Social Question

JLeslie's avatar

Fox news watchers: can you explain to me your perspective regarding Jon Stewart on Fox News Sunday?

Asked by JLeslie (60535points) June 20th, 2011

Here is the link if you did not see the episode.

What I am trying to understand is why does the host think Jon Stewart is a news program and should be held to the same standard as a news program? He is on Comedy Central. The host even brings that up, that Comedy Central has shows like South Park for goodness sakes. Does the host in your mind actually make his argument for Fox news being the counterbalance to ABC, NBC, ans CBS? Jon Stewart says that MSNBC has begun scheduling programming in the same way Fox news does with a very liberal bias, same as Fox on a very right wing one. But, ABC, NBC, and CBS? Sure the news might have more liberals so there is some slant, but generally I think they are relatively balanced journalists, although Stewart points out a lot of the time the reporting is sloppy, lazy, and out of context, but, I don’t believe they are specifically trying to purposely influence votes or politics. People on Fox want to influence votes, they are not just simply reporting, with the exception of maybe one or two programs on the network. IMO.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

67 Answers

missingbite's avatar

@JLeslie I know plenty of people that use John Stewart as “real” news. Most of his shows are political and he does go on Bill O’Reilly to debate his views. That tells me and others he is trying to be serious about his views with humor involved.

_zen_'s avatar

He is seriously funny. We get the global edition.

jrpowell's avatar

Just because everyone needs to watch this. Crossfire was cancelled a few weeks later.

ratboy's avatar

Fox would be great if they would only acknowledge that they are a comedy network.

_zen_'s avatar

A comedy network with babelicious blonde blue-eyes anchorwomen.

mazingerz88's avatar

Like it or not it is news delivered comically. And I love laughing so I like John Stewart. Fox has news which they would believe to be seriously delivered but I find it comical in a not funny at all kinda way. : (

everephebe's avatar

The Daily Show is not a news show, it’s a fake news show on Comedy Central. This fact is misleading though because Jon Stewart actually tends to be quite informative (& insightful), usually far more informative than “actual” news channels. Jon is known for making fun of everyone, including himself so… he’s pretty darn fair and balanced.

I wish the news was much more like The Daily Show, satire has to be one of the best ways to understand politics and current events.

flutherother's avatar

If Fox News was unbiased they would not take Jon Stewart so seriously. He is a comedian who ridicules their methods and their absurdities. If their methods weren’t dubious and they weren’t so absurd they wouldn’t be so worried.

Fox News asked Jon Stewart on to their show because it feels he undermines their purpose. If the purpose was to tell the truth it could not be undermined by comedy. Fox News has an agenda and they cannot conceive of a news organisation without an agenda. It can’t even imagine a comedian without an agenda.

@JLeslie Thanks for the link, I enjoyed it.

plethora's avatar

If it’s on Television it is Entertainment

Just remember this and act accordingly.
You need to know nothing else.

MyNewtBoobs's avatar

@missingbite I think that unless you’ve seen him die and go for the really crappy fart joke, you don’t understand how important the comedy aspect is to him. And Stewart tends to line up more with “real” news than Fox does, so the idea of Fox criticizing him seems a bit hypocritical.

missingbite's avatar

@MyNewtBoobs It makes no difference to me what news outlet you or anyone watch. My point is people watch Stewart and believe they are watching the news. They are not.

I watched the segment with him on Fox New Sunday and don’t believe him for one second about not having a desire to lean left. His comedy is based about 90% on bashing right leaning politicians. He’s damn funny when he does it also.

I believe that Chris Wallace hit the nail on the head when he stated that he believed Jon Stewart wanted to be taken seriously as a journalist. He just likes to do it with comedy. IMHO.

MyNewtBoobs's avatar

@missingbite What people watch Stewart and think they’re watching the news? Not a news type show filled with bias and comedy, but actual news?

bkcunningham's avatar

Stewart doesn’t think the NY Times and the WaPo are liberal. LOL I believe that like I believe he doesn’t want to be taken seriously as a journalist. Being a comedian is harder than being a journalist. Yeah, okay.

josie's avatar

Stewart is a public and vocal critic of Fox news. That is, I presume, why he was on.

