President's FOX Interview: "ZERO" Concerns About Core Health Care Reform Provisions

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 18, 2010 10:18 PM GMT
    By: Paul Abrams from the Huffington Post (03.18.10)

    Bret Baier came to his interview with President Obama armed with 18,000 emailed questions from fire-breathing Fox viewers, whom the network (unprecedentedly, one might add for any network on any issue) has stirred to high-anxiety over getting improved health care.

    Judging by their questions, Fox failed fabulously. There were zero concerns about the core elements of health care reform.

    Apparently, among these 18,000 questions, no one objected to preventing insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions nor preventing them from dropping coverage once a person became ill.

    None of the Fox viewers objected to people without insurance from being able to purchase insurance in large pools like Members of Congress.

    No Fox viewer objected to providing subsidies to small businesses to provide health care insurance for their employees.

    No one objected to reducing the deficit by $1+ trillion or extending the solvency of Medicare.

    Fox's viewers were, it seems, desperately concerned with the procedure in the House of Representatives, as that question consumed the first part of the interview. They were also concerned about certain of the political deals in the bill, the most egregious of which shall be removed.

    The only question that even touched on what seemed like a concern about a core issue -- the $500B reduction from Medicare -- was not even about the bill itself. It had to do with the looming solvency crisis in Medicare, which this bill was not designed to address, but actually helps that too.

    Despite more than a year of spewing hatred and spinning lies as "news", Fox News viewers -- at least those who wrote in -- have bought none of it. Their concerns are the distasteful but peripheral deals, and the process in the House of Representatives,

    I share those concerns, albeit for very different reasons. By adopting the "deem and pass" approach, Democrats are, once again, demonstrating their abject fear of the Republican attack machine -- so, instead of crafting an attack machine of their own, Democrats cower.

    Moreover, have the Democrats not realized that they will have more fodder than Republicans when the latter vote against the bills to remove the special deals and scale-back the taxes of Cadillac health care plans?

    Which side of the senseless yapping wars would a Member rather be on -- voting for health care and for the bill to remove the objectionable parts, or voting against health care and against the parts to which they themselves object?

    No contest. Bring'em on.

    And, just go through normal process in the House. The result is the same, and it is better politically.

    ***

    So, its obvious the Insurance Companies warchest goes directly into FOX News' deep pockets.

    :r:

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2010 4:48 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidDid you actually watch the complete interview?

    Or is posting a critique from a liberal publication hostile to Fox News Channel enough for you to know exactly how the interview went?


    Now this made me chuckle!

    I'm the last person you'd EVER want to pick a political/media fight with...EVER!

    Oh, gosh, that made me chuckle.

    icon_lol.gif


  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Mar 19, 2010 4:52 AM GMT
    B787 said
    southbeach1500 saidDid you actually watch the complete interview?

    Or is posting a critique from a liberal publication hostile to Fox News Channel enough for you to know exactly how the interview went?


    Now this made me chuckle!

    I'm the last person you'd EVER want to pick a political/media fight with...EVER!

    Oh, gosh, that made me chuckle.

    icon_lol.gif





    He makes a valid point, one which you did not answer. Did you watch the interview?
  • auryn

    Posts: 2061

    Mar 19, 2010 4:53 AM GMT
    Quick, someone get me some popcorn!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2010 5:24 AM GMT
    Right on, B787! I really cannot stand when people think FOX News is actually "fair and balanced". I watched this interview. All they were doing was yelling at each other like jackasses! The same shit Bill O'Reilly does.

    Granted, I don't like the news - You can't trust ANY station, but FOX is probably just the worst!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2010 9:05 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    B787 said
    southbeach1500 saidDid you actually watch the complete interview?

    Or is posting a critique from a liberal publication hostile to Fox News Channel enough for you to know exactly how the interview went?


    Now this made me chuckle!

    I'm the last person you'd EVER want to pick a political/media fight with...EVER!

    Oh, gosh, that made me chuckle.

    icon_lol.gif





    He makes a valid point, one which you did not answer. Did you watch the interview?


    Did ya see it, did ya, did ya?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2010 9:08 AM GMT
    vigor88 saidRight on, B787! I really cannot stand when people think FOX News is actually "fair and balanced". I watched this interview. All they were doing was yelling at each other like jackasses! The same shit Bill O'Reilly does.

    Granted, I don't like the news - You can't trust ANY station, but FOX is probably just the worst!


