Jon Stewart interview on Rachel Maddow

dohdough

dohdough

CAGiversary!
Feedback
2 (100%)
http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/2010/11/12/jon-stewart-on-the-rachel-maddow-show/

I'm not sure how many have seen this, but this highlights my problems with Jon Stewart. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy his show and I enjoyed the smackdown he laid on Begala and Carlson, the thing is that there was always something that kinda bugged me about it and I didn't quite know how to articulate it back then. I didn't just figure it out, but I figured now's as good a time as any since the interview and rally were recent.

Stewart's entire premise is that the left/right conflict is completely out of hand and that the media escalates this...that left/right is a false dichotomy and that the truth is somewhere in the middle. Not to mention that he's exempt from any responsibility because he's simply a comedian doing a satire show that isn't amplified by any reinforcing programming before or after his own.

My problem with this is that the always famous "there are two sides to every story and the truth is somewhere in the middle." Yes, this is true, but how that idiom is interpreted is that it's somewhere close to the middle. Now that is a blatantly faulty premise to use. Maddow hints at this, but she's tossing him softballs, and understandibly so. Stewart wants to still be a moderate and the problem is that Stewart is compartmentalizing these national issues and not taking everything in as a trend or see how everything is related in a complex system.

For me, it comes down to this: Yes there are two-sides(of the political spectrum in this case), but that does not mean that the correct answer is somewhere close to the middle between the two and that this false equivalence doesn't exist. The problem is that one side, I'm talking about the right here, is given more credence when it shouldn't have it. So the problem that Stewart should be looking into is taking the information and critically examine it instead of just saying "the right is bad and the left is just as bad because they do the same things." The fact that certain things are done is an important one, but when you don't take the time to examine why it's done, well, there's always a big fucking difference sometimes.

And to be honest, I understand why Stewart doesn't want to be radicalized. It's because he's part of the system that enforces the status quo and he wants to keep his place in it. I can't really blame him for that.
 
I think Maddow didn't come off as well as she did coming in, especially on the 'teabagger' thing. They discussed a lot of points though.

I think Stewart is definitely 'in the game' the same way Maddow is. His rally was basically him at the baseline throwing the ball in the air. His argument is because he didn't finish the serve, he's not in the game yet, and I'm not convinced of that.

That said, I think Stewart is one of the best media critics we have right now. Up there with Jay Rosen and Glenn Greenwald.
 
[quote name='dohdough'] It's because he's part of the system that enforces the status quo and he wants to keep his place in it. [/QUOTE]

Wrong.

He has no place to keep - that place will always be there. If we were in a full radical left world or a stupid right one, either way, he's got jokes to make, hypocrisy to point out, and things to expose. That's never going way.

Lewis Black was interviewed a lot following Obama's election, and the question that always came up was "What are you going to do now?" And Black would ask "Do you really think stupidity is going to flee the country just because Bush isn't in office?"
 
[quote name='Strell']Wrong.

He has no place to keep - that place will always be there. If we were in a full radical left world or a stupid right one, either way, he's got jokes to make, hypocrisy to point out, and things to expose. That's never going way.

Lewis Black was interviewed a lot following Obama's election, and the question that always came up was "What are you going to do now?" And Black would ask "Do you really think stupidity is going to flee the country just because Bush isn't in office?"[/QUOTE]
I don't disagree with you, but he's not exactly a touring comedian anymore and that was my point. He actually holds a position of some power and influence.
 
[quote name='IRHari']I think Maddow didn't come off as well as she did coming in, especially on the 'teabagger' thing. They discussed a lot of points though.

I think Stewart is definitely 'in the game' the same way Maddow is. His rally was basically him at the baseline throwing the ball in the air. His argument is because he didn't finish the serve, he's not in the game yet, and I'm not convinced of that.

That said, I think Stewart is one of the best media critics we have right now. Up there with Jay Rosen and Glenn Greenwald.[/QUOTE]
I agree with this as well and he certainly fulfills an important role. I mean he's clearly biased and there's nothing wrong with that. The left shouldn't be exempt from criticism, but the right takes it's looniness to a whole new level and institutionalizes it, which he hints on, but then tries to appear more "balanced."