I do not generally agree with his politics, but…

I thought he made a pretty good point about news organizations being less politically biased, and more corrupted by the desire to produce sensationalism.

He is a funny guy, to be sure. He should stick to comedy.

missingbite's avatar

@MyNewtBoobs There are plenty of people that believe him to be the “news” portion of the Comedy Central Network. Ask around people you know but are not really close to and see what their views are of him and his show. I bet you will be surprised to find out people look to his show for “news.”

Let’s look at it this way, IF (and that is a big IF) all he was in the realm of television was a funny man, why would he do serious interviews with the likes of Fox or CNN? Simple, he wants to be taken seriously with his views and as a comedian with his delivery.

MyNewtBoobs's avatar

@missingbite I have, and I haven’t found one yet that actually believed that. Most of the viewers I’ve talked to didn’t use him as their only news source and balanced what he said out with more serious journalism, and over half who only watched him were under 18. Hence my doubt.

I think if he wanted to be taken seriously, he’d do more than a couple shows a year. If he wanted to be taken seriously, it wouldn’t be a comedy show. I think occasionally he wants to go on a show and use the platform given to him to raise awareness to whatever his thing is at the moment, but that’s hardly the norm for him. Occasionally, I like to go salsa dancing – that hardly means I want to make a career or a bigger part of my life or even enter into tournaments, it means sometimes I like to blow off steam and mix it up.

missingbite's avatar

@MyNewtBoobs A couple of shows a year? His show is daily. It’s called “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” Do you even know who we are talking about. His show is almost all political.

Edit, I think I just figured out that you meant a couple of interviews on real news a year. To that I would disagree. He can’t do more that that or it would take away from what he is good at. He does do a few more of them than a couple though.

MyNewtBoobs's avatar

@missingbite Ok, first off, please cut the attitude. I’ve done nothing to deserve it.

The couple of show a year I was talking about were the CNN and Fox interviews you were holding up as proof of his aspiring to be a serious journalist. And I think the politics may be how the show starts, but if you actually watch the segments, it tends to turn into “how many penis jokes can we make under the guise of talking about politics”.

missingbite's avatar

@MyNewtBoobs I edited my response before your last post because I figured out what you meant. Your wording was not understood. Sorry. Your reply made no sense to me as it looked like you though he only did a couple of shows a year.

I watch Jon Stewart. He is a genius. I also believe he wants to sway his audience to the left. You may not believe that but I do. I guess we will have to disagree.

missingbite's avatar

Apparently some people believe him to be news. Sad but true.

ninjacolin's avatar

@ratboy nailed it. Fox is hilarious. They should change from being news to comedy.

ETpro's avatar

@JLeslie I’d just like to take issue with one premise in your OP. In the points you mention in the details. You write “Sure the news might have more liberals so there is some slant…” That’s one of the Big Lies the right has worked for many decades to slowly drive into the American meme. It’s a trope. Virtually all news organizations in the US are now owned by a ten massive multinational corporations. Their top management is pure corporatist, and that means heavily slanted to the GOP that gives a endless stream of tax breaks and deregulation efforts to their corporate benefactors.

I will grant you that the majority of reporters and commentators are college graduates with degrees in journalism, political science, etc. College graduates tend to be more liberal than non-grads. So the newsroom may lean left. But the producers, the managing editors, the CEOs and the boards are decidedly right-wingers. How many left-leaning nationally syndicated columnists can you name that have a national reach. Virtually all are right-wingers.

Likewise, in presidential elections, if we look at major markets with circulations over 100,000, those major newspapers that do endorse any candidate pick the Republican by a factor of roughly 2 to 1. This has been true for decades now.

Republicans are just much better than Democrats at “working the ref.” By that I mean that when you watch major league sports, you will from time to time see an obvious foul, but the coach for the team called will throw a hissey fit, screaming at the officals, throwing his hat down, stomping up and down the sidelines. He’s working the ref. He hopes if he makes it seem like he’s being treated unfairly, the ref might look the other way on a less obvious foul rather than face his wrath again. Republicans do that constantly with the press, Democrats rarely do, and never manage the perfect chorous with all party members falling in line.