    You know I was to read the New York Post, and on the very first page it cured my constipation looked at the first page out come a big grunt, constipation cured.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Mar 19, 2010 10:28 AM GMT
    I watched "the interview" and it was downright shameful
    The interviewer obviously had an agenda and was trying to look for some way to trip Obama up
    It certainly wasn't the way someone should question a sitting president
    FOX - once again you got exposed for the sham of a network you really are

    Can you IMAGINE Dick Cheney sitting there and getting the same kind of reception

    icon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gif
  • Tiller66

    Posts: 380

    Mar 19, 2010 10:34 AM GMT
    Well I watched the interview and they are lucky it was'nt me he was interviewing b/c after being interupted for about the10+ time I would've asked why I'm I hear and got up and left.
  • grnranger99

    Posts: 225

    Mar 19, 2010 11:04 AM GMT
    Nice little comparison....


    http://thinkprogress.org/tag/fox-news/
  • davepalen

    Posts: 25

    Mar 19, 2010 11:04 AM GMT
    Has anyone considered If this bill will impact the lead the US takes in developing HIV drugs and treatment? If we end up with health care like they have in Canada, where will new development take place?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2010 11:18 AM GMT
    Brett Baier is a quality journalist who tried to conduct a fact finding interview with Obama. Obama is the one who got combative and defensive. Obama can't answer a question he hasn't been prepped on - or whenever he doesn't have his two teleprompters in good working condition. Brett asked normal topical questions on the subject. Obama kept using two fingers held together in the air - copying John Kennedy. Note to Obama: You are no John Kennedy. Just answer the questions, sir. Is that too much to ask? If so, who can we get a straight answer from? Certainly not your stunning vice president. How about Ms. Pelosi? Why not let her speak for you, Mr. President - when you're not up to speed on a subject? She'll do a far better job than you - and she's pushing 70!

    Our esteemed president is just sweating life out these days because so many people are disgusted with him. He promised "change" and isn't able to deliver it. Many of Obama's most ardent supporters want no part of him for another term. They feel deceived and are not one bit happy with him. Gay rights is only one place where Obama showed his true colors. Note to Obama: You poor guy. You made all these promises to everybody and his dog during the election. Now you can't deliver on even a third of those empty promises. The people are pissed, and you're on the hot seat during interviews. What did you expect people to think, sir? Did you think we would all just forget about your promises? "Change we can believe in?" Right. Thanks so much, Mr. Obama. We thought you were a breath of fresh air. Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice..........well sir, that's just not going to happen.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2010 11:36 AM GMT
    CAJock753 saidBrett Baier is a quality journalist who tried to conduct a fact finding interview with Obama. Obama is the one who got combative and defensive. Obama can't answer a question he hasn't been prepped on - or whenever he doesn't have his two teleprompters in good working condition. Brett asked normal topical questions on the subject. Obama kept using two fingers held together in the air - copying John Kennedy. Note to Obama: You are no John Kennedy. Just answer the questions, sir. Is that too much to ask? If so, who can we get a straight answer from? Certainly not your stunning vice president. How about Ms. Pelosi? Why not let her speak for you, Mr. President - when you're not up to speed on a subject? She'll do a far better job than you - and she's pushing 70!

    Our esteemed president is just sweating life out these days because so many people are disgusted with him. He promised "change" and isn't able to deliver it. Many of Obama's most ardent supporters want no part of him for another term. They feel deceived and are not one bit happy with him. Gay rights is only one place where Obama showed his true colors. Note to Obama: If you have no intention of even trying to keep your election day promises, you shouldn't have made such grandiose claims in the first place.


    In what parallel universe did you watch the interview? I watched it and Baier, who is right-wing hack, constantly infusing opinion and Republican talking points with the "news" - interrupted the president 17 times. He simply did not let the president answer any of his questions. If it was me, I would have decked him.

    Much of the change Obama has promised has been constantly obstructed by the Republicans, who are putting their party ahead of what is good for the country. There was an article in the times this week on Mitch McConnell, wherein the chinless wonder articulated that it was his plan all along - to use every possible procedural process to prevent Obama from enacting his agenda.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2010 11:44 AM GMT
    Oh please quit defending poor Obama - and how ludicrous to sit there counting how many times the interviewer "interrupted" the poor president. Bunk. Obama wasn't answering the questions. If the interviewer had waited until Obama wound down, he wouldn't have gotten in question number two. These interviews are not the place where Obama can just sit and spin yarns with his two fingers held together in the air. Obama needs to answer the questions or not go on television interviews at all. If you had listened to the content of the interview rather than sit at home tallying what you thought of as interruptions, you'd be alarmed at how little our president knows about his job. What a mistake - a horrible mistake - the day Obama got into office. Talk about a bad hire!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2010 11:52 AM GMT
    CAJock753 saidOh please quit defending poor Obama - and how ludicrous to sit there counting how many times the interviewer "interrupted" the poor president. Bunk. Obama wasn't answering the questions. If the interviewer had waited until Obama wound down, he wouldn't have gotten in question number two. These interviews are not the place where Obama can just sit and spin yarns with his two fingers held together in the air. Obama needs to answer the questions or not go on television interviews at all. If you had listened to the content of the interview rather than sit at home tallying what you thought of as interruptions, you'd be alarmed at how little our president knows about his job. What a mistake - a horrible mistake - the day Obama got into office. Talk about a bad hire!


    Dude - Oddly, I can both listen to content and notice how many times the president was interrupted.

    The president is a Constitutional scholar/lawyer. I'm fairly certain who knows the responsibilities of his job.

    Fox News long ago dropped any pretense of being a news organization, or even an opinion channel; it is an arm of the Republican party.

    And if you're not happy with Obama's progress on gay rights - which he has done more in a year than in the past 20 - than take on those who are obstructing the forward momentum.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Mar 19, 2010 11:57 AM GMT
    I wanted to hear Obama's answers but many times the douche bag would interrupt the President and not let him speak.

    "Let's go back to the original question"


    WTF! You wouldn't need to if you let the man speak!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2010 12:29 PM GMT
    I watched it and found much of it to be laughable. President Obama knew what he was getting into, and handled the "interview" like all politicians handle them: they don't answer the reporter's questions, they are there to deliver a specific set of messages. This is standard procedure, and something anyone specializing in public affairs or government relations knows all too well.

    Those of you spouting off that President Obama wasn't answering Bret's questions should know better, especially after 8 years with Bush and Cheney, who were real pros when it came to dodging the questions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2010 12:35 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    B787 said
    southbeach1500 saidDid you actually watch the complete interview?

    Or is posting a critique from a liberal publication hostile to Fox News Channel enough for you to know exactly how the interview went?


    Now this made me chuckle!

    I'm the last person you'd EVER want to pick a political/media fight with...EVER!

    Oh, gosh, that made me chuckle.

    icon_lol.gif





    He makes a valid point, one which you did not answer. Did you watch the interview?


    Actually he doesn't. Watching the interview is not required to know what questions were asked and he is committing an Argument Against The Person fallacy by attacking the media outlet rather than addressing anything wrong in the article. It is also a False Dichotomy fallacy. The original poster could have both watched the interview and posted a critique. They are not mutually exclusive.
  • rioriz

    Posts: 1056

    Mar 19, 2010 1:20 PM GMT
    reppaT saidI watched it and found much of it to be laughable. President Obama knew what he was getting into, and handled the "interview" like all politicians handle them: they don't answer the reporter's questions, they are there to deliver a specific set of messages. This is standard procedure, and something anyone specializing in public affairs or government relations knows all too well.
    .


    Agree with ya here although I do find that Obama is a little more defensive in making his point known than past presidents. It is not something people should be all up in the air about because it is just his personality. People are defensive, especially when they think they are right.

    I saw the interview and didn't think it was anything new. I watch Fox all the time and I think those who claim it is not a "news" organization are bias. Everyday I watch there is news from around the world, U.S., and breaking important stories. Yes real news! Yes the commentary is more conservative but someone has to be. For those who think the rest of the mass media is not overly Liberal something is wrong with ya. If Fox is in the Repubs hand then MSNBC is squarely in the Dems.

    I think the point that was made by the OP is valid and proves a point. There is a reason Fox rules the ratings, people do wanna hear two sides to every story and make up their own mind. So obviously it seems the viewing audience, by the questions asked, made up their own mind on what issues they thought were important and not what Fox necessarily wanted.

    People liked to be comforted about their own opinions. If you lean more right then you will watch Fox if more left then you will watch every other news outlet.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2010 2:00 PM GMT
    CAJock753 saidOh please quit defending poor Obama - and how ludicrous to sit there counting how many times the interviewer "interrupted" the poor president. Bunk. Obama wasn't answering the questions. If the interviewer had waited until Obama wound down, he wouldn't have gotten in question number two. These interviews are not the place where Obama can just sit and spin yarns with his two fingers held together in the air. Obama needs to answer the questions or not go on television interviews at all. If you had listened to the content of the interview rather than sit at home tallying what you thought of as interruptions, you'd be alarmed at how little our president knows about his job. What a mistake - a horrible mistake - the day Obama got into office. Talk about a bad hire!