I think the fact that he has influence puts him in the game whether he wants it or not. IMO of course.
 
I think Bill Maher mentioned this once, can't remember if Stewart was the reason or not. Basically saying that even though the right way may sometimes may be found in the middle, sometimes one side is better than the other. There is no middle ground to letting people go hungry or die without health care.
 
[quote name='Clak']I think Bill Maher mentioned this once, can't remember if Stewart was the reason or not. Basically saying that even though the right way may sometimes may be found in the middle, sometimes one side is better than the other. There is no middle ground to letting people go hungry or die without health care.[/QUOTE]
Maher did say that on a couple times on different shows. He made a point about the rally 2 weeks ago. I think Stewart got a little butt hurt when he heard that, but hey, Maher has his own craziness to deal with sometimes. Especially when it comes to guys named Mohammed or flu shots. :D

Like the name of Howard Zinn's little biopic, you can't be neutral on a moving train.
 
Yeah I don't get his phobia of medicine. It isn't the science of it, he just doesn't seem to trust doctors, like, at all.
 
But there are a multitude of valid reasons to maintain a questioning nature regarding doctors. Phobia? I wouldn't go that far, but certainly a level of distrust.

Pharmaceutical companies and their shady business deals, doctors on average interrupt someone within the first few seconds of them explaining their problem/reason for visit, a lot of haphazard brush-offs that "this is a virus and there's nothing we can do" and then asking for payment, people being herded around in offices like cattle, doctor mistakes killing thousands of people every year, the small but present threat of fake credentials, medicines routinely having side effects not noticed until long after disastrous results, incorrect diagnoses, etc etc.

I don't necessarily mind doctors, but at their core they are just people as well.

Please note I'm not buying into things like "vaccinations cause autism" nonsense that a super smart person like Jenny McCarthy slogans out. But I WILL buy into Lewis Black's "flu shots work because they give you a cold, which is why you don't get the flu" bit, but that is because it's funny and generally true.
 
Well yeah, but that's how vaccinations work. You get a weakened form of whatever you're being immunized against. But he talks about being vegetarian and never getting sick, and while he may be healthier than many of us, not eating meat isn't keeping him from getting the flu. And I know some medications have bad side effects, but that's the nature of medicine. At times it seems like he'd sooner buy into some sort of homeopathic "natural" cure for something. Despite railing against people with beliefs not rooted in science.
 
I don't think eating healthy/avoiding processed foods = homeopathic.

I haven't been out of the country too much, but I went to Toronto and the market goods there were INSANE. I was in a tiny little supermarket the size of gas stations here, getting the best bread, cold cuts, and cheeses of my entire life. And this was just a tiny ordinary place. I was just astounded by how fresh and vibrant everything was. Meanwhile, I go to the stores here, and to get the same quality of food, I have to buy stuff that costs 2-3x as much.

Same in Japan. There's a burger place there called Mosburger, and it was just amazing how much better the food quality was for a six dollar meal.

Our country eats too much meat, not enough veggies, too much corn syrup, and generally just bad in general. I suspect this is what Maher is getting at - a person in the states eating healthy food equivalent to other countries probably still isn't getting the same nutrition, and most certainly is paying higher prices.

Take that as you will. I don't buy vegetarianism as something inherently better than being a carnivore. I do believe the food in our country suffers heavily compared to others. I don't know the reason (don't believe in OMG IT HAS PESTICIDES/GENETIC ENGINEERING tripe) for this, but I'm pretty sure something is different elsewhere.
 
[quote name='Clak']I think Bill Maher mentioned this once, can't remember if Stewart was the reason or not. Basically saying that even though the right way may sometimes may be found in the middle, sometimes one side is better than the other. There is no middle ground to letting people go hungry or die without health care.[/QUOTE]

The thing is, I don't think either side wants people to go hungry or die. I think that's one of the things Stewart is getting at when he talks about the level of discourse in this country. There is all this demonizing of one side or the other, which the media has gotten a hand in, and in some cases, directly drives. Yet, most of this craziness actually exists at the fringes, but that is what gets the most attention. The more sensible among us might not disagree on how to handle the poor and sick, but it's not because the left are socialists who want to take all your money so they can live a life of luxury nor because the right wants to put them on the streets to starve to death. Nothing gets solved that way.
 