And so we live with the trope that the press is very left leaning, when in truth it leans center right.

plethora's avatar

@ETpro Wow!! I had no idea. Feeling much better now about a Republican in the White House in 2013 and Republican House and Senate. And maybe that pesky Harry Reid will get bounced too. Oh, and Pelosi as well.

Am I the only one that doesn’t even watch the news networks or listen to talk radio, Left or Right?

bkcunningham's avatar

@ETpro, “How many left-leaning syndicated columnists can you name that have a national reach?”

Frank Rich, Maureen Dowd, David Broder, Bill Moyers, Paul Krugman, Eleanor Clif, Helen Thomas, Ellen Goodman, Juan Williams, David Broder, Bill Press, Jesse Jackson, Arianna Huffington, Nicholas Kristof, Molly Ivins, Noam Chomsky, E.J. Dionne, Eugene Robinson, Gerry, Seib, Ron Brownstein, Andrew Sullivan….

filmfann's avatar

@bkcunningham Who? Who? Who? You’re nuts. Who? Who? She is history. You’re nuts. Who? Who? Who? Granted. She’s a moron. Who? I think I’ve heard of her. Not a big name. Who? Barely national reach. Who? Who? Who?
You should have mentioned Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow. What they do is essentially what columnists do.

filmfann's avatar

Jon Stewart is a comedian. He is also brilliant, and takes on both sides, but obviously one side does more goofy shit than the other.

bkcunningham's avatar

@filmfann I love your responses and how you get a point across. You always make me smile. You are funny. So is Stewart. He is a political satirist. He’s pretty fair IMHO. Just a pleasant suggestion. You need to read more. ;)

ETpro's avatar

@bkcunningham I gave you a link to document my assertion that most nationally syndicated columnists are right wingers. Some of your list of supposed lefties are actually right of center. Most aren’t nationally syndicated columnists at all. If you want a list, here’s a list of all syndicated columnists, national and otherwise. Presumably he with the longest list wins in your logic. So I hereby claim victory.

Ghaith Abdul-Ahad, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, Timothy Garton Ash, Lucius Beebe, Max Boot, David Brooks, Rosa Brooks, Wilson Casey, Jonathan Chait, Noam Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn, Andrew Cockburn, Patrick Cockburn, Ann Coulter, Maureen Dowd, Niall Ferguson, Robert Fisk, Thomas Friedman, David Frum, Francis Fukuyama, Jonah Goldberg, Stuart Goldman, Johann Hari, Froma Harrop, Amira Hass, Nat Hentoff, Seymour Hersh, Dilip Hiro, Christopher Hitchens, Peter Hitchens, Molly Ivins, Paul Johnson (writer), Garrison Keillor, Kitty Kelley, Naomi Klein, Dave Kopel, Charles Krauthammer, Paul Krugman, Christina Lamb, George Monbiot, Greg Palast, William Pfaff, Jeanne Phillips (Dear Abby), Melanie Phillips, John Pilger, Daniel Pipes, Katha Pollitt, Anna Quindlen, Austin Ripley, Salman Rushdie, Dan Savage, Jeffrey L. Seglin, Esmond Shahonya, Tony Snow, Thomas Sowell, Mark Steyn, Andrew Sullivan, Jennifer Vanasco, Gore Vidal, George Will, Walter Williams, Walter Winchell, Bob Woodward, Fareed Zakaria, Howard Zinn and Phyllis Zagano,

bkcunningham's avatar

@ETpro, Media Matters? Really? Come on now.

CaptainHarley's avatar

The major news media have a distinctly leftward slant. For example, if some of the things Obama has said had been said by Bush, we would STILL be hearing about them! “58 states” indeed! Sheesh!

bkcunningham's avatar

Dear Abby??!!

jerv's avatar

@CaptainHarley That may well be, but the Right seems more likely to latch onto crackpot theories like trickle-up economics works and otherwise show signs of mental illness that simple flubs don’t compare.

