vastly

Let me just add that the pro-con Tarp argument cannot be won by either side so its a stupid one at best. The people who were for it (sans Paulson Torpedo) argue that things wouldve been worse without it and the people who are against it think it's being wasted and will come back to hurt us during the next downward turn (which will happen sometime anyways)

So both sides will be able to claim they were right. PLUS when inflation occurs both sides will claim victory or defeat based on the same data:

Inflation means growth
too much loosey goosey spending so too much inflation

silly. I was for TARP and for the bailout sand think, as shown today that the tax payers will get back aome if not all of the Tarp money PLUS interest from the bank portion.

I am very happy with the way the auto dismantling has been handled since it wasnt allowed to implode.

I am very happy that AIG has been used as the 'bad bank'

I think that SOME books and economists will look back on what occurred as some of the smartest people in the world making decisions at the right time that SAVED capitalism in the long run.

Than youll have some on the other side that will argue the opposite. Some will argue from a standpoint of economic policy and some will be partisan and argue based on that vein...

I know where MBBF falls....

I think one the points that is missed when comparing to "lower cost per person" socialized systems of Europe is ours is that we put in the R&D and clinical trail dollars for our equipment and drugs. These foreign countries are able to make deals with these companies for lower costs, while we get footed with the bill.

The lack of a free market in the drug industry just kills us.

Just a data point. I believe it has been shown that Marketing $ exceeds R&D $.

The cost of anything, including Health Care, can be reduced to two things: "parts" and "labor". The labor part of the equation in the US is a lot higher than in other countries. This is a bit old (data is from 2004): http://mdsalaries.blogspot.com/2008/...-european.html

Average salary of a doctor working in a hospital

• USA: $266,733
• Australia: $203,132
• Netherlands: $175,155
• Britain: $127,285
• France: $116,077
• Italy: $81,414
• Denmark: $73,236
• Spain: $67,785
• Germany: $56,455

Our health care personnel, from the lowest of wage slaves to the CEO of pharma corporations make more money than their counterparts in the nations that everyone likes to cite when they point out a national health care system that costs less than the US system.

At least auto mechanics are up front and tell us how much of our car repair went to "parts" and how much is for their time, "labor". I'd like to know how much of a $900 CT Scan goes towards the salary of those who took it and read it, and how much of it is the cost of the scan itself. Did a radiologist get $300 for the 30 minutes (or however long it takes) that they looked at the scan? A $100,000 heart surgery requires the attention of several doctors and nurses for several hours. More if you include all of the prep work and the attention needed after surgery. How much of that is going to "parts", and how much of that is going to "labor"?

I'm not saying the doctors don't deserve the money. They do. But if people want to get serious about reducing the cost of health care, the cost of health care personnel have to be accounted for as well, and not just the people working for insurance or drug companies. Putting everyone on a national health care system isn't going to alter the costs of medical procedures, and I highly doubt that many doctors/nurses/etc. are really going to be receptive to the idea of changing their pay to be more inline with what doctors in France or Britain make (let alone Spain or Germany).

And I'm far from an expert so I have no idea if they even could. The cost of medical school, malpractice insurance, whatever other kinds of insurance they need, whatever other costs they need to keep being "certified" or "licensed" or whatever doctors need to do to keep doing their job. How much do these things cost a doctor in France vs. a doctor in the US?

(ending rant) The point being there is a lot that has to be done to significantly reduce the cost of health care while keeping or increasing the quality. Not just reducing the price of drugs, getting everyone insured and going to the doctor to prevent things, etc. The entire culture of health care in this country needs to be changed, everything that touches the health care system needs to have it's cost reduced without affecting its quality. (And it wouldn't hurt if everyone would stop being fat ass smokers and heavy drinkers....)

Call my cynical, I don't think it can be done. Or it would at least be as difficult as drastically changing our interstate highway system...