    I agree!! He wasn';t answering the question!! Just filibustering with his talking points!
    Yes, the bill covers a few of the insurance company abuses, like preexisting conditions and dropping coverage, but what it doesn't do is even more glaring. Like anti trust exemption, lack of any competition, and obscene rates, profits & ins exec benefits and salaries (bonuses). U think ur rates r high now, wait until this bill passes and u MUST buy their product regardless of how much they charge u. AND THEY WILL CHARGE U A LOT MORE!!! They (ins co's) r not going to absorb the explosive added costs for covering preexisting conditions, u the currently insured r. Yes, the 15% uninsured "Americans" do deserve adequete health coverage but destroying the coverage for the 85% who currently hv it , is not the way to do it.

    This bill is a windfall for all health insurance companies and all we the insured will b paying the tab!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2010 2:14 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    Dude - Oddly, I can both listen to content and notice how many times the president was interrupted.


    Or perhaps you saw the piece on MSNBC on Thursday that provided a count on how many times Mr. Obama was interrupted.

    Which was it? Did you count on your own, or did you get your number of times he was interrupted from the MSNBC piece (or one of the other sources that provided a count)?


    Both, actually. I don't watch Fox News (I get my fiction elsewhere), but after seeing blog posts about the segment, I watched it online. Then I also watched Olbermann that evening where Lawrence O'Donnell did a piece on it.

    Unlike you, I don't just regurgitate the talking points being put out there by my party.
  • dantoujours

    Posts: 378

    Mar 19, 2010 2:19 PM GMT
    davepalen saidHas anyone considered If this bill will impact the lead the US takes in developing HIV drugs and treatment? If we end up with health care like they have in Canada, where will new development take place?


    Hmmmm... well development happens in Canada too. Actually, both Canada and Europe pull a disproportionate share of their research and development weight, but it isn't reported in the U.S. media much.

    Secondly, Obama and Congress aren't [sadly] passing a single payer system.

    Thirdly, most of the research and development work is done by universities and drug companies. Neither are impacted much by this legislation. Most of the higher costs from drugs don't come from R&D (which only accounts for 13% of the cost of a prescription drug) but from advertising.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2010 2:35 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    MonkeyPuck saidActually he doesn't. Watching the interview is not required to know what questions were asked and he is committing an Argument Against The Person fallacy by attacking the media outlet rather than addressing anything wrong in the article. It is also a False Dichotomy fallacy. The original poster could have both watched the interview and posted a critique. They are not mutually exclusive.


    Huh?

    The OP posted a column that "reviewed" the interview.

    The OP then posted the comment: So, its obvious the Insurance Companies warchest goes directly into FOX News' deep pockets.

    I asked the OP if he had watched the interview himself.

    The OP dodged the question.

    Several others asked the OP if he watched the interview.

    The OP, up to now, has not answered.


    No, you asked if he watched the interview or just posted the critique. That creates and either or situation that is not mutually exclusive and is a False Dichotomy. He very well could have done both. Secondly you described the source as "hostile to Fox News Channel" this is an attempt to discredit the source without taking on the content of the critique. That is an Argument Against The Person fallacy.

    Lastly, when you ask if you he "watched" the interview you are implying that by not actually seeing it he cannot know what the content is and therefore can't accurately critique it. This is also false. The transcripts have been posted by FOX and are readily available elsewhere. Thus negating the actual need to watch it.


    The irony here is that the Huffington Post critique has some serious problems with its conclusion. The most obvious being that they don't have all 18,000 questions and FOX has not made them public. So, when they say:

    "Apparently, among these 18,000 questions, no one objected to preventing insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions nor preventing them from dropping coverage once a person became ill."

    They have no way to validate that. All we know is if those things were in the mail they weren't brought up in the interview.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2010 2:36 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    Dude - Oddly, I can both listen to content and notice how many times the president was interrupted.


    Or perhaps you saw the piece on MSNBC on Thursday that provided a count on how many times Mr. Obama was interrupted.

    Which was it? Did you count on your own, or did you get your number of times he was interrupted from the MSNBC piece (or one of the other sources that provided a count)?


    What does the source matter if the count is correct?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2010 2:46 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    davepalen saidHas anyone considered If this bill will impact the lead the US takes in developing HIV drugs and treatment? If we end up with health care like they have in Canada, where will new development take place?


    That's an interesting point, one that has not been brought up here during all these months of "debate" (actually mudslinging and name calling) on the health care reform proposals.

    If I were to hazard a guess, I would say that the liberal majority on here would not be worried, as they would believe that it will be the job of the Federal government to conduct research and development on new HIV drugs and treatments.


    Please explain how this is relevant? It probably hasn't been brought up as we the healthcare bill does not attempt to make our healthcare system like Canada's. So, why would we consider the implications of something that isn't being considered?