[quote name='Strell']I don't think eating healthy/avoiding processed foods = homeopathic.

I haven't been out of the country too much, but I went to Toronto and the market goods there were INSANE. I was in a tiny little supermarket the size of gas stations here, getting the best bread, cold cuts, and cheeses of my entire life. And this was just a tiny ordinary place. I was just astounded by how fresh and vibrant everything was. Meanwhile, I go to the stores here, and to get the same quality of food, I have to buy stuff that costs 2-3x as much.

Same in Japan. There's a burger place there called Mosburger, and it was just amazing how much better the food quality was for a six dollar meal.

Our country eats too much meat, not enough veggies, too much corn syrup, and generally just bad in general. I suspect this is what Maher is getting at - a person in the states eating healthy food equivalent to other countries probably still isn't getting the same nutrition, and most certainly is paying higher prices.

Take that as you will. I don't buy vegetarianism as something inherently better than being a carnivore. I do believe the food in our country suffers heavily compared to others. I don't know the reason (don't believe in OMG IT HAS PESTICIDES/GENETIC ENGINEERING tripe) for this, but I'm pretty sure something is different elsewhere.[/QUOTE]I didn't mean that, I meant it seems like he'd buy into homeopathic cures because it isn't mainstream medicine. It just seems like he'd trust that before an actual prescription medication.

[quote name='Cantatus']The thing is, I don't think either side wants people to go hungry or die. I think that's one of the things Stewart is getting at when he talks about the level of discourse in this country. There is all this demonizing of one side or the other, which the media has gotten a hand in, and in some cases, directly drives. Yet, most of this craziness actually exists at the fringes, but that is what gets the most attention. The more sensible among us might not disagree on how to handle the poor and sick, but it's not because the left are socialists who want to take all your money so they can live a life of luxury nor because the right wants to put them on the streets to starve to death. Nothing gets solved that way.[/QUOTE]
I was only using that as an example, I don't remember what he said. I have to admit though, republicans don't seem to have any good plans for getting people health care. They only seem interested in repealing what's be done.
 
Stewart should have just regurgitated his Crossfire bit from 2004. That appearance was spot on. He apparently had the stomach flu in this one, so that may be why he wandered and rambled a bit. Whatever the reason, this whole interview came off as trying to be intellectual and meaningful. It was neither.

Watching Maddow act as if she or others on MSNBC don't push an agenda was weird and strangely hilarious. Of their prime time hosts, Matthews and Lawrence O'Donnell are by far the most straight forward. I had hopes for Maddow, but she left her criticism of Obama behind at some point in 2009 to become a full-time cheerleader for democrats against republicans. Schultz has gone off the deep end in a way only Beck knows, and Olbermann is progressive circle jerk central (yet he donates to a democrat who is George Bush with a D in front of his name while Feingold is hung out to dry... there should be a looped laugh track playing whenever he's on camera). I do like Ratigan.

If I had my druthers, Greenwald would be in Maddow's spot, Olbermann and O'Reilly would switch stations, and Andrew Napolitano would take Beck's hour. Maybe we'd get some objective analysis from cable news at that point.

[quote name='Clak']I have to admit though, republicans don't seem to have any good plans for getting people health care. They only seem interested in repealing what's be done.[/QUOTE]

Ron Paul wrote a bill that would make everyone's health care costs 100% tax deductible (removing the 7.5% threshold for deduction of medical expenses), as well as give a tax credit, fully refundable against income and payroll taxes, for 100% of health care expenses, and remove the barriers on importation of prescription drugs. There were a couple of other provisions that I don't recall at the moment. It received zero co-sponsors.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Ron Paul wrote a bill that would make everyone's health care costs 100% tax deductible (removing the 7.5% threshold for deduction of medical expenses), as well as give a tax credit, fully refundable against income and payroll taxes, for 100% of health care expenses, and remove the barriers on importation of prescription drugs. There were a couple of other provisions that I don't recall at the moment. It received zero co-sponsors.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, because that would have been an amazing help for someone who makes 40k a year and gets a 100k+ hospital bill.

Watching Maddow act as if she or others on MSNBC don't push an agenda was weird and strangely hilarious.
Click to expand...