You can get all of this itemized if you ask for it. Most people don't because the insurance company pays the large part of the bill. There's a rate built into everything. It's just a lot more complicated because it's not comparable to your mechanic/parts analogy. There's multiple doctors and procedures for everything involved in a procedure. Most people would be pretty shocked just how large of a component malpractice insurance is as a total portion of the doctor's salary. It can easily run 25-30% of total salary. In some locations, it's even more.

That's not true at all. The average total expense is around 7%. It's actually less of a cost to doctors than it was 20 years ago. Sure there are doctors that have higher rates, but that is typically because they have had multiple lawsuits against them. If anything, that is a way of weeding out shitty doctors.

The malpractice/tort reform crap is an old myth that right-wing sites pick up to defend the crap system we have.

I don't know if this is the norm for people, but let me give you my experience of staying in a hospital for a week. Note that this is a supposedly high end hospital in a wealthy Chicago suburb.

- One doctor charged me for 5 days that I wasn't even in the hospital. The insurance company denied it and they kept sending me the bill. I had to explain to them that I wasn't in the hospital and it's impossible that he saw me there for those 5 days. They would "look into the error" and never fix it. It finally took me threatening to report them to the state for fraud that they handled the matter.

- One doctor billed my insurance company $400 a day for examining me (he supposedly examined me each day). This doctor literally walked in the room, said hi when I was awake, read my chart, and left. That was the extent of his "exam". His name never came up amongst other doctors and he never really did anything. I didn't even know his name.

- A psychiatrist came in one day and said that sometimes people who are there for an extended period of time get depressed and find comfort in talking to a psychiatrist. I told him nicely that I was fine and I was leaving tomorrow. He said if I need him to give him a call and left. He billed my insurance company a couple hundred bucks for that.

- I got charged for feminine products on my itemized bill. I am a male.

It was actually sad when I looked at the total bill. It was like these guys saw someone who was going to be staying for a little while and they all went nuts. It was a field day for them. Like someone walked into their store with a blank check. Doctors who I didn't need would stop by just to be able to charge me for the visit. They ran a crapload of unnecessary tests.

The funny thing was when I asked my main internist about this a few months later, he was pretty frank with me and said that guys will just pad their bills on people like me. Just walking into my room and saying hi was a few hundred bucks to them. Certain doctos there were notorious for calling their buddies in for a "consult" all the time.

My insurance company paid most of it so I didn't push it much. Was the first time I actually felt bad for the insurance company.

That's pretty ridiculous, but its similar to what happens when people are billing the government. And the insurance companies are at least trying to make a profit.

My father pays 22%. My wife pays 24%. Neither have had a lawsuit filed against them. That's fact.

Good post. Here, doctors have $100,000's of loans to back once they get out of the resident programs (which is what, early-to-mid 30's). You really don't have that overseas with taxpayer-funded education? Also, this is after or before malpractice insurance (another thing a lot of other countries don't have)?

What is the % of doctors that move from a lower-paying country to a higher-paying country?

I didn't know you were Manny Ramirez. ;)

Let me ask you this...Do we demand too much out of healthcare system when it comes to quality (the lastest drugs, tech, the top-notch doctors) and don't want to pay for that quality? Why give senior citizens life-saving treatment when it costs an huge amount of money (and usually at the taxpayers expense)?

Good news. Our tax dollars are now going to help people buy new cars!

?

House approves ‘cash for clunkers’ plan - Capitol Hill- msnbc.com

Good post, sabotai. You bring up some excellent points. Just to add a few things...

You can and should always ask for a full itemization when it comes to your hospital bills, etc. This applies to not only hospitals but to individual healthcare providers who may have contributed to your care (i.e., radiologists, ER docs, surgeons, or other specialists).

I propose that health care needs to also be looked at in terms of supply and demand. Nobody will argue that there isn't a demand for greater access to (hopefully quality) health care in the U.S. The problem lies on the supply side.

Nowadays, medical students go into the higher paying subspecialties. They do not go into primary care. There is no incentive for them to enter the field. Reimbursement is falling. The reimbursement you are able to get comes anywhere from weeks to months after the work has been done, and it is oftentimes something given out only after more time has been spent on the phone with insurers than with the patient in the first place.