Now, if you could disavow the conspiracy nuts, Westboro Baptist, and Sarah Palin, I think Conservatives would gain a lot of credibility and earn a lot less ridicule.

bkcunningham's avatar

I’ll give you birthers, Westboro Baptist Church and raise you Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

ETpro's avatar

@bkcunningham I will stack up Media Matters for accuracy againast Faux News any day of the week. You come on now.

missingbite's avatar

What I want to know is if the media will pick up on Obama admitting that his “shovel ready” jobs and the “summer of jobs” was BS. If a republican had said those things we would never here the end of it. Remember, “no new taxes?”

ETpro's avatar

@missingbite The press should do that right after Fox admits that ⅓ of the stimulus was tax cuts. You can claim tax cuts create jobs (even if they don’t). You can claim the stimulus didn’t create any jobs (even though it did). But to claim both is not only telling two lies, it’s telling two lies that fly in the face of one another. It’s logically absurd.

missingbite's avatar

@ETpro I am guessing you are talking about the extension of the Bush Tax Cuts? If not, please be more specific.

Fox has stated for years that tax cuts are not enough. Raising taxes on the rich is not enough either. Tax system overhaul and a cut in spending and waste is the only way out. Entitlements have to be addressed. To think they don’t is nonsense.

bkcunningham's avatar

Fox News is comprised of a variety of programs @ETpro. Do you not trust any of the programs or are there some in particular you have issues with?

CaptainHarley's avatar

Every religion and every political movement attracts its share of wingnuts.

plethora's avatar

@ETpro I watch your comments on multiple threads re the ineffectiveness of tax cuts in creating jobs. So let’s play the opposite game just because the results were so decisive 1991 tax on luxury boats. This tax CAUSED the loss of several hundred thousand jobs…blue collar jobs and congress had no clue. If a tax can cause the loss of jobs, why might not cutting taxes create jobs?

I’m guessing you have a left wingnut answer, but surprise me anyway. And don’t go wacko because this is a letter to the editor from someone in the boat industry. I was around when this tax was levied and the results were exactly what I predicted at the time and clearly delineated in this letter.

missingbite's avatar

@plethora Speaking of boats, where is Senator Kerry’s 76 foot New Zealand built yacht these days? I’m betting still in Newport avoiding tax. Tax and spend liberals always want someone else to pay tax.

plethora's avatar

@missingbite That’s the name of the game for liberals

JLeslie's avatar

@missingbite @plethora I think I speak for many liberals when I say we want more taxation to get us out of this debt, less loopholes, but while loopoles are there, we will use them. It needs to be perceived as fair. You might have seen me say before that I would vote to do away with affirmative action, but if I had a child today I would use everything available to give him a leg up utilizing his Hispanic status. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett will vote to raise taxes, but they are not going to write a check for $10 billion if they are the only ones doing it.

I don’t know why you say tax others regarding the liberals, you don’t think the republicans can be accused of the same?

plethora's avatar

@JLeslie Yes, republicans can be accused of the same. Neither party has a monopoly on good policy or bad. But I am unable to recall ever hearing a democrat suggest cutting taxes on anything (but I’m open to correction on that).

As for getting out of the debt we are in, taxes must increase. But on whom? The entire populace? Or the “rich”? Perhaps we should tax 100% of Timothy Geithner’s income, seeing as he was the architect of the debt we are in, and certainly one of the “rich”.

jerv's avatar

@CaptainHarley Too true, too true…

@missingbite As opposed to “Spend without taxation and bill the grandkids” or “Tax the middle class and small businesses so that the uber-wealthy individuals and mega-multi-nationals can get a tax break”?

@plethora Last I checked, quite a few were in favor of lower taxes for the lower income people (like those earning under $100K/year, which is ~90% of Americans) and small businesses.
Sadly, after so many years of “Horse and Sparrow” economics, there are enough poor people that government expenses have risen and the only way to drop them without raising taxes or turning our nation into the next India with rampant poverty and only a few rich people is to cut things like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the subsidies we give to Bank of America (we pay them taxes!).
I think that just making the personal income tax rate progressive instead of it’s current bell-curve (basically a raise in Capital Gains tax) plus closing the loopholes that big companies use to shift the tax burden onto those less able to afford it would help if done properly.
Small businesses create most of the jobs anyways, so the less they pay in taxes, the more jobs they can create. Same logic as giving tax cuts to the top tiers, only this time the money will go where it will actually do some good. And hey, the more people who have jobs, the more people who will be paying taxes instead of living off of those who do!