She has an opinion, compared to FOX which is a fully functional part of the Republican it isn't that big of a deal.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Stewart should have just regurgitated his Crossfire bit from 2004. That appearance was spot on. He apparently had the stomach flu in this one, so that may be why he wandered and rambled a bit. Whatever the reason, this whole interview came off as trying to be intellectual and meaningful. It was neither.

Watching Maddow act as if she or others on MSNBC don't push an agenda was weird and strangely hilarious. Of their prime time hosts, Matthews and Lawrence O'Donnell are by far the most straight forward. I had hopes for Maddow, but she left her criticism of Obama behind at some point in 2009 to become a full-time cheerleader for democrats against republicans. Schultz has gone off the deep end in a way only Beck knows, and Olbermann is progressive circle jerk central (yet he donates to a democrat who is George Bush with a D in front of his name while Feingold is hung out to dry... there should be a looped laugh track playing whenever he's on camera). I do like Ratigan.

If I had my druthers, Greenwald would be in Maddow's spot, Olbermann and O'Reilly would switch stations, and Andrew Napolitano would take Beck's hour. Maybe we'd get some objective analysis from cable news at that point.



Ron Paul wrote a bill that would make everyone's health care costs 100% tax deductible (removing the 7.5% threshold for deduction of medical expenses), as well as give a tax credit, fully refundable against income and payroll taxes, for 100% of health care expenses, and remove the barriers on importation of prescription drugs. There were a couple of other provisions that I don't recall at the moment. It received zero co-sponsors.[/QUOTE]
Whata bout people being deinied coverage for pre-existing conditions? And anyway, making it tax deductible means shit if you don't have the money to pay in the first place.
 
[quote name='Clak']Whata bout people being deinied coverage for pre-existing conditions? And anyway, making it tax deductible means shit if you don't have the money to pay in the first place.[/QUOTE]

Which means shit anyway, since nobody can legally ever be turned away at an emergency room.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Which means shit anyway, since nobody can legally ever be turned away at an emergency room.[/QUOTE]
Aaaand how do they pay for it afterward? I mean sure write it off on your taxes, but that's still after the fact.

Think of it like this, you can write off mortgage interest, but what good does that do if you can't make the mortgage payments?
 
[quote name='Clak']Aaaand how do they pay for it afterward? I mean sure write it off on your taxes, but that's still after the fact.

Think of it like this, you can write off mortgage interest, but what good does that do if you can't make the mortgage payments?[/QUOTE]
It doesn't matter because they get treated without paying for it...LULZ.:bouncy:

It's just like how it's all the poors fault that they got mortgages and not the ones that were pushing it on them. HERPA DERPA.
 
[quote name='Clak']Aaaand how do they pay for it afterward? I mean sure write it off on your taxes, but that's still after the fact.

Think of it like this, you can write off mortgage interest, but what good does that do if you can't make the mortgage payments?[/QUOTE]

They don't pay for it, that was my point.

You very much CAN get a ton of free healthcare in this country (As long as you are a good enough actor to make your malady seem like an emergency). See my story in the next post.

It's not terribly honest, but you can't be arrested for abusing it either.

True free single payer health care would really only benefit things like preventative care, rehab, establishing a relationship with a doctor, along with the ever-so-popular prescription drug abuse.
 
I'd like to also add a little story that's happened to a friend of ours recently, that's appropriate to this thread.

In August, a friend of my wife came, from her country, to visit friends. She and a friend got hit by a car in a crosswalk just before she was to go home. Her friend was killed and she has her hip and both legs shattered.

Since then, she has been in the hospital and rehab. Her hospital bills were enormous. Staying at a nursing home/rehab center for months is not cheap either. She's been in a wheelchair until this week, now she has a walker.

The driver's insurance is fighting having to pay. The dead girls family got a lawyer for them and the foreigner. She's talked to the lawyer once since the accident. The litigation with the insurance could go on for years.

She has no income. She isn't here legally. She can't legally (or physically) work. She can't pay her rent or bills back in her country. The doctor here won't let her leave until she can walk.

This whole episode has opened our eyes to a few things:

Immigration: She has been trying to get an extension to her visitors visa for 2 months now so she isn't here illegally, with no luck. Even with a doctors note, the Embassy/INS doesn't give a shit. This episode will tarnish her ability to ever come back in the country, because the record will show she overstayed her visa.
The immigration system is a broken embarrassment way beyond what most realize.

Healthcare: There is no way she will ever be able to pay for any of her medical bills, and she may never see a dime from the insurance company of the driver. However, she's been told repeatedly by all the doctors to "just not worry about" because she'll get all the care she needs and can just leave without consequence (nor will they try to go after money from the drivers insurance, they will just write it off).

Legal system: It's criminal that the health insurance company can use all their little games to escape having to pay a dime - indefinitely, meanwhile someone's life is gone and another's is permanently ruined.

Edit: Oops, for some reason I thought I was posting this in the healthcare thread. Oh well.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']They don't pay for it, that was my point.

You very much CAN get a ton of free healthcare in this country (As long as you are a good enough actor to make your malady seem like an emergency). See my story in the next post.

It's not terribly honest, but you can't be arrested for abusing it either.

True free single payer health care would really only benefit things like preventative care, rehab, establishing a relationship with a doctor, along with the ever-so-popular prescription drug abuse.[/QUOTE]
If I go to the hospital for anything, I'm going to get a bill, so how about sharing some of this knowledge with the rest of us uninsured.

edit- I agree with your points about immigration and the insurance industry.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I'd like to also add a little story that's happened to a friend of ours recently, that's appropriate to this thread.

In August, a friend of my wife came, from her country, to visit friends. She and a friend got hit by a car in a crosswalk just before she was to go home. Her friend was killed and she has her hip and both legs shattered.

Since then, she has been in the hospital and rehab. Her hospital bills were enormous. Staying at a nursing home/rehab center for months is not cheap either. She's been in a wheelchair until this week, now she has a walker.

The driver's insurance is fighting having to pay. The dead girls family got a lawyer for them and the foreigner. She's talked to the lawyer once since the accident. The litigation with the insurance could go on for years.

She has no income. She isn't here legally. She can't legally (or physically) work. She can't pay her rent or bills back in her country. The doctor here won't let her leave until she can walk.

This whole episode has opened our eyes to a few things:

Immigration: She has been trying to get an extension to her visitors visa for 2 months now so she isn't here illegally, with no luck. Even with a doctors note, the Embassy/INS doesn't give a shit. This episode will tarnish her ability to ever come back in the country, because the record will show she overstayed her visa.
The immigration system is a broken embarrassment way beyond what most realize.

Healthcare: There is no way she will ever be able to pay for any of her medical bills, and she may never see a dime from the insurance company of the driver. However, she's been told repeatedly by all the doctors to "just not worry about" because she'll get all the care she needs and can just leave without consequence (nor will they try to go after money from the drivers insurance, they will just write it off).

Legal system: It's criminal that the health insurance company can use all their little games to escape having to pay a dime - indefinitely, meanwhile someone's life is gone and another's is permanently ruined.[/QUOTE]

It sounds like you are arguing for single payer here.
 
[quote name='Clak']Aaaand how do they pay for it afterward? I mean sure write it off on your taxes, but that's still after the fact.

Think of it like this, you can write off mortgage interest, but what good does that do if you can't make the mortgage payments?[/QUOTE]

That same sorry horse manure was debunked over a year ago. ERs would not pay your cancer meds. At best many would just stabilize you and send you home.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']It sounds like you are arguing for single payer here.[/QUOTE]

When her healthcare situation couldn't possibly be better for her as it is, why would this situation argue for single payer?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']When her healthcare situation couldn't possibly be better for her as it is, why would this situation argue for single payer?[/QUOTE]

I didn't think you were arguing for single payer either.

As for free healthcare, her case was an extreme example of what hospitals will do for the community as a whole. Some cases don't pay. Everyone still takes care of that patient regardless of ability to pay, immigration status, or liability. Unfortunately, the cost does get passed onto to everyone else that follows that patient.

I do have a bad feeling though. The doctors can say don't worry about money but the hospital will still send a bill. Doctors and the billing department are not one and the same. They rarely communicate and doctors can NEVER tell a hospital that someone doesn't have to pay for their care. Unfortunately, your friend will be in for a long ordeal with the hospital long after she's been cleared to leave. Luckily, she can skip the country and not have to worry about credit blemishes or bankruptcy like the rest of us.

