre cancerous cells DO fix themselves. unfortunately sometimes, they do not, and unfortunately sometimes women LOOSE their health coverage..along with their cells not fixing themselves...that's what my gyno is concerned about. she lets me know that yes, its possible for my body to fix things, but... if i was to loose insurance... then it could be even worse.... would you rather loose the futurebaby or the mother before she gets to conceive a baby?
so liberal viewer you believe one physician over another? why? because one is your wife? i have a history of cervical cancer in my family. I have HPV, and I have level 2 cells... at level 3 i need things removed....
I get paps every six months, i need them. as long as health care doesn't take away my right to screen for cancer I'm all good.
Fox News does not have to be shut down. All we have to do is reinstate the fairness doctrine the cons hate so much and that will take care of them. So in response to your first question Fox does not have to provide real news because as it is a blatant mouthpiece to the RNC the demographic that watches it has no interest in the truth. Beck says it and his minions accept it as yet another government conspiracy to distract from the real conspiracy of big business takeover aka "Freedomworks".
LiberalViewer, your sharp commentary, reporting and fairness are amazing man . If I could give this video ten stars I would . It amazes me the amount of fear mongering the Republican base does . If they are so concerned about rationing, you would think they would want to reform the private health care system ? Seeing as 45,000 people die annually a year from lack of or no health care . The GOP are a bunch of scum bags . So is unfair and biased Fox .
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Liberal Viewer, we all know you are an idiot but are you really this big of one? BUSH IS NO LONGER PRESIDENT YOU PUTZ! Any ruling on anything to do with health care would be coming from the Obama administration. I cannot believe how desperate you liberal are! I guess I would be also if I knew the country had my number. You're worthless!
I like your videos, you really expose a lot of "dirty tricks" by the media, especially Fox News. On the other end of the political spectrum however, there is a lot of manipulation too. I was pleasantly surprized to see Fox News expose the lies about carbon dioxyde we have been hearing everywhere on a daily basis. In reality temperatures on Earth have not been going up for a decade now. Please give them some credit for that !
I'm curious to see where this data comes from. It's worth noting that climatologists have been tracking global temperature increases for nearly 40 years now. A 10 year trend would need to be evaluated in that context. Also, temperature is tied to a host of other factors besides CO2 levels. It's very possible for the amount of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere to be rising while the Earth is cooling.
Well, CO2 levels still have an effect on the temperature of the earth. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has changed greatly in the past few years and its not the change of .0035 to .0038% but the rate of that change that is concerned about. Also "LOL @ Orly's 'baby killer' no spin zone".
Yeah, I was just responding to this guy who said Fox News uncovered some massive liberal scientist conspiracy, and that temperatures have not risen for the last 10 years. I haven't seen any data that suggest that, but even if it were true, it'd have to taken into context, like I was saying.
Ah, sorry. I seem to have misread yours. I thought you were suggesting that we shouldn't be worried since the planets temperature was cooling. But it looks like you were stating the exact opposite.
Tom: With regards to climate; there are natural cycles, but also a superimposed abiogenic cycle affecting climate. The natural cycle has dominated over this decade, human induced global warming is predicted to dominate over the next century. The evidence backs this up: while some cooling is occurring right now, it has not gone far to undo the warming that occurred previously. If cooling were to carry on for 30 of 50 years you mght be right in claiming inccuracy, but it's not expected.
In addition, within the natural cycles, there are smaller cycles, like we have seen in the last 10 years. However, over the last 100 years, thus negating short term changes, there has been a very clear abnormality in the change of global temperatures that, as said on a BBC Radio 4 programme with a scientist I can't remember the name of, "is unexplainable by natural means alone." To provide support for why the cycles are about 10-20 years long, scientists have looked back a lot through history.
dunesdog: I'd just like to say that BBC radio 4 is the best radio station on the planet. I missed The Now Show this weekend though dammit.. must go to iPlayer.
Fox News: watched by knuckledragging troglodytes who never get laid (and as a result hate women for not tapping their moronic flabby pustule-ridden asses.)
I lived in England for 11 years and while I do support a gov health care option. Pap smear rationing does happen there. Over here we are told to have one every year, yet over there they only allow women to go every 3 years. That's not to say that it would definately happen here if there was universal health care though.
If you read some of the other comments (or watch the video) you'll see that one every three years is about right. One every year isn't good. So I don't see how that's rationing; it's just good medical sense.
Thats right, and our medical boards have now said that thats right, and getting them any more than 1 out of every 3 years is a waste of time and money for everyone, unless you have abnormal readings, which is how it should be rationed. I do believe the doctor's, not the patients, are best fit to decide what treatments are required. You can always refuse a treatment, but I don't believe in being able to demand one that the doctors say is useless.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
None of the current administration will go on Fox, they are all affraid of being ask hard questions. If bias at Fox is real its because of fear on the part of liberals to stand up for there side of issues.
UtherPendragan "None of the current administration will go on Fox, they are all affraid of being ask hard question"
Didn't President Obama just do an interview with Major Garrett on Fox News last week? And, which interview from which network are you claiming failed to ask hard questions? (For an example of proof of a network failing to ask hard questions, see my recent video of Fox News' softball interview with Rush Limbaugh titled "Rush Limbaugh Admits Fox News Bias?")
I watch all your videos and I also watch Fox news, CNN, MSNBC. Everyone is bias, if they werent bias it would be so boring nobody would tune in. I like the fact that your bias toward the liberal position, thats why I like your stuff, I know were your coming from. I am independent, middle of the road on most things.
BBC News and BBC World Service - least biased news channels I have ever seen. One is a national news channel, the most popular in the UK, one is a world news radio programme, at certain times was so incredibly popular that it had the majority of listeners in multiple Commonwealth countries. Now that some of those countries don't have so ridiculously biased news BBC World Service has pulled out, or toned down, cos they aren't needed there anymore.
Wow, O'Reilly is an asshole. "She is 'pro-abortion'." He calls Sebelius a "baby killer". There needs to be a network where this kind of assholia is targeted every day.
DrClaw77 3 months ago in playlist Fox News Bias on Health Care Reform Issue
Just a quick medical note on this vid - the pap smears are not damaging to the cervix, it's the treatments for the abnormal findings (I'm sure you mispoke, given the comments from your wife later).
liraelthirteen 5 months ago in playlist Fox News Bias
It's ironic that people opposed to health reform are actually the ones using a pro-rationing argument. Something along the lines of "more access to healthcare would swamp hospitals". Limiting access to preserve limited resources through wealth is still rationing...
korona3103 1 year ago
What a difference a year makes. The first question at the end of this video is rather out of date. If you watch FOX News today, you will see the journalistic fact checking mixed in with the news story, such as what Glenn Beck does multiple times a day, showing exactly where and when they got the information. Sometimes Glenn and Bill will show comparisons between what FOX shows and what MSNBC shows. MSNBC is a prime example of how the White House is starting to control the media.
Tuddley3 1 year ago
Fox News and MSNBC are big jokes of news stations. Fox reports things with a very right wing bias, and MSNBC very left.
redsoxfan426 1 year ago
i love how your wife just kicks that myth's ass
SW3ETsummer 1 year ago
anyone want to DO THEIR OWN pap smears??? you can buy the tools neede online... send the sample to a lab. paps damaging to the cervix??? LOL yea well they'd LOVE me then!! monthly MEs.
grettagrids 1 year ago
Why does Faux News hate women?
AtlasShruggery 1 year ago
"Let's cover the controversy that doesn't exist and completely overstep the facts!"
That sounds like a creationist.
Deathyman 1 year ago
Secondly, Fox news nor the democrats are attempting to discredit the generally accepted notion by physicians that increased pap smears are bad, but simply addressing the concerns regarding the governments ability to dictate to the people through socialized medicine what is best for them rather than allowing the people to decide for themselves. This is absolutely grounds for politization because of the way it exemplifies the process of socialized medicine whether your are for it or against it.
54fordgasser 1 year ago
No! Fox news is a company trying to make money by reporting on politics in a conservative manner. I fully agree that PBS and the News Hour does a much better job at reporting real news in a much less biased manner. I love the News Hour! However, that does not make Fox News an awful station nor do they owe the people diddly squat. Take your liberal notion of entitlement and shove it. No one owes you anything buddy.
54fordgasser 1 year ago
I'm offended on behalf of doctors at the implication by FOX and pretty much all their coverage of all health care controversies that medicine is nothing but a political wedge and doctors are nothing but especially dangerous pundits.
pesematology 1 year ago
An abortion is far more dangerous than a pap smear. Where are the abortion advocates warning women about these dangers?
sapofgold 1 year ago
@sapofgold Giving birth is far more dangerous than abortion. Where are the pro-lifers warning women about these dangers?
mixxycan 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
These republicans that call themselves "Christians" give real Christians a bad name... thanks to them more and more people hate evangelicals and don't take the path God wants all of us to take... it seems Satan uses the republican party to destroy america from within...
mrlagx 1 year ago
I lived in Canada most of my life, and I was advised by my doctor, as any American would have been under the old guidelines, to get a pap smear once every year. Clearly, even countries that already have a government healthcare system in place aren't "rationing" pap smears.
Pongball 2 years ago
i got more flavor than fruits got gum
davisfleetwood 2 years ago
78% of conservatives get there news information from FOX NEWS, which explains WHY they are so misinformed in what's really going on in Government issues!
scorpionkings 2 years ago 13
that's so sad. . .FOX News should be banned
MogKnight09 2 years ago 12
@scorpionkings wrong "there" fuckin hate that
tylerfry 7 months ago
@tylerfry Oh, so sorry, I meant "their". Now you can put your jack boots on and correct someone else's spelling error! ,!,,
scorpionkings 7 months ago
@scorpionkings Grammar Nazi Attack Bitch!
tylerfry 7 months ago
I have never seen such lies and misinformation in one video on YouTube until this one.
dantheleo 2 years ago
any facts to back your statement up?
annpetasupporter 2 years ago
Actually I think Fox "News" should just remove the "News" part of it's title.
The whole fuckin thing is just a tool/mouthpiece for Rupert Murdoch and his "business buddies". There is NO journalism in simply picking up AP feeds and then spinning the stories in an attempt to backup a particular political/religious view. There's also no journalism in creating propaganda. If they want to broadcast, then by all means go ahead, but it should be renamed "Fox Editorial", or maybe "Right Wing World".
nightmathzombieethan 2 years ago
the sad thing is its my friends favorite news station and he isnt an idiot or republican I don't how..
Voltegasproductions 2 years ago
my apologies.....
nightmathzombieethan 2 years ago
Hi from Denmark :-)
Controlclerk, you ask why the thumps down...Here is a couple of reasons: you like Glenn Beck and Bill O´reilly..........So you must be stupid!!! = Thumps down
Quite a huge amount of words you have gathered by the way!!! Nice...
mickeyrookie 2 years ago
can I post now?
controlclerk 2 years ago
I like how factual statements on here get the "thumbs down."
It just reinforces the point that some people can't deal with reality. Counter leftist spin with facts and what do they do? Make a reasoned argument? Nope. Just click the "thumbs down" and pout.
controlclerk 2 years ago
controlclerk: "I like how factual statements on here get the 'thumbs down.' ... Counter leftist spin with facts and what do they do? Make a reasoned argument? Nope. Just click the 'thumbs down'"
Your argument assumes
1) You're downrated for your "factual statements" and
2) Your downraters are "leftist"
Do you have any evidence of #1 or #2?
The ratings can actually be informative, though I wish people had to change the default setting to stop seeing downrated comments
Thx 4 commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 2 years ago
You must be bored today. :)
I'm referring to my comments in response to Puzzlebox. He misrepresented some Fox coverage as, "made up stories." I corrected his assertions with no rebuttal, only two thumb downs on my comments.
I assume since I was defending Fox against lies, the only people who would have a problem with that would be Fox haters. Based on experience with people of that mindset, it's a safe assumption that they lean to the left. (I mean, c'mon, you're the "Liberal Viewer")
controlclerk 2 years ago
controlclerk wrote: "I assume since I was defending Fox against lies, the only people who would have a problem with that would be Fox haters"
You haven't presented evidence of any "lies" or of anyone "hating" Fox and I'm still waiting for evidence, beyond your unsupported assumptions, that you were downrated for "factual statements" or that those who downrated you were leftist.
Where is your evidence for all these assumptions?
Thx 4 comments :-)
LiberalViewer 2 years ago
I told you who I was responding to. If you want to know the lies, check our back and forth. He said things that were untrue, most likely hearing it from a source that was lying. It took less than 2 minutes to research what he said and post the truth. Due to the specific nature of his accusations, I doubt he saw them firsthand. He likely picked them up from someone who dislikes Fox News. I responded to his assertions, straightened the record, and received thumbs down rather than a rebuttal.
controlclerk 2 years ago
Oh, and asking for "evidence" for my assumptions?
There's a reason they are "assumptions." Assumptions, by their very nature, aren't supported by provable evidence. I would think a "lawyer" would know that.
controlclerk 2 years ago
controlclerk wrote: "He said things that were untrue, most likely hearing it from a source that was lying"
"Untrue?" "A source that was lying?" Based on what? I see NO evidence supporting the validity of your assumptions about supposed "lies," supposed "hating," or supposed "leftists" who supposedly downrate your comments because of supposed "factual statements."
Why not just admit you jumped to conclusions w/o evidence to support the validity of your assumptions?
Thx for commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 2 years ago
So, someone says that Fox "made up" 3 very specific stories, and I have to assume they pulled that out of thin air?
Watching the actual coverage of the stories proves they weren't "made up"- unless you think the depth of Fox's falsehoods extend to massive conspiracies in which they get someone in the Philly school system to lie.
The Beck accusation can only be made by someone who hadn't actually watched what he said (ignorant) or someone who is willingly lying about his position.
controlclerk 2 years ago
The only way they could be familiar with it at all (other than watching it, making the person a liar) would be to hear the distorted version from someone else.
The accusation about rationing is due to the person not understanding the healthcare debate. Even the current bill Reid got cloture on has provisions that are seemingly veiled attempts at rationing according to the CBO report. That's hardly a "made up story."
There are 3 SPECIFIC accusations toward Fox news. Why would someone...
controlclerk 2 years ago
... accept that assertion without checking the facts unless they were predisposed to believing that Fox is indeed, "making stuff up"? If they are predisposed to that idea, would you deem them a Fox supporter or someone who doesn't like Fox?
That takes care of the "untrue," "lies" and "hating" of Fox news.
Regarding the leftist disposition- You're the liberal viewer. Your fans are "liberal." That equates to "leftist" by most understandings of the words.
controlclerk 2 years ago
The statements in the comments that were downgraded were factual.
If not, prove otherwise or stop with this semantic bs.
controlclerk 2 years ago
controlclerk wrote "That takes care of the 'untrue,' 'lies' and 'hating' of Fox news"
No, you've mainly supported your assumptions just with other assumptions. "Hating" and "lying" require evidence of intent and you don't have any, nor do you know the politics or the motivations of the people who downrated your comments.
Why not just admit you jumped to conclusions w/o evidence to support the validity of your assumptions?
Thx for commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 2 years ago 2
So in other words, you're not going to check on what was said, you're just going to tell me I've given no "evidence" of the lies about Fox's coverage.
I quoted an indivdual in one of the stories he mentioned that countered his assertion. I said for the record that Beck did the opposite of what he said, which is provable with a simple google search. I can't put links here and I know you know how to type. I showed that the assertion regarding rationing is supported. Check my assertions.
controlclerk 2 years ago
Instead of checking up what I've said, you just say I haven't done what I did and are now playing semantic games. I countered the lies.
If my assertions are wrong, then prove them wrong. You can't, so you'll play your word games and bring up proving intent, as if now I have to find the articles that twisted the stories and prove they did it deliberately.
I guess I could go the easy route and say they aren't "lying" so much as just being unable to comprehend what the people were saying.
controlclerk 2 years ago
So, since "proving intent" is something most lawyers can't even do, I'll just say that the people perpetuating those un-truths are just stupid.
How dumb you have to be to take someone's position and think it's the exact opposite of what was said is something of a mystery, but I guess they've done it.
controlclerk 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@LiberalViewer
A pack of lies. An ordinary garden variety effort that discredits none but the presenter.
Eat shit and die.
TAMARLANE 2 years ago
Great video!!!!
JoshuaSkye 2 years ago 3
fox news posted a video on their youtube about this 3 days before your video (watch?v=o7tKOpW3hVs&feature=related)
i don't know if you saw it, but they brought in two doctors to discuss whether or not less pap smears were dangerous, but i have to ask, was this story put in with the one sided republican view of "rationing"? if it was then you are in the wrong.
but if it wasnt then i agree with you, they should have found a doctor and run this story with the other one to avoid spreading fear
rruubbiinn 2 years ago
lol download .99 cents
haha
in your dreams youtube
darris321 2 years ago 2
$0.99?! hahaha xDD
nah i'll just rip the video off for free using a youtube downloader program, lol!
SEF6519 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Impeach OBAMA! Go to my channel, subscribe and find out why you should sign the petition. Please save Our country and stop the game playing all the lying!
daltongang79 2 years ago
Obama can not get impeached out of office by a petition, signing that is more of a waist of time then waiting for Obama to actually do something illegal.
nojamesmypie 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Impeach OBAMA! Go to my channel, subscribe and find out why you should sign the petition. Please save Our country and stop the game playing all the lying!
daltongang79 2 years ago
I consider myself a constitutionalist and don't support FOX News or the Republican party, and must agree with you on this. How do scientific findings that were not politically driven become about liberal rationing. I will tell you, it distracts from the real story, people may have gotten cancer in the past from mammograms. The Republican and Democratic Parties are globalist/fascist not liberal or conservative. Peace.
ddarko2012 2 years ago
You didn't mean globalist/fascist respectively? I'm just trying to understand what you are saying.
Necrocore96 2 years ago
I'm saying that both parties are funded and directly influenced by international monopolistic corporations, private think tanks/ foundations, foreign global government bodies that are not loyal to US sovereignty. Globalization, corporatism/fascism/non free market economy with private interest in control of our republic. Not sure if that was what you wanted me to clearify, hope it did. The 2 parties have voters believing they are separate. I'm saying both are globalist/fascist.
ddarko2012 2 years ago
Yes you did clarify yourself better, and I'd have to agree with you in that our modern society and governments are controlled by the corporations.
Necrocore96 2 years ago 2
Fox is an entertainment business, not a journalistic organization.
So, no. They don't owe us any semblance of truth.
PBS is nice : )
starguts 2 years ago 2
I agree, there should be a way to sue Fox for false advertisement when they use the label Fox NEWS. ET and the tabloids have more news in them.
PuzzleBox83 2 years ago
Great video. I love your channel, LiberalViewer. And your wife, you lucky guy! ;)
CanadianQueer 2 years ago
Funny how all these people claim that CNN and MSNBC are all liberally biased, but no one ever shows any examples of that bias, whereas you can find hundreds of examples on youtube alone of Fox News' disgusting bias.
greymalkin16 2 years ago
You have to be retarded to think that the news is not biased,all American main stream media....is this some revelation to you??....Fox can be bad, but good grief..ABC,CBS,NBC,MSNBC...have got to be the most pathetic excuses for new channels EVER!!!...BEYOND PATHETIC...
krew666666 2 years ago
Yeah, all mainstream news leans to the right. Except MSNBC which usually stays just little left of center. There's hardly any true Left in this country anymore.
donuthater 2 years ago 2
"She's pro abortion. she wants the babies done for." Bill O'Riley is so full of shit it is funny to me!
fyiiamaspy1 2 years ago 2
Lulz. Abortion comes down to this.
You have NO RIGHT in this country to stop others from doing something if what they were going to do doesn't negatively effect you or anyone else.
You have NO RIGHT to force your views on someone else.
KeanuIIDAMAN 2 years ago 2
...age of annual mammograms, another preventative measure. That leaves out the many women who's breast cancer didn't care that they weren't 50 yet. Colonoscopy's will probably be the next thing, who knows?
These issues of cost effeciency go away when people are paying for their own treatments. I doubt many people want to be treated based on statistics or trends. I know people who've been wrongly treated due to this kind of "statistical" thinking.
controlclerk 2 years ago
If you want to pay above and beyond the baseline for more than normal care (note I said "more", not "better"), you're welcome to do it. I'm sure you can find a doctor willing to take your money.
I, personally, will stick with what the Scientists say the odds are.
CharBroiled04 2 years ago
What I find ironic about this whole thing is the disconnect between the preventive medicine (the pap) and the argument that it's not cost efficient, putting it under the category of "waste."
I mean, one day I hear about "getting rid of waste" in the medical industry and the next they're saying we should "practice prevention." This is how we're supposed to save money. But in this case, it seems preventative measures are wasteful. How many other things will become wasteful? We've raised the
controlclerk 2 years ago
One of the major problems with our current health care system is doctors order many more tests than are necessary.
I don't think anyone would argue that additional paps, colonoscopies, mammograms, or other tests are justified if there is reason.
I recently went to the doctor for athlete's foot. While writing a prescription to treat that, the doctor also ordered a fasting blood sugar test for diabetes. And she did so without explaining why it was necessary.
jhamaker 2 years ago
One reason so many tests are ordered is due to malpractice claims. I used to work in a clinic so I have a little experience. People's expectations of the medical field are way too high, IMO. Getting behind the scenes shows how often the answers aren't known, so tests are used to rule things out.
Testing you for diabetes could be due to something the doc noticed about your feet. Diabetes affects circulation in the extremities. It's possible (however the doc should have told you why).
controlclerk 2 years ago
I don't think the point is to say that "pap smears are wasteful" so we're getting rid of them. I think it's closer to "having a pap smear every year when you're under 30 is wasteful". The idea is not to remove the entire procedure, as a waste, to save money... it's to use the procedure wisely.
CharBroiled04 2 years ago
Liberal viewer,
By doing what you propose, fox news would actually become a news organization and not a political operation. It is against their political interest to debunk ridiculous controversies.
gogosox82 2 years ago
FOX 'News' should lose their license to broadcast. The airwaves that they use belongs to the People, not just a handful of wealthy ones. Also, no foreigner should be able to license ANY of our airwaves! Fuck Rupert Murdoch, he'll be sucking cocks in hell in no time....
FNC is PURE propaganda, nothing more.
eaodak 2 years ago
Yup. Amazing the US is amongst the highest (the highest?) percentage of GDP spent on health and yet is still amongst the lowest in terms of desirable outcomes. I kinda like that euphemism, "desirable outcome". I consider not dying and remaining ambulatory and in control of all my faculties and able to enjoy a pain free life kind of desirable.
RyuDarragh 2 years ago
That is the dumbest part. The US spends more public money PER CAPITA than most other western countries and yet it only has 60% or so covered maybe. Less than ~30% on actual government plans as I understand it and another ~30% or so or private plans of some kind and another 15% or crappy plans that don't really pay for anything.
zippydebrain 2 years ago
Don't care so much about coverage as what percentage of those covered (and those not covered) have good outcomes from their medical excursions. I do not care if I'm "covered" if I wind up in a coma, testicle free, blind, paralyzed, etc... I also want data on what outcomes (like being cured and made well, etc.) I experience.
RyuDarragh 2 years ago
Yup, I can't wait for some government-run healthcare. Right now I pay about $100 bucks a month in health care for... well... literally nothing.
Any doctors I see or prescriptions I buy or anything all comes out of pocket until I reach $2500 for the year. All I have is catastrophe coverage... if I get hit by a bus, I'm covered. Other than that, I'm basically throwing away $1200 a year.
CharBroiled04 2 years ago
Nah, Al Jazeera english is like fox for muslims or people who are so far left that they are no longer anything like being "liberal".
JACKtheRIPP3R189 2 years ago
Definitely a (pap) smear campaign, lol!
twholland1 2 years ago
LoL thats terrible
lejink 2 years ago
the pause and super-zoom comes when liberal view is making a relatively long-winded but important point :p
christjewells 2 years ago
8:00 lol
pleasesaymatt 2 years ago
This is DISGUSTING!!!
The republicans have no concern about Americans health.
I hate people who politicalize science.
truevoiceofsanity 2 years ago 3
No offense Allen but your wife is hot as hell. There's nothing like having a brilliant woman to share your life with. And she's pretty. You lucky bastard.
upabittoolate 2 years ago 2
"Rationing"? FNC is bullshit.
upabittoolate 2 years ago
A smear campaign, I tell you!
variousletters 2 years ago
Why would FOX (aka FAUX) News criticize policies on Pap-Smears when it's known globally that Scarah Failin studies for her own Pap-Test annually?
GOP = Great Obsolete Pity
GOP GOAL: Lose another 58 Senate & House Seats AGAIN over the next 3 elections & continue to have no RELAVANCY in National Politics today. ~(Wet Brain) Glenn Beck
mavrek47 2 years ago
As a woman, I find it really funny that, in this debate, people still find it necessary to throw conservative and liberal party lines around (accusing each other of various things we always accuse each other of) instead of focusing on the seriousness of the matter; the matter being unneeded medical procedures that often do more damage than good. Especially when it comes to female health care, some of the debates going on are seriously discriminatory and hurtful. Instead we fight over labels.
britannica1986 2 years ago 6
Well said britannica1986, thank you.
fredfatcat 2 years ago
Is a pap test the same as a smear test??
wallyboy25 2 years ago
isn't insurance rationing anyways? Rationing is a fixed allowance of provisions or food (compliments of dictionary . com).
=/ confused
pengubaby 2 years ago 2
Um, for the individual yes, but, people would say (I don't agree with them though) that insurance markets don't ration nationally, because of changes in demand and supply etc. However, I would say back to this that nationalised HC changes with every annual budget and changes when (in the UK) the NICE or local NHS trusts change their decisions, which is all the time. So, in my opinion, if you call universal healthcare rationing, so is insurance based ones, but people will say otherwise no doubt.
dunsedog 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
how much would you like to bet that if fox had interviewed a OB/GYN that had agreed with FOX, LV would have claimed there were still biased?
zantrua 2 years ago
WHY do they think that taking capitalism out of health care will make it worse? Maybe, if people actually give a hit about each other, then people would get the health care they need when they need it without the greed.
And the fact that they are making this a political campaign instead of bluntly making health care better is disgusting. I truly believe a large group of the republicans who are against the health care reform are only doing it because it is a democrat ideal.
ninboy01 2 years ago 2
The fundamental problem is that the goals of capitalism are in may areas incompatible with health care. Not everyone can afford to pay for it. Capitalist ideas do not encourage CURING anyone but finding ways to endlessly TREAT those that can afford to pay. Is any pharmaceutical company really looking to CURE anything?
Think about it.
A good health care system has, as its primary goal, to cure or treat sick people in that order and leave the healthy ones alone. For Pay systems don't do that.
zippydebrain 2 years ago 5
You guys have found or shown that because doctors (hospitals) cannot turn away the REALLY sick it actually ends up being more expensive NOT to have everyone covered anyways...in part because everyone is covered it is in the interest of the system to have as few sick people as possible. Their goals match the goals of the patients.
It has been said before. I get sick for a few days, I go to the doctor and get some meds, ~$400. If you wait until you have to go to emergency it will cost thousands.
zippydebrain 2 years ago 5
I saw a study done somewhere, and sadly I cannot reference it here at the moment, that some group checked up on a bunch of homeless and discovered that because they spent so much time in the hospitals they were costing close to half a million at times $500K!! per year when public housing and food would cost less than 1/20th of that.
Sometimes doing the right thing is just cheaper.
zippydebrain 2 years ago 7
thank you..............now please explain that to all the idiots in this country. i spoke 15 yrs ago,(when my 2 daugthers and i were denied medicaid) at a welfare reform meeting: i told them my Dr. was the ER, i had no other place to take my children.....and they could bill me. how i wish we could have had healthcare. people don't get it......capitalism can only flurish in a strong democracy, what we have here is fascism.
tenacity0818 2 years ago
Well more to the point that Capitalism is not actually harmonious with Democracy. What we have (and you more than us but not by much) is a democracy on paper but so much of the government is influenced strongly by those with money.
It is more of an oligachy than anything else. With 5% of the population reaping 95% of the wealth you can argue (quite easily) that we are not that much better off than we were under a Monarchy (when the King wasn't insane at least).
Kind of sad really...
zippydebrain 2 years ago
Well I think FOX is absolutely correct in this simply because they have Bill O'Reilly at FOX. We all know the miracle healing properties Bill O and his magic luffa sponges have on women. Also, I for one would trust FOX over medical expertise, because who is better qualified to know how many paps are needed than that bunch of cunts at FOX?
Saromatae 2 years ago 4
"apparently female" lol, well i guess we can be too sure these days
LessonSmith 2 years ago
haha i watched this on fox! i laughed
KELBYL 2 years ago
chilling effect be damned, I think Fox News is more than enough reason to reinstate the fairness doctrine
BigNickontheDrum 2 years ago
"I think Fox News is more than enough reason to reinstate the fairness doctrine"
Really? If you get your wish, than you can forget YOUR freedom of speech as well. Sad to think that you can't handle any opposing points of views or facts presented to you. You opt for just shutting up the oposition, but remember, everyones first amendment rights go out the door with the fairness doctrine, including your right to post your simple little thoughts here on YouTube.
marinemom744 2 years ago
Not sure about the fairness doctrine, but some laws allowing prosecution of people for spreading blatant lies would be very useful. That would of course apply to all sides of any debate.
bimblinghill 2 years ago
i don't think you understand the fairness doctrine. it's an FCC guideline from the 1940's thru the 1980's that mandated that broadcasters must present equal representation of all sides of a controversial issue. it wouldn't affect first amendment rights at all, especially considering that it wasn't even a federal law. it only had consequences regarding FCC licensees. if it were in place today, fox news could be accountable for its uneven presentation of national issues.
BigNickontheDrum 2 years ago
Actually, Fox is the most balanced in regard to giving equal time to opposing sides. At least that's what a recent non-partisan study showed.
The Fairness Doctrine would mostly affect MSNBC- mainly Olbermann who gives zero time to anyone who disagrees with him. You may or may not like O'Reilly, but you have to give him credit for at least debating the other side on his show on about a daily basis. Olbermann's show is an ego stroke the whole time, with hardly ever a dissenting voice.
controlclerk 2 years ago
that's probably true, but honestly i find msnbc less offensive because it's bald on the face about its slanted presentation: they're just being competitive by providing an alternative to fox. fox news will often present both sides but with one side very poorly represented.
if it wasn't for fox news pandering to libertarians (and ripping off Ron Paul's support base) they wouldn't have such a drastic lead in ratings and maybe an honestly balanced news network would have a chance - if there was one
BigNickontheDrum 2 years ago
I've yet to see Olbermann or Maddow admit their own bias. Keith still calls himself a "journalist" yet takes any chance he can to attack any conservative bias he sees.
Fox's opinon shows are pretty up-front about their biases. Hannity, for example doesn't try to pretend that he's an objective journalist, like Olbermann and Maddow do. Matthews has been getting better, though. Beck's a libertarian and doesn't hide it. O'Reilly is a populist.
One point that I think needs to be made...
controlclerk 2 years ago
... is that the bias of the presenters don't take away from the facts they present. As far as political news stories go, Fox has been breaking more of them than their competition. Beck's exposed people with questionable beliefs in the administration and with O'Reilly's help they've revealed some of the corruption in ACORN. Fox has been the only network to give time to the current scandal being called, "Climategate." They're is doing a good job on these issues that alot of people care about.
controlclerk 2 years ago
Well one of Fox's biggest problems is being in such a rush to air with breaking news. This climategate thing is a joke, statistical reduction is a routine part of managing research data. And Glenn Beck isn't an honest libertarian, he's a showboat who's using the libertarian plank to bolster his viewership and it's rather disgusting. If he was really a libertarian, why the whole 9/12 farce when he could have hosted and supported a Campaign for Liberty event?
BigNickontheDrum 2 years ago
Beck's just eking out his own niche, that's all. I don't agree with him on everything. But I think he's done a good job at vetting the people in charge, the media's supposed to do but hasn't. They seem more concerned about "fact checking" Sarah Palin than the people who's decisions actually matter. I wouldn't be so quick to brush off this e-mail thing. There's a long history from that group about not releasing data. The hockey stick's been shown to be bad science- that may just be the tip.
controlclerk 2 years ago
I also have yet to see anything on Fox's news broadcasts nearly as egregious as Contessa Brewer's attempt to hide the race of a black man carrying a gun at a rally so she can then talk about "racism" being a factor behind the protesters bringing guns.
controlclerk 2 years ago
How about Sean Hannity using footage from a Glenn Beck rally and insinuating that it was from a more recent, much less popularly attended rally in order to magnify the disparity over health care? There's examples everyday, check LiberalViewer's page for a Fox News Bias playlist for nearly a hundred examples. At the end of the day all of the 24hr news channels need to be held to a higher standard of journalism.
BigNickontheDrum 2 years ago
I agree that the standard needs to be raised. However, what Brewer did wasn't on an opinion show, it was on their actual, "news" show. I haven't seen something like that on Fox's hard news programs.
Also, Hannity has since apologized. Brewer hasn't. That doesn't condone what was done (you have to wonder if Hanntiy would have if he hadn't been called out by Stewart) but at least he did. Brewer's been called out and hasn't corrected the record yet.
controlclerk 2 years ago
Really? How about the completely made up stories that Fox has? I think making up a story completely is worse than distorting the truth of a real story. I watched Orielly rant about "Gay gangs" for a good fifteen minutes showing video clips of two girls fighting. (Finding out later that the two girls were fighing over a boy) How about Beck making up that Obama will send people to consentration camps. How about this story that the republicans are making up that we are "rationing" Healthcare?
PuzzleBox83 2 years ago
Well, the difference between you and I is that I don't think there are degrees of bad journalism. You apparently have no problem with a liar if they represent your side.
I didn't see the "gay gangs" segment, but according to the chief executive of the Philly school system, Paul Vallas, there was a problem of gay girls fighting other girls. O'Reilly simply reported it.
Beck also didn't make up a concentration camp thing, he researched the internet rumor and said they don't exist.
controlclerk 2 years ago
In regards to rationing, they didn't say we "are" rationing care. They make the logical observation that if you add millions of patients while cutting funding and not adding more doctors, rationing will happen. It's happened in every other socialized medicine system. If you think we can add millions of patients, cut funding and not bring in more doctors without rationing care, I'd like to here how that would be accomplished. I'm all ears.
controlclerk 2 years ago
How are we not rationing care now? What do you think that the millions that aren't getting health care now are doing when they can't go see a doctor? If everyone who needs to see a doctor can go see a doctor it will save billions from people people using ERs as their primary care. What about all the wasted money that goes to insurance company profits. If that money was redirected to training more doctors and opening more clinics the waits wouldn't have to be that long.
lionssmile 2 years ago
We're not rationing care because the people who pay for it, get it (for the most part). The problem of dropping coverage still needs to be addressed though.
Regarding insurance company profits- they make 2 cents on the dollar. Chocolate bars are more profitable. If profits are the problem, the medical supply and drug companies are the real bandits. They make almost 20 cents profit for every dollar.
controlclerk 2 years ago
You can't simply, "train more doctors," They're not ditch diggers, you know. They have to get through medical school (it's not a tech school or jobs program).
Our population to doc ratio is much higher than the other countries who have socialized medicine and they still have problems with rationing or simply not being able to afford the best drugs, like Britain not being able to afford the best breast cancer meds for example.
controlclerk 2 years ago
To add to the millions of more patients, less funding and no more doctors, we have the fact that many doctors may not treat people with the government insurance for the same reason many doctors are dropping Medicare patients- they don't get paid in full in a lot of cases.
So again, how are we going to do this without rationing care?
controlclerk 2 years ago
I think that is a horrible idea, that means even if the truth is quite clear as long as someone else has an opposing view of it they get equal time on the airwaves.
PuzzleBox83 2 years ago
No, the Fairness Doctrine only applied to "controversial issues of public interest". If the truth is clear, then the FCC would throw out the complaint.
And technically, the first amendment applies to all American citizens, even the misinformed.
BigNickontheDrum 2 years ago
*fox news could be HELD accountable.
BigNickontheDrum 2 years ago
I am a subscriber and i admire what you are doing. but i think it would be worth your while to move on from fox news, and tackle the news media in general.
Well this points to a problem with all for profit news media. They tend to seek conflict, and authority malfunction. There are many example of science covered as a political conflict.
yeungx 2 years ago 2
that would be really great but I'm sure it takes up plenty of his free time just to cover one network. The Daily Show has a whole paid staff to monitor all the major channels and they can barely get away from Fox News as it is.
BigNickontheDrum 2 years ago
The Daily Show just doesn't try hard enough. They're not immune to their own bias either.
I mean, did they miss Chris Matthew's saying it wasn't illegal for an army major to talk with the enemy? What about Olbermann recently twisting the words of Peter Johnson to mean the exact opposite of what he said? Olbermann is a literal gold mine of bad journalism. But they leave him alone for some reason.
controlclerk 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The Liberal Viewer sounds exactly like the voice on "to catch a predator" reenacting the pedophile when they examine the chats
TheIllestVillain 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
hey number154
What I find funny is that the comment that you just made came off as arogant.
And how can you trust Liberal Viewer, hes not a real Liberal, hes married. You have to be a homosexual to be a Liberal.
12Joeneu 2 years ago
wow fuck you asshole
mageist244 2 years ago
translation: "GAY LOL PWNED!!!!111"
What a credit to conservatism. Keep up the great work.
Bigkahkistan 2 years ago
Good points Allen, also the wife making an appearance very informative. I believe Fox should give the facts as they are to women in regards to pap smears and cervical cancer screenings, rather than drumming controversy.
Remus0387 2 years ago 2
You assume every fox viewer is a conservative supporter or even a Fox News supporter. I watch Fox news with the hope that one day they will actually provide ....news...and not just politically charged commentary.
guppy65 2 years ago 3
We need more freeom-of-choice in healthcare, and insurance or a public insurance does not provide that.
Anyone should be able to get as many screenings as they want, but they should be reliable for the costs. Meaning, insurance makes no logical sense and ends up rationing care when it is used for "everyday" healthcare needs, instead of high risk and low prob. occurences.
Costs will only increase with our managed care healthcare system, no matter if the rich are paying the bill or not..
TheBasicFreedom 2 years ago
i had a history of abnormal paps, but my insurance DID NOT cover testing for hpv... why?
TabbiBmore 2 years ago
okay, let me just put this out there. sometimes, pre cancerous cells DO fix themselves. unfortunately sometimes, they do not, and unfortunately sometimes women LOOSE their health coverage..along with their cells not fixing themselves...that's what my gyno is concerned about. she lets me know that yes, its possible for my body to fix things, but... if i was to loose insurance... then it could be even worse.... would you rather loose the futurebaby or the mother before she gets to conceive a baby?
TabbiBmore 2 years ago
.... so you see sensationalism, where they don't mean any to be... good for you....
TabbiBmore 2 years ago
If their sensationalism is truly unintentional, perhaps they should re-visit the story of Chicken Little:)
Johnny1969 2 years ago
so liberal viewer you believe one physician over another? why? because one is your wife? i have a history of cervical cancer in my family. I have HPV, and I have level 2 cells... at level 3 i need things removed....
I get paps every six months, i need them. as long as health care doesn't take away my right to screen for cancer I'm all good.
TabbiBmore 2 years ago
Fox News does not have to be shut down. All we have to do is reinstate the fairness doctrine the cons hate so much and that will take care of them. So in response to your first question Fox does not have to provide real news because as it is a blatant mouthpiece to the RNC the demographic that watches it has no interest in the truth. Beck says it and his minions accept it as yet another government conspiracy to distract from the real conspiracy of big business takeover aka "Freedomworks".
timmmahhhh 2 years ago
I liked the way you mixed two views from different newscasters into a single video. Good stuff.
LasserMauro 2 years ago
i DONT expect REAL new from "fox news" they are a damn JOKE and they only care about making who they dont LIKE look bad NOT reporting the TRUTH!
twiztidsidfreak13 2 years ago 3
That's why its Faux News.
Anonymous2289 2 years ago
Ooo, rationing. There goes Fox news, spreading false and scary information again. Fox news needs to be SHUT DOWN.
Dire327 2 years ago
LiberalViewer, your sharp commentary, reporting and fairness are amazing man . If I could give this video ten stars I would . It amazes me the amount of fear mongering the Republican base does . If they are so concerned about rationing, you would think they would want to reform the private health care system ? Seeing as 45,000 people die annually a year from lack of or no health care . The GOP are a bunch of scum bags . So is unfair and biased Fox .
thevirtueallliberal 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Liberal Viewer, we all know you are an idiot but are you really this big of one? BUSH IS NO LONGER PRESIDENT YOU PUTZ! Any ruling on anything to do with health care would be coming from the Obama administration. I cannot believe how desperate you liberal are! I guess I would be also if I knew the country had my number. You're worthless!
AngryStudioEngineer 2 years ago
This video will be easy to debunk. CNN blah blah blah, liberal blah blah blah, socialism blah blah blah.
scottintulsa 2 years ago
Dear LiberalViewer,
I like your videos, you really expose a lot of "dirty tricks" by the media, especially Fox News. On the other end of the political spectrum however, there is a lot of manipulation too. I was pleasantly surprized to see Fox News expose the lies about carbon dioxyde we have been hearing everywhere on a daily basis. In reality temperatures on Earth have not been going up for a decade now. Please give them some credit for that !
tomplaytom 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
even a broken clock is right twice a day
massdrewski 2 years ago
I'm curious to see where this data comes from. It's worth noting that climatologists have been tracking global temperature increases for nearly 40 years now. A 10 year trend would need to be evaluated in that context. Also, temperature is tied to a host of other factors besides CO2 levels. It's very possible for the amount of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere to be rising while the Earth is cooling.
Bigkahkistan 2 years ago
Well, CO2 levels still have an effect on the temperature of the earth. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has changed greatly in the past few years and its not the change of .0035 to .0038% but the rate of that change that is concerned about. Also "LOL @ Orly's 'baby killer' no spin zone".
Anonymous2289 2 years ago
Yeah, I was just responding to this guy who said Fox News uncovered some massive liberal scientist conspiracy, and that temperatures have not risen for the last 10 years. I haven't seen any data that suggest that, but even if it were true, it'd have to taken into context, like I was saying.
Bigkahkistan 2 years ago
Ah, sorry. I seem to have misread yours. I thought you were suggesting that we shouldn't be worried since the planets temperature was cooling. But it looks like you were stating the exact opposite.
Anonymous2289 2 years ago
Tom: With regards to climate; there are natural cycles, but also a superimposed abiogenic cycle affecting climate. The natural cycle has dominated over this decade, human induced global warming is predicted to dominate over the next century. The evidence backs this up: while some cooling is occurring right now, it has not gone far to undo the warming that occurred previously. If cooling were to carry on for 30 of 50 years you mght be right in claiming inccuracy, but it's not expected.
bimblinghill 2 years ago
In addition, within the natural cycles, there are smaller cycles, like we have seen in the last 10 years. However, over the last 100 years, thus negating short term changes, there has been a very clear abnormality in the change of global temperatures that, as said on a BBC Radio 4 programme with a scientist I can't remember the name of, "is unexplainable by natural means alone." To provide support for why the cycles are about 10-20 years long, scientists have looked back a lot through history.
dunsedog 2 years ago
dunesdog: I'd just like to say that BBC radio 4 is the best radio station on the planet. I missed The Now Show this weekend though dammit.. must go to iPlayer.
bimblinghill 2 years ago
lol, I should listen more, it was just coincidence I heard this report. also, Wallace and Gromit pic ftw!
dunsedog 2 years ago
This video inspired me to contact Senator Murkowski regarding politicizing this issue. Thank you.
TouchOfGreatness 2 years ago
Fox News: watched by knuckledragging troglodytes who never get laid (and as a result hate women for not tapping their moronic flabby pustule-ridden asses.)
Shavarnarak 2 years ago 2
Thank you for this very informative and responsible video. Biased information can be dangerous information.
TouchOfGreatness 2 years ago
cool wenn jemand sich um mich kümmert bin so einsam
LiibeSexiii91 2 years ago
i hope that gov. health care does happen, then i can stop working at this stupid job that does my head in and focus on my studies!
chefextra 2 years ago
I lived in England for 11 years and while I do support a gov health care option. Pap smear rationing does happen there. Over here we are told to have one every year, yet over there they only allow women to go every 3 years. That's not to say that it would definately happen here if there was universal health care though.
chefextra 2 years ago
If you read some of the other comments (or watch the video) you'll see that one every three years is about right. One every year isn't good. So I don't see how that's rationing; it's just good medical sense.
EdwardHowton 2 years ago 2
Thats right, and our medical boards have now said that thats right, and getting them any more than 1 out of every 3 years is a waste of time and money for everyone, unless you have abnormal readings, which is how it should be rationed. I do believe the doctor's, not the patients, are best fit to decide what treatments are required. You can always refuse a treatment, but I don't believe in being able to demand one that the doctors say is useless.
Robertz1986 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
None of the current administration will go on Fox, they are all affraid of being ask hard questions. If bias at Fox is real its because of fear on the part of liberals to stand up for there side of issues.
UtherPendragan 2 years ago
UtherPendragan "None of the current administration will go on Fox, they are all affraid of being ask hard question"
Didn't President Obama just do an interview with Major Garrett on Fox News last week? And, which interview from which network are you claiming failed to ask hard questions? (For an example of proof of a network failing to ask hard questions, see my recent video of Fox News' softball interview with Rush Limbaugh titled "Rush Limbaugh Admits Fox News Bias?")
thx for commenting :-)
LiberalViewer 2 years ago
I watch all your videos and I also watch Fox news, CNN, MSNBC. Everyone is bias, if they werent bias it would be so boring nobody would tune in. I like the fact that your bias toward the liberal position, thats why I like your stuff, I know were your coming from. I am independent, middle of the road on most things.
UtherPendragan 2 years ago
You...kinda didn't answer any of his questions at all.
Leoncharlesblanc 2 years ago 3
BBC News and BBC World Service - least biased news channels I have ever seen. One is a national news channel, the most popular in the UK, one is a world news radio programme, at certain times was so incredibly popular that it had the majority of listeners in multiple Commonwealth countries. Now that some of those countries don't have so ridiculously biased news BBC World Service has pulled out, or toned down, cos they aren't needed there anymore.
People will watch impartial news.
dunsedog 2 years ago 2