JLeslie's avatar

@plethora I think all the taxes should have gone up, or back to pre Bush when they were up to expire, including the middle class tax cuts. Obama never should have made that deal, I think he should have let everything expire. The people really hurting badly right now are those out of work, everyone else can afford going back to what they paid 10 years ago to help the country get out of debt. But, no, Obama wanted to cut taxes for the middle class, which he has done.

And, I feel like I need to mention that I don’t want to raise taxes just because, we have to pay for the war, it is irresponsible financing, it does not matter if I agree with the wars or not, I want to pay down our debt. I also at the same time want a good plan to get out ofthe debt and streamline spending. Many dems think like me, some of them had gone on record disagreeing with Obama’s deal. Obama is not everu democrat. I know you know that, I just had to say it.

plethora's avatar

@JLeslie I’d vote for you even though you’re a democrat..:)

plethora's avatar

@jerv I pretty much agree with you except on the capital gains taxes. If you want the rich to pay taxes and if the govt wants HUGE tax revenue, they don’t even have to eliminate the cap gains tax. Just give a 3 year hiatus.

ETpro's avatar

@missingbite No, I am talking about the Obama Stimulus. One third of the money was revenue write downs due to tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. Of the total package of $787 billion stimulus, 288 billion was in tax cuts, and 90% of that has been paid out.

@plethora You TOTALLY misunderstand me if you read me as in favor of higher taxes on everything and against every tax cut. Nothing could be further from my real position. What I keep saying is that tax law is complex. Bumper stickre slogans and pledged to never raise ANY tax are as inane as 100% tax on everything would be, or a negative 100% tax for that matter. If all tax increases are good, then we should immediately go to 100% tax on everything and create great prosperity. Any idiot knows that would fail. Likewise, if all tax cuts are good, we should set the tax to -100%. For every dollar you earn, the federal, state and city governments all send you a matching check. Any idiot knows that would be inane. We can’t discuss revenue policy with dogma trumping common sense and bumper sticker slogans overruling the need for thought. That’s all I am trying to say.

Before the Regan revolution we were running our soicval programs just fine and slowly retiring the debt of the Great Depression and WWII. Since Voodoo Economics, we have seen jobs fly offshore, and $14.6 trillion in new debt pile up. Voodoo economics is a miserable failure. If we keep it up, it will destroy America as a major world power. We need a rational financial program that loos at trimming wasteful spending and at raising new revenues.

jerv's avatar

@plethora I was thinking merely of treating Capital Gains just like regular personal income/business revenue. Some claim that that removes the incentive to invest, but I think that taking $100k, turning it into $200k and giving $30k to Uncle Sam is better than just having $100k sitting around collecting dust, even if $70k profit isn’t as good as $85k.
As @ETpro says, this “all-or-nothing” thinking stands in the way of doing what needs to be done. There is a happy medium, but so long as people adhere to the supply-side theories that were disproven over a century ago and made popular by Reagan, we will never be able to hit it.

missingbite's avatar

@ETpro Thanks for the link. Looks like a lot of that was for individual and small business. I’ll keep studying it. As for your response to @plethora, I think we all agree some taxes need to be paid. Where we differ is how much needs to be paid and how many entitlements or entitlement spending we need. Obama’s budget shows 58% of spending on entitlements. Like I have said before, we can tax to 100% and not make the payments if we don’t get those under control. That will start with admitting it can’t be done. Find a fair tax rate for all Americans and go from there.

Americans have to get the idea that everything is a right out of their heads. More and more people are out to get theirs from the government. They have forgotten that the government doesn’t have anything it hasn’t taken from someone else. Unless we ALL have a vested interest, we will fail.

@JLeslie I guess nobody leads by example?

JLeslie's avatar

@missingbite Probably most people don’t on these matters. Unless you consider voting on legislation that will work against the individual himself, but is for greater good, leading by example?