So why did they tell her "not to worry about it"? Stressed out patients don't recover as well. They try to leave the hospital before they heal. Stressed out patients scrutinize every order a doctor makes because they know they'll be responsible for the bill. "Don't worry about it." allows doctors to do what they need to do without having a crazed patient questioning whether Tylenol will be just as effective as Vicodin.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']
Healthcare: There is no way she will ever be able to pay for any of her medical bills, and she may never see a dime from the insurance company of the driver. However, she's been told repeatedly by all the doctors to "just not worry about" because she'll get all the care she needs and can just leave without consequence (nor will they try to go after money from the drivers insurance, they will just write it off).

Legal system: It's criminal that the health insurance company can use all their little games to escape having to pay a dime - indefinitely, meanwhile someone's life is gone and another's is permanently ruined.

Edit: Oops, for some reason I thought I was posting this in the healthcare thread. Oh well.[/QUOTE]

The typical insurance dance is what I was referring to. If there is no profit-driven middleman then we would save a lot as a whole on doctor bills.

It's pretty funny that this ended up in a completely unrelated thread.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']The typical insurance dance is what I was referring to. If there is no profit-driven middleman then we would save a lot as a whole on doctor bills.

It's pretty funny that this ended up in a completely unrelated thread.[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily, Maddow mentioned death panels, so it's related. :D
 
Most vs threads don't stay on topic past the first couple pages anyway.:lol:

But yeah, doctors have no say in whether you pay, that's the hospital's decision. Besides that if you need any medication after you get out, then what? Walgreens won't just say "Don't worry about it" and give it to you.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I'd like to also add a little story that's happened to a friend of ours recently, that's appropriate to this thread.

In August, a friend of my wife came, from her country, to visit friends. She and a friend got hit by a car in a crosswalk just before she was to go home. Her friend was killed and she has her hip and both legs shattered.

Since then, she has been in the hospital and rehab. Her hospital bills were enormous. Staying at a nursing home/rehab center for months is not cheap either. She's been in a wheelchair until this week, now she has a walker.

The driver's insurance is fighting having to pay. The dead girls family got a lawyer for them and the foreigner. She's talked to the lawyer once since the accident. The litigation with the insurance could go on for years.

She has no income. She isn't here legally. She can't legally (or physically) work. She can't pay her rent or bills back in her country. The doctor here won't let her leave until she can walk.

This whole episode has opened our eyes to a few things:

Immigration: She has been trying to get an extension to her visitors visa for 2 months now so she isn't here illegally, with no luck. Even with a doctors note, the Embassy/INS doesn't give a shit. This episode will tarnish her ability to ever come back in the country, because the record will show she overstayed her visa.
The immigration system is a broken embarrassment way beyond what most realize.

Healthcare: There is no way she will ever be able to pay for any of her medical bills, and she may never see a dime from the insurance company of the driver. However, she's been told repeatedly by all the doctors to "just not worry about" because she'll get all the care she needs and can just leave without consequence (nor will they try to go after money from the drivers insurance, they will just write it off).

Legal system: It's criminal that the health insurance company can use all their little games to escape having to pay a dime - indefinitely, meanwhile someone's life is gone and another's is permanently ruined.

Edit: Oops, for some reason I thought I was posting this in the healthcare thread. Oh well.[/QUOTE]

I thought you supported the teaparty.

Buyer's remorse?
 
[quote name='willardhaven']It sounds like you are arguing for single payer here.[/QUOTE]

how would single payer help with a problem with someone auto insurance.

When a person is involved in a wreck... the guilty parties auto insurance pays the medical bills not their health insurance.
 
The real problem is that no one actually debates anything anymore, they just spout out talking points created for them by think tanks and focus on un-winable arguments like abortion rather than important things like what they would actually do to creating jobs, balance the budget, fix our patent and judicial systems. To complicate this instead of doing real reporting "news" organizations focus on events and stories that will boost ratings like Octo-mom and the latest political scandal. Because of this non-sense arguments spouted repeatedly look just as valid as real ones because rarely do people get called on total bullshit. John Stewart seems to understand this and believes that fixing this situation requires dialog and compromise, when people start thinking and doing BS becomes more apperent.
 
[quote name='Afflicted']how would single payer help with a problem with someone auto insurance.

When a person is involved in a wreck... the guilty parties auto insurance pays the medical bills not their health insurance.[/QUOTE]

My mistake.

Since he said health insurance I didn't even realize it was the auto company who would be paying. Granted if she were 100% covered there would be no need to worry about the car insurance companies.

Would car insurance premiums go down under a national health care system as well?
 
[quote name='willardhaven']The typical insurance dance is what I was referring to. If there is no profit-driven middleman then we would save a lot as a whole on doctor bills.

It's pretty funny that this ended up in a completely unrelated thread.[/QUOTE]

Insurance isn't where the profit is in health care, though there is certainly a profit motive in the bottom line of insurance.
 
I'm jumping in here late!

I think this is worthwhile point of view to consider from the left's William Blum, author of Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions since World War II. (He has a few chapters posted on his page.) This is an excerpt from his email newsletter.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/William_Blum.html


Jon Stewart and the left

The left in America is desperate; desperate for someone who can inspire them, if not lead them to a better world; or at least make them laugh. TV star Jon Stewart is sometimes funny, especially when he doesn't try too hard to be funny, which is not often enough. But as a political leader, or simply political educator for the left, forget it. He's not even what I would call a genuine, committed leftist. What does he have to teach the left? He himself would certainly not want you to entertain the thought that Jon Stewart is in any way a man of the left.

He billed his October 30 rally on the National Mall in Washington, DC, as the Million Moderate March. Would a person with a real desire for important progressive social and political change, i.e, a "leftist", so ostentatiously brand himself a "moderate"? Even if by "moderate" he refers mainly to tone of voice or choice of words why is that so important? If a politician strongly supports things which you are passionate about, why should it bother you if the politician is vehement in his arguments, even angry? And if the politician is strongly against what you're passionate about does it make you feel any better about the guy if he never raises his voice or sharply criticizes those on the other side? What kind of cause is that to commit yourself to?
Stewart in fact appears to dislike the left, perhaps strongly. In the leadup to the rally he criticized the left for various things, including calling George W. Bush a "war criminal". Wow! How immoderate of us. Do I have to list here the 500 war crimes committed by George W. Bush? If I did so, would that make me one of what Stewart calls the "crazies"? In his talk at the rally, Stewart spoke of our "real fears" — "of terrorists, racists, Stalinists, and theocrats". Stalinists? Where did that come from, Glenn Beck? What decade is Stewart living in? What about capitalists or the corporations? Is there no reason to fear them? Is it Stalinists who are responsible for the collapse of our jobs and homes, our economy? Writer Chris Hedges asserts: "Being nice and moderate will not help. These are corporate forces that are intent on reconfiguring the United States into a system of neofeudalism. These corporate forces will not be halted by funny signs, comics dressed up like Captain America or nice words."

Stewart also grouped together "Marxists actively subverting our constitution, racists and homophobes". Welcome to the Jon Stewart Tea Party. In his long interview last week of President Obama on his TV show, Stewart did not mention any of America's wars. That would have been impolite and divisive; maybe even not nice.
He billed his rally as being "for people who are politically dissatisfied but who are not ideological". (Democracy Now, November 1, 2010) Really, Jon? You have no ideology? To those who like to tell themselves and others that they don't have any particular ideology I say this: If you have thoughts about why the world is the way it is, why society is the way it is, why people are the way they are, what a better way would look like, and if your thoughts are fairly well organized, then that's your ideology, even if it's not wholly conscious as such. Better to organize those thoughts as best you can, become very conscious of them, and then consciously avoid getting involved with individuals or political movements who have an incompatible ideology. It's like a very bad marriage.
http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer87.html
 
[quote name='joeboosauce']I'm jumping in here late!

I think this is worthwhile point of view to consider from the left's William Blum, author of Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions since World War II. (He has a few chapters posted on his page.) This is an excerpt from his email newsletter.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/William_Blum.html


Jon Stewart and the left

The left in America is desperate; desperate for someone who can inspire them, if not lead them to a better world; or at least make them laugh. TV star Jon Stewart is sometimes funny, especially when he doesn't try too hard to be funny, which is not often enough. But as a political leader, or simply political educator for the left, forget it. He's not even what I would call a genuine, committed leftist. What does he have to teach the left? He himself would certainly not want you to entertain the thought that Jon Stewart is in any way a man of the left.

He billed his October 30 rally on the National Mall in Washington, DC, as the Million Moderate March. Would a person with a real desire for important progressive social and political change, i.e, a "leftist", so ostentatiously brand himself a "moderate"? Even if by "moderate" he refers mainly to tone of voice or choice of words why is that so important? If a politician strongly supports things which you are passionate about, why should it bother you if the politician is vehement in his arguments, even angry? And if the politician is strongly against what you're passionate about does it make you feel any better about the guy if he never raises his voice or sharply criticizes those on the other side? What kind of cause is that to commit yourself to?
Stewart in fact appears to dislike the left, perhaps strongly. In the leadup to the rally he criticized the left for various things, including calling George W. Bush a "war criminal". Wow! How immoderate of us. Do I have to list here the 500 war crimes committed by George W. Bush? If I did so, would that make me one of what Stewart calls the "crazies"? In his talk at the rally, Stewart spoke of our "real fears" — "of terrorists, racists, Stalinists, and theocrats". Stalinists? Where did that come from, Glenn Beck? What decade is Stewart living in? What about capitalists or the corporations? Is there no reason to fear them? Is it Stalinists who are responsible for the collapse of our jobs and homes, our economy? Writer Chris Hedges asserts: "Being nice and moderate will not help. These are corporate forces that are intent on reconfiguring the United States into a system of neofeudalism. These corporate forces will not be halted by funny signs, comics dressed up like Captain America or nice words."

Stewart also grouped together "Marxists actively subverting our constitution, racists and homophobes". Welcome to the Jon Stewart Tea Party. In his long interview last week of President Obama on his TV show, Stewart did not mention any of America's wars. That would have been impolite and divisive; maybe even not nice.
He billed his rally as being "for people who are politically dissatisfied but who are not ideological". (Democracy Now, November 1, 2010) Really, Jon? You have no ideology? To those who like to tell themselves and others that they don't have any particular ideology I say this: If you have thoughts about why the world is the way it is, why society is the way it is, why people are the way they are, what a better way would look like, and if your thoughts are fairly well organized, then that's your ideology, even if it's not wholly conscious as such. Better to organize those thoughts as best you can, become very conscious of them, and then consciously avoid getting involved with individuals or political movements who have an incompatible ideology. It's like a very bad marriage.
http://killinghope.org/bblum6/aer87.html[/QUOTE]

It's never too late for something of substance. ;)

I still have mixed feelings on him though, but I certainly don't think that he ever did the rally to become a leader, I think it's kinda like he said, "it was a thing of ego." Or you could also call it an extend live clip of the Daily Show for charity. I highly doubt that he'll be another Al Franken.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dohdough']It's never too late for something of substance. ;)

I still have mixed feelings on him though, but I certainly don't think that he ever did the rally to become a leader, I think it's kinda like he said, "it was a thing of ego." Or you could also call it an extend live clip of the Daily Show for charity. I highly doubt that he'll be another Al Franken.[/QUOTE]

I like Stewart... as an entertainer. I have mixed feelings but he is in effect a leader for many young adults as they look to him for "news." Thats not his fault. Its the fault of those viewers who don't bother to consume more reputable news. Then again, in the age of infotainment, people just look for emotional stimulation and want to laugh. Stewarts analysis, which he does provide and did at the rally, does lead him to be an analyst of sorts. his analysis is overly simple-minded and feeds the notion that being a "moderate" is the best form of political position. German citizens during the Nazi regime were the moderates. He falls into this whole "balance" delusion that the mainstream media regurgitate. Whether he likes it or not, Stewart is a leader to his many viewers who look to him to present the news of the outside world with laughs. There is some responsibility in that.
 
I strongly agree. There is responsibility whether he likes it, acknowledges it, accepts it, or not. This "2 wrongs don't make a right" crap is old and a lazy argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top