I don't pretend that I have all the answers. I'm just an FP who is as unsure of where this is all going to end up as everyone else seems to be.

Some suggestions...

-- subsidize medical school education: this is currently an out-of-pocket expense for the student (six figures easily)
-- subsidize medical liability: do this however you need to...tort reform, government-mandated and controlled liability insurance at no cost to the healthcare provider.
-- make provisions for free licensing examinations: also out-of-pocket (approximately $5k), four such exams must be passed...one is notorious (I should say infamous) for the test and travel fees involved
-- streamline the credentialing process for licensure of physicians: an inefficient system in its current form, it takes a matter of a few weeks to get licensed in certain states but up to a year in others
-- go all the way with e-prescribing: until Schedule II drugs are included, this is simply not an efficient practice from a financial standpoint or a drug diversion standpoint
-- decrease the disparity in emphasis on preventive vs. reactive healthcare: read into this what you will. I'm biased of course as an FP, but I think our healthcare system as a whole could do tremendously better than it does at preventing development or progression of debilitating disease.

I have more but I will leave it at that.

I'll just end on this note. If I had to do it all over again, I'm not sure that I would've picked the same career path. I love practicing medicine and the idea that I may help the occasional person, but not at the expense of my family (who currently do not have health insurance) and being able to provide for them. That's right, the health care system in the U.S. is so dysfunctional that some physicians have to choose between practicing medicine without covering their own health insurance needs or paying for insurance and going out of business.

I actually like most of that quite a bit. Though I would rather see larger incentives for trading in your SUV for something that gets significantly more mileage no matter what it is, not $3500 and $4500 for upgrading to a newer SUV that gets 2 or 5 MPG more :P

(This is not an original thought and I am sure it has probably been said numerous times throughout this thread, but it makes so much sense that I don't understand why our country is doing the exact opposite)

A portion (what percent is left to democrats/republicans to debate, but we can all agree that a portion) of these problems were caused by people spending more than they had. Buying new cars and houses that were outside our means. So what does Obama do? Convince people maybe they don't need the 2010 Toyota Prius and a 2000 Ford Escort will get them where they need to go. No, we write laws to try and convince people to go right back to the irresponsible behavior they had 2 years ago. It's scary what a combination of irresponsible people and irresponsible government can team up to do.

But it's complicated, because if everyone just goes into lockdown savings mode, they spend a lot less, companies sell less, and therefore have to lay off employees and people lose jobs. And at that point it's a domino effect.

I think that's the main problem today - job loss. We need ways to keep people working. But at the same time, people need to live within their means.

There are no easy answers.

My guess is if the small used car dealer down the street donated as much to the Democrats or Republicans as Chrysler and GM we would hear about the amazing new idea of saving money by driving a used car. It is flat out irresponsible to convince somebody who can't afford a new car that they should to keep the economy rolling. This helps nobody.

If drugs were legalized and taxed. What a bonanza for the federal government. Imagine what a pack of government issued joints on sale for $20 would do for the economy?
A sidebar to it would be less criminal activity. Less money spent on prisoners. Tax the crap out of cigarettes and alcohol (even more).
All of this could go to paying for a free health care system.

The average cost is still 7% despite your surveying of 2 doctors. I'm sorry your family has exceptionally higher rates than the average doctor in this country.

Yeah, that's why I wouldn't support a single payer plan until there is some major reform in the health care industry. Right now it's just a big circle jerk with the insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and doctors dropping their loads on our forehead.

It's still unfair in my book. We are picking out specific industries and giving them major advantages over others. Why should the guy who sells computers not get big government incentives when his business is down? Just seems very selective and forcing consumers into sectors that don't deserve the business.

My only exception would be for fuel efficient cars. I have no problem with tax incentives on those to put them more in line money wise with regular cars. Those at least benefit everyone in this country (less gas bought from overseas and cleaner air to breathe).

Given that you prefaced your comments with comments about more general comments concerning 'right wing' groups, its obvious your not interested in the truth. You're interested in circulating talking points that downplay the costs of health care. I'd love to see the source of your 7% cost. I spoke with a few other doctors after my post last night and they laughed at your estimates.

HUGE +1 on this. Have a family member right now that is a general practice doctor. He finally was old enough to get covered under Medicare/Medicaid. Before that, he had no health insurance coverage.

As you mention, one of the main issues is reimbursement. He has to harass the insurance company for weeks or months to get them to pay him for things as simple as an office visit. Meanwhile, he has bills that are going unpaid even though he's already earned the money to pay those bills. I know it's a fun endeavor to pretend that all doctors drive sportscars and live in million-dollar homes, but those same people would be shocked to know just how many doctors are struggling under the current health care arrangement.

MBBF demanding sources

/snicker

Normally, I wouldn't. But everyone on this board knows that Rainmaker is pretty unreliable with his general statements that lump half a nation into one group. I'd also like to see if his information is from an interest group or not, as that's generally the case regarding this topic.

ROFLMAO

From today's New York Times: Economic Scene - How the U.S. Surplus Became a Deficit - NYTimes.com

Selected excerpts:

In summary, we're electing economic idiots to our government. Isn't this old news?

Wait, there's a Nobel Laureate supporting it somewhere. Push forward!

It makes too much sense to ever happen.

On the foreign policy front, two days from now will be a very important event, the Iranian presidential election.

No idea which way this will go, but while Ahmadinejad has been busy with his anti-American and anti-Israeli rhetoric, the economy has suffered (much like everywhere else). Things appear tight, but I expect Mousavi to defeat Ahmadinejad. This won't heal things overnight, but it would definitely be a step in the right direction.

That's the nice thing about Iran. They actually do have a functioning democracy similar to ours. We're not stuck with Ahmadinejad as a dictator. Sure, the clerics can shoot down anybody from running that they want, but it's not much different than than the leadership of the Democrats or Republicans making sure nobody stirs the pot too much.

/hands flame-retardant suit to lungs


For what it's worth, I agree, but I know a lot of people think Iran is an Islamic version of North Korea (or worse).

Agreed on Iran, though I have a bit of a different take. If Mousavi wins, things should proceed as the are. But if Ahmadinejad wins, there is a growing youth movement that may lead to a revolutionary civil war. That's a scary proposition with nuclear technology in the balance.

Islamofascism!!!

OMG

That's why I think Mousavi will win. Ultimately, the clerics hold the power and I doubt they'd allow Ahmadinejad to take the country to the brink of civil war.

My prediction is that Mousavi wins and things will be similar between our two countries as they were during the Clinton-Khatami days of the 90's. We certainly we weren't friends with Iran in the 90's but we also weren't at each other's throats.

Excuse my stupidity, but why do we give a shit who Iran's President is or what weapons they have?

You're excused.

Iran is a major, major power player (formal and informal) in the Middle East that has typically been hostile to U.S. allies. Our relationship with them (good or bad) has a bearing on how successful our efforts (or peace efforts in general) can be in the region, with all the knock-on effects that has.

We care about weapons because:

1. They're the kind of state that will sell advanced weapons technology (well, advanced for them) on the black market.

2. They're the kind of state who might be tempted to use something like a nuclear weapon on a neighboring state (or empower a terrorist to do so).

I still think #2 is rather unlikely because the clerics, the real "power behind the throne" are relatively astute, geopolitically.

Iran is the strongest and most obnoxious country in the region.

Like the United States?

1. Aren't we usually fighting wars against our own technology?

2. How many countries have detontated a nuclear weapon on another state?

So we don't want Iran to join us, Russia, and China is the better response.

Sorry, I should have been more clear: by "advanced weapons technology" I really mean nuclear weapons.


I think it depends who you talk to. In an ideal world, I'd prefer it if no states had nuclear weapons. In a slightly less ideal world I'd prefer it if only very stable countries had nuclear weapons. In general, however, I think I'd prefer it if we could keep nuclear-armed countries to a minimum and also keep them from selling their technology on the black market.

The hypocrisy and missteps of U.S. non-proliferation policy are well known and not lost on me, however. Neither do I think Iran is the international bogeyman a lot of people want to make it out to be (compared to some others). Still, I would greatly prefer it if they did not have nuclear weapons. But I would have preferred Pakistan to not have nuclear weapons either, so there you go....

No doubt, I absolutely agree with you. I have more of an issue with the US policy on Iran than what you posted. Just think if some country were at war with both Mexico and Canada at the same time. I wonder if the United States would do any postering?

Interesting that they are talking about all the emails they receive from these "amped up" crazies, but they don't seem to acknowledge that some of their programming may contribute to this. One only has to listen to little bits of Hannity, Malkin, Coulter and the lot to know where some of this is being fueled (not to say that these people are responsible, but they do contribute because it obviously helps their ratings/book sales).

The 7% figure is laughable. I pay 12% myself and I'm in one of the "low liability" fields in one of the more "low liability" states (Texas).

Texas was able to turn around some of its liability problems with malpractice reform in 2003. The key was to amend the state constitution by referendum to make caps constitutional. Many other states have tried or are trying reform only to see it fail in their state courts, but supporters of reform in Texas got the constitution changed so it wouldn't fail.

I'm not sure if there's a definitive single figure nationally where average liability insurance costs are involved. The figures vary depending on geographic location, specialty, years in practice, prior complaints, etc. Here's a snippit showing just how large the differences can be: http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/200...gprl11229a.pdf And don't forget that any figures out there in cyberspace only take into account people who are willing to answer surveys.

And that's why I'm looking into a second career, keeping medicine on the side as a part-time endeavor (or even a hobby, lol).

My numbers are correct. I said it was based on percent of their total expenses. You are talking about percent of their salary (which is a ridiculous thing to compare it to). What is your father and wife's rates compared to their total expenses? We are talking about two completely different statistics.

The point was that tort reform is not going to fix the problem with health care costs (might help but not going to fix). That the bigger costs in health care come from staffing and equipment.

In any event, here are my sources. The uber-liberal AMA and the pinko commie MedPac commission.

AMA survey from earlier in the decade.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi...urcetype=HWCIT

Here are the minutes from a MedPac metting where they actually quote a lower number in 2002.

http://www.medpac.gov/transcripts/12...ranscripts.pdf

Which is why your numbers lack any connection to the current day economics. More and more doctors are working as contractors rather than running offices on their own for that very reason. The reimbursement and malpractice insurance issues have become a problem to the point that it's not very profitable at all to run a business, while it's still very profitable to contract as an independent contractor to multiple entities. Those studies you cite from early in the decade were from a different time. Things have changed drastically in the medical field since 2003-2004 from a business perspective.

But come on fellas, we all know the 5 people MBBF surveyed for his 7% number represent the entire medical field. To think otherwise is just plain silly.

And no, things haven't changed that drastically in the medical field in the last 3-4 years that would change the numbers that much. But then again, we all know your definition of "drastic" and "large" changes.

If you'd like to add to the discussion, feel free. If you'd like to be a jerk just for sport, move along.

High oil price fears are popping up again. This is definitely a situation that the Obama administration doesn't want to deal with in addition to all the other issues with the economy........

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...arket-reserves

Alternatively, if oil prices continue to rise and gas prices hit a high again it may just give more impetus to Obama's proposals vis-a-vis higher CAFE standards and exploring alternative energy.

I'm surprised how quickly the exploration alternative died out after the last spike. They need to continue to pursue it. Better to do it now when it's not a full-blown energy crisis. Exploration of oil reserves is just as important as exploring alternatives.

CAFE standards likely won't fare as well, due to the heavy price increases that they could create. That doesn't go over well in a down economy. Obama won't get anywhere near what he wants on that issue, if he even gets anything at all.

You are aware that they just pushed through higher CAFE standards (35 mpg by 2012, I believe) just last week (or so), right?

I'm confusing this with the 'Cap and Trade' initiatives. Thanks for straigtening me out. I'm supportive of increased MPG standards.

Not quite. I'm for legalizing pot because, frankly, I think it's stupid to put people in jail for it. As an aside, I changed my tune a few years ago when smokers started getting more and more ostracized- I'm allergic to smoke so anything that made it harder to smoke in public was good on me as "non-smoking" sections didn't work (still don't understand banning it from bars, tho- if you can't smoke in bars, where can you smoke??) and it was still commonplace and accepted to smoke anywhere and everywhere.

But taxing it is a drop in the bucket and raises some money but, no, nothing remotely close to a free health care system- less than 10%

File:U.S. Federal Spending - FY 2007.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Medicare and Medicaid: $682B - and just think- that enrolls about 100M of the 300M people in this country

Government Gets Hooked on Tobacco Tax Billions - NYTimes.com
State tobacco taxes: $19B
Federal tobacco taxes: $7B

So, even assuming a rate as high as cigarettes which is unreasonable, you're talking about $26B out of... $700B? Not even going to cover the basic bills.

SI

A lot of credit goes to Shep Smith, provided this was genuine and it appeared to be. As miked said, tho- a lot of that talk he is talking about is coming from the network he's on. However, he can only be responsible for his little corner of it.

SI

AMA has come out against the Democratic health care plan. Given the large amount of donations that they've given the Democrats over the past election cycle, this is definitely a big roadblock that will need to be navigated very carefully.

A.M.A. Opposes Government-Sponsored Health Plan - NYTimes.com

We need every billion dollar drop in the bucket we can get at this point, with or without extensive healthcare reform. Legalization ftw.

I have no doubt that medical malpractice costs have gone up since 2000 or 2002. But so have all the other costs associated with running a practice. Medical equipment and wages have skyrocketed (due to nurse shortages and such). So with those costs up, I don't think that the cost of malpractice is taking up a much larger percentage of total expenses. What percent is malpractice of your wife and dad's malpractice? I'd imagine it's closer in line to what I was saying.

The whole point was that some tort reform isn't going to fix the problem. Yes it may help a little, but the keyword is little. Until you can help doctors cut down on their other expenses that take up a much larger percent of their budget, you won't be seeing much change in the cost of healthcare. From what I've read online, the states that did implement tort reform are not seeing drops in insurance premiums for doctors. Perhaps a look at the insurance companies might be interesting.

And the other thing that bothers me is this idea that doctors are struggling right now. The low end of the average doctor salary is still over $150,000 a year. You have specialty doctors and surgeons making much more than that. Now I'm all for doctors getting their due for working hard in school and taking up such a demanding profession. But lets not pretend that these guys are sitting on street corners begging for handouts.

There's a huge difference between hospitals and private practice, which you don't differentiate in your post. Doctors in hospitals have the advantage of a salary that they know will be paid on-time regardless of the status of receivables that insurance companies may or may not be paying on time.

My father is a sole proprietor on a private general practice. When those same insurance companies refuse to pay bills or put off payments for months, it kills the practice financially. He's had to take out two huge short-term loans in the past to cover immediate expenses when receivables weren't paid. He was within a week of going bankrupt in one instance, despite having huge revenue in the form of accounts receivable sitting on his books. That's not going to get any better under public health care.

There's issues with the current system as I've said before. But changing the system just for the sake of change isn't the right move.

From everything I'm finding online, salaries in private practices for family doctors and internists are still quite high.

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/...Doctors/Salary

Physician Salary Survey - In Practice 3 Years

I have yet to find a site that doesn't list the average salary at 6 figures. And I'm sure private practice does have people making less than salaried employees at a hospital, but it also has doctors who make way more than those salaried doctors. My own personal doctor ran a practice for many years and eventually sold it to a major medical group. I know he drove a Mercedes and lived in a very wealthy part of the state.

Unemployment amongst doctors is much lower than the national average (and in the health sector in general). I don't know what case you are trying to make here. If certain doctors don't make as much as others, than I agree with you. But the average salary is what it is and that means that most doctors out there are doing quite well for themselves.

And none of this is a knock on doctors. They deserve to be paid well for going to medical school and spending their young adult life studying the crap out of medicine. It's a demanding occupation and they hold a lot of responsibility. I'm just trying to counter this claim that the average doctor out there is struggling to get by.

Zakaria: A Capitalist Manifesto | Newsweek Business | Newsweek.com

This is an excellent article by, in my opinion, one of the best journalists going right now.

I like Fareed Zakaria. He has a program on Sunday afternoons on CNN. I can recommend it. The only weakness is that he does tend to get bullied by the more strident interviewees in his attempt to be even-handed.

His take on the recession etc has been far more level-headed than most commentators.

You know the credibility of the media had plummeted when this guy starts being lauded as 'one of the best journalists going right now'. It's a sad statement on the industry.

*instantly regrets saying this*

What's wrong with Zakaria? I've thought him to be a fantastic voice, especially on international matters.

Have they changed the always in motion background? I couldn't watch him because that motion was so damn distracting.

:banghead:

its an opinion of one person and YOU credit it to the entire media...off of one person's opinion...wow. vast.

Fair enough, it's a statement on the ability of those posters to judge the abilities of Zakaria. He's a reporter who has used quotes without citing the source from a different article and he's made statements on Israel and Iran in recent days that have no basis in reality.

At one point, he was someone who reported with little political bias. Now, he reports from a left perspective, and it's often an opinion that is based on incorrect assumptions.

I wonder if his claimed 'move' to the left is in equal proportion to your assessment of his incorrect assumptions?

You see any issues at all with the following article?

Zakaria: What You Know About Iran is Wrong | Newsweek International | Newsweek.com

Do you mind pointing me to exactly what you're talking about, instead of vaguely pointing in some direction?

Well it starts with this so from that perspective he's probably right for most readers, no?


It's also an editorial {shrug}....and I assume by your judgment you know more about Iran than he does? Im not saying he's right or wrong in his opinion piece but he certainly knows more than I do.

So you see no issues with it. Fair enough.

How the hell is anything of this a "left" perspective? Are we really at a point where anything short of let's bomb Iran is leftist?

I wasn't referring to this specific article as THE example of him moving to the left. It's been a steady trend in his articles over the past couple of years.

And you second comment is just idiocy. It's a strawman argument with no basis. We aren't bombing Iran barring a launch of a nuclear warhead. But there are U.S. allies (Israel for starters) who could easily launch a pre-emptive strike, possibly even without U.S. approval.

Again, where is the "left" perspective? Even if the article you posted isn't the only evidence of Zakaria's leftward bias, it should be easy to point out the specific examples of his left perspective.

nope but you do and use it as a basis that he now is Leftist AND incorrect in his assumptions within his opinion piece.

Totally against Obama's effort to socialize healthcare. The money just isn't there. He talks about keeping the insurance companies honest, but when one looks at Medicare, Medicaid and the VA systems, one doesn't see a shining example that inspires confidence in the government's ability to "do it better."

He talks about wanting there to be a public single-payer system to compete with private insurers, but in the end, it will just drive private insurers out of business. Will companies continue to provide private health care plans for its employees if it is also paying taxes for the public option? Considering personnel salaries and benefits are the single highest expenses in operating a business, I think not.

He said that if we have a private plan we like, we can keep it. What he doesn't mention is that we'll still be paying for the public option whether we use it or not.

I also don't like the idea of health benefits and such being taxed as income that I've seen being floated around.

Right now I'm working four months out of the year just to pay all the taxes I owe. With all the new spending and taxes...That might now be expanded to five months. When it gets to six, I'm just gonna drop out and live on the public dime or move some place where a government can't rob me to enrich itself.

I find Zakaria to be left leaning but I also find him to be more balanced than just about anyone.

As for him slowly changing over the years, perhaps, just perhaps the Republican party is to blame? I'm a Republican but we do a terrible job of having people with CHARISMA demonstrate our values and that's the problem of the party. Regan was the last Republican with said charisma and guess what...Zakaria supported him and his ideas fully.

Just because someone is left leaning doesn't mean the reporter is bad. Zakaria is an EXCELLENT journalist...one of the few I actually make a point of reading.

Honestly, if you're not interested in taking a critical look and realizing that his coverage and commentary is very favorable toward the left, we have little to discuss. It's one thing to accept it. It's another thing to totally ignore it. You seriously believe him to be a non-partisan reporter? You've got to be playing stupid here. I refuse to believe you're this dumb. You'll get more credit from me than that.

Of course, it's always the Republican establishment's problem when all else fails. :)

I appreciate that you're at least open to the fact that he does lean to the left in his opinions. As you point out, that doesn't inherently make him a bad journalist. Using quotes without citation does. Also, the following quote from the article I cited above totally ignores what we know about this Iranian regime.......


He then builds on that assumption that Iran is not a threat. I'm sorry, but I cannot take a regime that violates human rights, rigs elections, and threatens its neighbors at their word. That just doesn't work.

Indeed...look at the presidency of GW Bush.

Just wanted to beat all the Dems around here to the punch.

You'll get no disagreement from me. The trust of Putin by Dubya is equally as baffling, which makes it worse that 'one of the best journalists' would make the same stupid mistake. It's ignorance defined.

So there's no need for evidence of his left leanings. He just is left and any need to provide a context is just further proof.

Zakaria is a natural moderate Republican; Reagan supporter, strong free trader, general supportive of an expansive foreign policy, etc. Booting him out of the party for heretical stances is exactly the problem with the current GOP.

I'd say more than left or right his foreign policy is marked by pragmatism.

It won't be a problem anymore when the party splits into two new parties.

I know this is nothing new, but listen, you're the one who posts an article and says "find the leftist examples here and if you can find nothing of fault, you're an idiot". Which that's funny in and of itself but even funnier when that's your response to "show me examples of why he's a lefty". Congrats, you basically said "find them yourself because I'm too lazy/can't be bothered/I'm sure they're there". Same old MBBF.

SI

Fixed. He's not anywhere close to that now. I'd also like to defend his right to change stances, but he's certainly left-leaning at this point. When you start referring to policies as a 'symphony', you've lost all critical credibility as a writer.

somebody on here cited Cato Institute as if they we're neutral party to a discussion. who was that?

I believe that Flere is your Huckleberry. You agreed with the point being made, which is surprising given that you hatred for them.

The Obama Presidency - hopes and predictions - Page 43 - Front Office Football Central

Metaphor usage is enough to lose credibility?

oh so this isnt you? ((POL) Stimulus'ed out yet? You ain't seen nothin yet... - Page 4 - Front Office Football Central) and please show me where I agreed with what was said by you or Cato or anyone else after that post is made. Again, youre full of shit and/or talking out of your ass!


culminating in you being shown, again, how you do the same F-in thing in that you cite (ive learned) a slanted, in your favor of course, document as being a 'large number' of blah blah blah (vast, polls, majority <---all shit you use wrongly and are almost always end up wrong in your extrapolations and prognostications but never admitted so when the data is borne out)... Its unreal that you do exactly what you accuse others of but fail to see it. I wonder if you just dont spout off for entertainment purposes and really dont believe half the shit you say.

Amazing that the things that 'lean' your way arent 'wrong' in their assumptions. {Faux Shock}

Remember, we're not allowed to go back and find evidence of MBBF's hypocrisy or else Cam will show up to criticize you and tell us all we're having a stupid argument.

Isn't this standard operating procedure on the right these days? If any reporter or news agency creates some work that is critical of a Republican policy, they are members of the liberal media or left leaning. As an observer of political theater, it's a brilliant strategy that ensures you always come out on the right side of the argument with your supporters. Not unlike MBBF's claim that if the economy gets worse it's Obama's fault, but if it gets better it's despite him. A win in any scenario setup.

The problem is that the argument doesn't work much anymore. Maybe in a more equal political environment, but a lot of moderates and moderate Republicans switched sides because they thought the Republican Party had turned to idiocy. So when you claim everyone who has a negative opinion of your policy as a liberal, you are insulting many of your old supporters.