I completely disagree that everyone wants to get everything out of the government, like some sort of free ride. I can almost make that argument for the superrich who pay less taxes as a percent than the middle class. They want their free ride also in a way, couldn’t we say? Like we should bow down to them because they are giving us a job, instead of viewing all Americans in it together, in society together.

missingbite's avatar

@JLeslie I stated more and more people. Not everyone. I do believe that more and more people want something from the government. Our government is teaching them to be that way. Just a few weeks ago after the tornado in Alabama I heard a congressman say, and I am paraphrasing here, “congress will pay for this disaster.” I wanted to scream. IT’S NOT CONGRESSES MONEY! What should have been said was Congress will allocate the peoples money to help this community. Wording means something. When we hear Congress will pay, many people forget (or never knew) where that money comes from.

missingbite's avatar

@JLeslie NSFW!!! Here is a video that describes what I am talking about. This video was shot at a location in downtown New Orleans. I have seen an interview with the person “Mr. Ghetto” and he says this is not a joke video. Pay attention to the lyrics at about 1:20 (if you can make it that long without throwing up) when he is rapping about a Louisiana Purchase Card, while he films with expensive cameras, has a Jaguar, carries an iPhone. If I didn’t see this type of behavior EVERY DAY, I may have a different outlook. Unfortunately I see this as real behavior more often than one can imagine.

JLeslie's avatar

@missingbite I could not get anything to play on the link, it might be because I am using an ipad? But, I am willing to agree sight unseen it is horrific. I think you hit the nail on the head that you must be around a lot of people who think that way, so in your immediate world it simply is the truth. I really do understand, having lived in the Northeast and FL most of my life, and then moving to Memphis, it is like a different reality. Not sure where you live? Even on our own fluther, people who I think are so wonderful at answering questions insightful, have been on Q’s where I am somewhat shocked at how they think. One said she could not understand why people get angry and judgemental when poor people have nice things, why aren’t they entitled to have computers and cell phones also? That shit drives me crazy too.

But, when it comes to things like healthcare for instance, most people in my circles see that as very very different than a computer. And, we understand it needs to be paid for somehow of course, we understand we will have to pony up money. Plus, I don’t see middle class people as wanting to abuse the healthcare system, they just want to be able to go to the doctor if they are sick. The poor already get care, hopefully they might utilize less expensive care if it were available? Not sure.

missingbite's avatar

@JLeslie It is because of the iPad. The movie is in Flash. I love the iPad but it does lack flash. Really though, no need to watch it unless you want to laugh at the ridiculousness of it. I live in Louisiana which is a welfare state. Just as simple as that. Very poor. Much like a lot of Memphis.

As far as healthcare goes, I don’t disagree that healthcare is different from a computer. My problem with the new healthcare law is that it does exactly what my point of the video shows. More and more people are thinking the government should supply them with healthcare so they can buy the iPhones and computers. We have got to quit thinking that way. If I couldn’t afford healthcare, I would sell everything in my life that was not needed in order to pay for it. But if the government calls it a right, lets buy the toys and let the government pay for it. My healthcare went way up this year and according to my provider it was to offset the cost of the new provisions in the healthcare law. We pay for that, not the government.

JLeslie's avatar

@missingbite I just don’t want anyone to have to sell everything to afford healthcare, I really think of it as completely separate. Again, I know it has to be paid for, but I equate it with having I10 to get to Houston and a military to protect the country. I don’t like a lot of the Obamacare from what I can tell, I guess we have to wait and see a little. I hate getting my insurance through my employer and I hate the private insurers in general, and I hate the whole fucking system honestly. Doctors have no idea what they charge for a service, it is veru diffict to shop around, the individual has very little control, or it is hard to have real knowledge of how the medical system works. I always say when you have a choice between physical illness and mental, go for the mental, because being physically will make you crazy anyway, especially dealing with the medical bills.

ETpro's avatar

@missingbite I completely agree that how much entitlement spending we need and are willing to pay for is a debate we need to have. But this left versus right hate-fest keeps us all talking past one another on it. No politician on either side wants to tell us the painful truths we need to hear. Like the old Mexican proverb said, “Take whatever you want in this world, says the Lord, and pay for it.” You can take endless government programs, or you can take endless tax breaks for those that are already filthy rich. In either case, you are going to have to pay for it.

jerv's avatar

@missingbite Considering that the monthly cost of health insurance is more than many parts of the country pay for rent, I don’t find it unreasonable for many people to ask for a little help, even I’d it’s in the form of providers that work on a sliding scale. If you want to fall into the trap of aiming that everybody who wants government help is a freeloader then I can’t take anything you say seriously.
That said, I have no problem losing one-quarter of my personal income to pay for the portion of health insurance that my employer doesn’t pay, but if I had to pay the full cost then I would either have to go without insurance or live on the streets. I am better off than many millions of Americans, but I couldn’t take that financial hit even if I gave up my phone and internet. Maybe if I stopped eating…

JLeslie's avatar

@jerv When I think about the costs of healthcare mind does not even go to helping those who cannot afford it, it goes to the corruption and greed in the current system. If healthcare stopped turning a profit private insurance would bail on all of its customers, they don’t care about anybodies health, just the bottom line.

JLeslie's avatar

And, too many doctors also, go into medicine fot the money, rather than wanting to help people and a keen interest in medicine. I think doctors should be paid well, but some of it is just out of control.

bkcunningham's avatar

I’ve had a fantasy about what would happen if everyone in America who is healthy and paying monthy premiums for health insurance stopped paying their premiums and cancelled their insurance. This wouldn’t include anyone who is currently undergoing treatments for an illness.

Supply and demand sorta thinking coupled with an opportunity to get a message across to the insurance providers that they aren’t meeting the consumers demands. The way it is now, it is like extortion. You have to have insurance and the suppliers, even with government oversight and maybe because of the government involvement, don’t seem to “get” what we as individuals are saying about the cost and what our needs are in regards to pricing and the product we get from them.

So many monetary instruments are tied to insurance companies. What would happen to the financial sectors? It is so frustrating.

missingbite's avatar

@jerv I have said over and over that we need health care reform. What we don’t need is government mandated healthcare through private insurance. That will not work. Obama knows it and has stated his goal is one payer system. I don’t agree with that philosophy. You mention having to purchase healthcare on your own and that you couldn’t afford it without the help of your employer. I can agree. There are ways to reform the system and make it better. So far it has only cost more. And is projected to get worse. Mine has gone up dramatically already.

On a side note, I also didn’t state that all people who want help for the government are freeloaders. However, come live next to me for a while and I will show you what a welfare state looks like. What I did state is that the more the government pretends to give you, the more you think you are owed something.

jerv's avatar

The problem is that there is a lot of pressure to maintain the status quo. Some don’t want to reduce their profits to the point where insurance company execs have to live on less than $10,000,000/year, some just don’t want a dramatic, all-at-once change, and some don’t see any problems with the current system.

As for the sense of entitlement, that is independent of the government. We Americans have always wanted something for nothing. Many feel entitled to cheap gas for their SUVs and a big-screen TV merely for existing. Personally, I don’t think I deserve more than I work for, but I think I am entitled to not have to pay exorbitant sums for basic necessities just so that the provider can buy another Maserati. I think fair prices are not too much to ask for.

JLeslie's avatar

@missingbite Now there we agree. Government mandated private insurance bothers me too.

Pandora's avatar

I think a person would have to be a moron to take Stewart seriously. I adore his comedic genius. He is on comedy central. I think the first word of the channel is a give away that most people understand. It was silly, and I agree that Fox bought him on to try to regain their reputation as an actual unbiased news station when they are not. I found it insulting for them to think by slandering Stewart that we would suddenly go, “OMG, Stewart has had me brainwashed. I never understood that he was a comdian. And his bias against a fake news station, “Fox” was a lie all along.” I didn’t need Stewart to see that Fox was and always will be a joke or real news. That they have a totally biased view and will use intimidation to get their way. And they pander there news to right wing nuts with sensationalistic views that rival Hitlers tatics.

filmfann's avatar

The funny thing is that there is more honest news on The Daily Show than there is on Fox.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther