rod03801: It's supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. And you can't arrest someone without legal probable cause. That's what so frustrating about this whole thing. Key black leaders want Zimmerman arrested JUST BECAUSE. If Zimmerman was a black man, nothing would have been said. Black on Black crime is rampant and those same key black leaders are silent.

Interesting too is that Zimmerman is referred to as a "White" or "White Hispanic." The media has to get the "white" in there. But Zimmerman is 1/2 white (as is Obama). But we never hear Obama referred to as that White Black President!

Al Sharpton is a racist. He is silent when it's black on white crime (as was in the recent news when two blacks set afire a white kid just for "being white."

The Black Panthers are threatening to take matters into their own hands. All this rabble rousing is coming from the LEFT, and not the Right. And once again, Fox news leads the way in just presenting the facts. NBC is promoting Sharpton's racist rhetoric.

The Left hates Fox but loves NBC. They hate the peaceful Tea Party but love the raping/murdering/arsonists in the OWS movement.

Over 50 people were killed when the Rodney King incident lit the fuse for the LA riots. It seems the Left's answer to everything that doesn't go their way is violence against innocent persons. And the media help push the Left's agressive and anti-American agenda. Only those in the center politically can save the US from another civil war.

rod03801: I guess Spike called the people and apologized but I'd still sue his butt.

Artful Dodger: I just read that he paid them some sort of settlement

Artful Dodger: It's "funny" to me how black on white racism is seemingly ok to so many libs.

rod03801: Without the race card, the lib will lose the black vote. Liberals keep black "in their place" so that they continue to feel oppressed and "need" the Libs to rescue them.

NBC News is said to have launched an internal investigation into why it posted an edited version of George Zimmerman's call to a 911 dispatcher made prior to a shooting incident resulting in the death of 17 year-old Trayvon Martin. The altered version made it appear as though Martin's race was an important factor that night for Zimmerman, when, in fact, he was only answering a question posed by a 911 dispatcher.

NBC told the Washington Post's Erik Wemple Saturday that it would investigate an incident in which the "Today" show used an abridged recording of George Zimmerman's 911 call before he killed Trayvon Martin. The version used by NBC emphasized race as a factor in the incident.

Fox News, led by host Sean Hannity, along with Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center, have also been challenging NBC on what appears to be an outrageous use of an editing technique to make the 911 call seem damning of Zimmerman, as well as divisive and inflammatory along racial lines.

After playing both versions, Hannity said: “They forgot the dispatcher’s question! How could NBC, in good conscience, do that?”

“This isn’t bias, this isn’t distortion, this is an all-out falsehood by NBC News,” answers Bozell, who runs a conservative watchdog group called the Media Research Center.

“When you hear him say, ‘he looks black,’ anyone watching that believes that there are racial overtones to what this man did,” Bozell says. “How could you not believe that? It goes with the narrative of the profiling. The only problem is, they edited out the dispatcher asking him, ‘what does he look like?’”

“This is NBC News, Brent, and this is what they did at a time when emotions are running very high in this country,” Hannity said during his Thursday night TV show.

“Tom Brokaw, Matt Lauer, I wonder if they’re proud tonight?” Hannity asked.

NBC News declined to comment.

As the 911 call editing controversy continues to grow, MSNBC contributor Touré was recently called out on air by CNN's Piers Morgan for his seemingly racially biased handling of the Florida story. When MSNBC branded itself as the "Leans Forward" network, few likely suspected it meant to stir up racial divide in America. Now, NBC looks to be taking a page out of MSNBC's playbook, as well.

MSNBC contributor Toure suffered an epic meltdown on CNN last night. Piers Morgan challenged Touré to come on his show to debate the Trayvon killing after their Twitter war earlier in the week. Morgan blasted Toure for his race-baiting and lecturing.

With the NAACP and MSNBC's Al Sharpton divided over the incident, Barack Obama weighing in early, only to say nothing in recent days, and now rival Cable News networks questioning MSNBC's and even NBC's judgment, it's hard to see the post-racial healing in America Barack Obama promised while running for office in 2008.

I love being right about Fox news being the most honest.

Artful Dodger: I adore sean hannity

rod03801: He definately leans to the Right but there's no secret there. Without Fox leading the way, many of these left wing (NBC) programs would get away with their lies and deceit.

The case is that Zimmerman claims he shot in self defence. To which ... he gets a keep out of jail 'free' card.

Zimmerman phones up 911 claiming he's following a suspicious guy who is 'black', therefore using racial stereotyping. He then claims he shot the guy in self defence.

Yet other calls,as there is more than just one (but keeping all the talk to just 'one' is pettifogging) .. show that at the time of the shooting Trayvon Martin was indeed calling for help a few times and was indeed trying to get away from this strange dude following him.

Then there was a gunshot.

Self defence or trigger happy nut job?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju3XIpipHBU&feature=related

Less bias and more facts.

(V):" The case is that Zimmerman claims he shot in self defence. To which ... he gets a keep out of jail 'free' card."

Wrong: The evidence at the scene didn't give the police proper probable cause for an arrest. It wasn't Zimerman's claim alone that mattered. The evidence at the scene mattered. The police had some eye witness testimony that supported Zimmerman's story.

"Zimmerman phones up 911 claiming he's following a suspicious guy who is 'black', therefore using racial stereotyping. He then claims he shot the guy in self defence."

Again you are wrong: Zimmerman identified Martin's race only after he was asked by a dispatcher. One can only assume that racial profiling was a factor. That is unless you also studied mind reading in college.

"Yet other calls,as there is more than just one (but keeping all the talk to just 'one' is pettifogging) .. show that at the time of the shooting Trayvon Martin was indeed calling for help a few times and was indeed trying to get away from this strange dude following him."

There is no claim to only one call. And it's not yet determined whose voice is on the tape recording. He said/she said only.

"Self defence or trigger happy nut job?"

Well that's the question now isn't it? How marvelous you and others can make such positive determinations regarding the facts of this case even BEFORE all the facts are known. Simply amazing.

(V): Less bias than what?

Cooper asked several leading questions rather than let the father speak for himself. Cooper led him down a path that was DESIGNED to make Zimmerman look bad.

Zimmerman may be guilty of murder, I don't know. Maybe under the law it will be only manslaughter. But you don't either and neither does anyone at this point (including the Father). The Father doesn't possess all the facts and neither does the lawyer. People ought to wait until all the facts are known before making judgments.

Next we'll look at Cooper's interview. Still want an answer on "less biased" ....than what?? Examples please. Or are you just here to quibble?

March 31, 2012
7 Teens Charged With Hate Crimes After Beating A 15-Year-Old Boy

Did I mention the 7 teens are black and the victim is Hispanic? (The media hasn't mentioned if the victim was a "white" Hispanic.)

From KATU.com:

The March 14 beating in Palmdale was captured on video and posted on YouTube, but has since been removed from the site. The seven boys, ages 13 to 16, were arrested Wednesday for investigation of assault and committing a hate crime, Lt. Don Ford said. [...]

During the beating, the teens made racially derogatory statements that were captured on the video, Ford said.

After the victim fell to the ground, the assailants kicked him multiple times in the head, knocked out several teeth and left shoe impressions on his skin, Ford said.

Would the authorities tell us if this senseless beating was in response to the Trayvon Martin case? Al Sharpton did call on his supporters to 'escalate' civil disobedience if George Zimmerman wasn't arrested.

No word, yet, if the victim looks like Obama's son would look if he had a son...

Anderson Cooper starts out by giving some of the facts of the case as he knows it. But it's not just what he says that's the problem, it's what he doesn't say. Trayvon was carrying Skittles (a type of candy). How is that relevant? It's not. What Cooper fails to mention that there was no way for Zimmerman to know whether Trayvon was armed or not. That wasn't the point. Trayvon looked suspicious and was not a resident of the area. Zimmerman knew this. So the fact that Zimmerman would wonder why Trayvon was in the neighborhood isn't a mystery. The point is that Cooper is trying to paint a picture here of Trayvon being just a normal innocent teen doing nothing wrong. That may be true but it's not up to Cooper to decide that for us.

Zimmerman is talking to 911 and asking to get an officer "over here." Meanwhile, Trayvon is making his way toward Zimmerman. Some of the 911 dialogue with Zimmerman has been edited but you can't tell from the editing............you need to use ellipseswhen doing that.......

Cooper uses the word "pursued" rather than the more correct "following." Why that choice of words? Because it paints a picture of Zimmerman as an aggressor. Then Cooper plays the 911 tape where the dispatcher asks, "Are you following him?" to which Zimmerman responds, "yes." To pursue someone is to chase after them. To follow someone is quite different. Pursued is hardly the word choice of an unbiased reporter.

Next Cooper offers more facts and then interprets those facts for us with his "apparently......" then he explains to us what apparently happened. Apparently? That's like saying, "Here's my best guess of what might have occurred next."

How does Cooper know that Zimmerman "confronted" Trayvor? Clearly from the 911 tape Trayvon was "coming this way..."

Next we'll look at the interview with the father of Trayvon and show why that interview as laced with bias.

1st question: ".....what goes through your mind?"

Not a leading question. Good on Cooper.

2nd: Cooper asks if the father is sure it's Trayvon's voice crying for help. That question is fine too.

3rd: Cooper askes what the police have told the father about the blood found on Zimmerman. Another legitimate question.

4th: Now Cooper strays. He states that Zimmerman was told not to follow Trayvon "We don't need you to do that." and then that's it. But Zimmerman responded, "OKAY." And at this moment in the 911 call, Trayvon was walking towards Zimmerman. Irresponsible not to point that out.

5th: Cooper asks the lawyer a question regarding the police handling of the case so far. Good question.

6th: Then Cooper takes the bait and plays the race card along with the lawyer. I believe this is where Anderson was going all along. He suggests, after the lawyer implies it, that had Trayvon been the shooter, Trayvon would be sitting in jail (because he's black.) Maybe true by it's speculation and Copper shouldn't speculate if he's just "presenting the facts."

7th: Then Cooper asks a leading question and actually quotes Zimmerman out of context. Cooper's point is that Zimmerman profiled Treyvon and that the fact that Treyvon was black was the real reason Zimmerman was suspicious of him. Cooper leads the lawyer into discussion how MANY people wear sneakers, jeans, and a hoodie. (Even Cooper admitted he dresses like that - so what. That's irrelevant)

8th: "......is that just a matter of race?" Cooper follows up with another leading question -- again going into the "racial" aspect of the case.

Throughout the video, CNN runs cute little pictures of Treyvon but avoids using his current "ganstar" pics. Wonder why? And why do they use an old photo of Zimmerman that makes him look like a thug when his most current picture would be more accurate for today?

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/usa/images-8/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin.jpg

bias all over this interview

I'm not saying Zimmerman is innocent. I'm saying we don't know all the facts yet. I don't know what happend. I don't know Zimmerman's motives and I certainly don't know if Treyvon was fully innocent or what. I have my guesses but it's irresponsible to put out a guess when what really matters is the truth.

An expert in forensic voice identification analyzing the 911 recordings in the Trayvon Martin case for the Orlando Sentinel tells the paper that it is likely not Martin’s shooter, George Zimmerman, heard calling for help.

Tom Owen used voice identification software to rule out Zimmerman, according to the paper. Another expert contacted by the Sentinel, utilizing different techniques, came to the same conclusion.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/01/voice-heard-screaming-on-11-tape-is-not-trayvon-martin-shooter-george-zimmerman/?test=latestnews#ixzz1qpRJeoue

Trayvon Martin case: Conflicting evidence emerges

There's been more detailed evidence about the night when George Zimmerman killed teen Trayvon Martin. But regarding the two major scenarios – that Zimmerman acted in self-defense or that Martin was the deadly victim of racial profiling – the picture remains as murky as ever.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0401/Trayvon-Martin-case-Conflicting-evidence-emerges

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/03/60_minutes_looks_at_case_of_te.html

Sad that this man served 25 years in prison for a murder he didn't commit. Sadder still that the prosecutor hid evidence and yet, is now serving as a judge.

There are those crying out for Zimmerman's arrest and if pressed, they can't even articulate the important facts involved in the case. Yet some are even advocating violence and the left seems perfectly fine with this type of thinking. Claims of racism and profiling without irrefutable evidence shows a crass disregard for the truth. There are always two sides to every story and then a third in the middle (usually the actual known facts) and one ought to keep this in mind before deciding they "know" what actually happened.

No matter what course were studied in college.

Sky News has said it illegally hacked emails belonging to members of the public on two separate occasions.

The broadcaster said it hacked emails belonging to John Darwin - who faked his own death in a canoe - and his wife Anne. It also revealed it accessed the email accounts of a suspected paedophile and his wife.

Sky News said the action was in the public interest and amounted to "responsible journalism".

It released a statement which said: "Sky News is committed to the highest editorial standards.

"Like other news organisations, we are acutely aware of the tensions that can arise between the law and responsible investigative journalism. We stand by these actions as editorially justified and in the public interest."


......A Cleveland Police spokeswoman said: "Cleveland Police has conducted an initial review into these matters and can confirm that enquiries are ongoing into how the emails were obtained."

It is illegal to hack into emails under the Computer Misuse Act.

Tom Watson MP, a vocal critic of Rupert Murdoch journalists during the phone hacking scandal, said of the latest development: "There are many questions that need answering.

"The chair of BSkyB needs to say something on this and reassure viewers this has not been going on more widely."

(V): That's a small complaint. YOu sure do like to keep this story alive. A bit obsessed with Murdock are we?

Last weeks panic fuel buying caused by Conservative cabinet minister Francis Maude is over. That the Conservative MP decided to state that everyone needed to fill up and have some jerry cans stashed in the garage was totally false.

Why? .... The tanker drivers and companies are both looking to negotiate as is now happening through ACAS. The unions, if they through balloting their members found they wanted a strike, were required by law to give a minimum of seven days notice of the intent.

Calls have been made for the scare monger to resign, especially after one woman has suffered burns through following his advice, and the AA have seen people through panic even filling up jam jars with petrol.

It is likely that the ACAS talks will work, but if not the drivers will exercise their constitutional right to strike. Civil rights some Conservatives would like to see gone, but such a change to the rights of UK workers would never happen and would never be supported by the UK people.

... Luckily the masters haven't managed to brainwash the UK people through BIG lies.

You know, the one in which NBC doctored tapes of George Zimmerman to make him look like a racist? Yeah, they said they goofed. What a load of crap. They mean they got caught. http://www.mrc.org/press-releases/mrc-ups-pressure-comcast-demands-internal-nbc-investigation

Oh yeah and what about Anderson Cooper, you know, the one that JULES claims is "less biased?" Well, Anderson Cooper of CNN ran a story (with CNN's backing) that claimed that maybe, just maybe, Zimmerman called Treyvon Marton a "f*ing coon"

Then CNN played the tape over and over even isolating the "alleged" use of the word, "coon." But even their audio expert, who was interviewed, couldn't say for sure what Zimmerman said. A firestorm followed that report.

And BEHOLD, the very next day, CNN, via Wolf Blitzer, does another story where the CNN audio experts cleaned up the 911 recording, removing most of the white noise and getting a nearly perfect recording. And what did this "f*ing COON" racial remark actually turn out to be?

"F*ing COLD" !!! This time CNN played it over and over and it CLEARLY SAID "COLD!"

Then the CNN audio expert (this time a different CNN expert) said that Zimmerman clearly said "cold."

hmmmm And it just so happens that it was unseasonably cold that night AND raining!

So far, ABC and NBC and now CNN have all made accusations against Zimmerman BEFORE ALL THE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN HEARD.

But Fox remains faithful to the story and ONLY reports the facts of the case. They haven't tried the case in the media as have the others.

Meanwhile, democratic members of congress have said such vile things as Zimmerman hunted Treyvon down "like a dog" and one NY Times OpEd opined that it was "cold-blooded murder."

Once again, the left gives itself a pass for these serious violations. Scum that they are.

"So no mention of the fact that Invisible Children share ties with the same fundamentalists who helped draw up Uganda's notorious "Kill the Gays" bill."

"Anyone donating to Invisible Children is funding a very dodgy organisation with it's own "Christian" agenda. Anti gay, pro the elite in Uganda and money grabbing. This is NOT a charity."

"Relative to some corrupt regimes in Africa, Kony is an easy target for this charity and politicos to flex. Let's forget Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni barring refugees from returning to their own settlements in the now peaceful north and remain in IDP camps. Ironically, Uganda's goverment is killing more people than Kony ever did by forcing northern Ugandans to remain in such death camps."

..........comments made regarding the release of a new Kony 2012 video.

While more than 100 advertisers told Premiere that they didn’t want to be associated with “controversial” radio programs of any kind in the wake of the flap, some of these companies weren’t regular Limbaugh sponsors in the first place.

Carusone said most of the advertiser exodus over the past month appeared to be among companies whose ads aired only in regional or local markets, he said.

“Contrary to the wishful thinking of the professional special interest groups, reports of sponsors fleeing the ‘Rush Limbaugh Show’ are grossly exaggerated. In fact, the program retains virtually of all its long-term sponsors who continue to have great success” with the show, said Rachel Nelson, spokeswoman for Premiere.

…In all, “the temperature of this controversy has finally fallen below the boiling point,” said Tom Taylor, news editor of Radio-Info.com, which covers the industry. He added, “I think the advertiser base is coming back.”

it's worth noting that Rush has picked up 7 new sponsors.

Interesting that some people don't seem to care about the health of women. After all... the 'pill' although being only $9 over the counter, means the women using this option has to miss out on making sure that it is medically safe for her to take it. While a doctor can check for risks that can be avoided by a simple 10 minute appointment.

Clots can be fatal, as be many of the other serious side effects. And through studies the percentage of actual cases of serious problems is less in those who see a doc.

I wonder how the matter of the parable of the good Samaritan escapes so many Conservative Christibles? I wonder why so many of them seem to hate women enough to say they should live in greater risk of dying over a few dollars?

(V):you cannot buy the pill over the counter in Australia, and as far as I know you can't buy it over the counter in NZ either. , and it cost a lot more than $9

(V): propaganda nonsense infused with the usual disingenuous rhetoric (lies)

http://www.hhs.gov/opa/title-x-family-planning/

Don't get me wrong here Jules. I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm just saying you've got bad luck when it comes to thinking.

So.... the government picks up the tab YET AGAIN and yet can only cover 75% of the uninsured.

Golly!! Our system can handle 100%

And yet there are those in the USA who want this program stopped as it offends their Christible values.

Nice.

(V): What? Nothing about me proving you wrong?

Those who can't pay don't. No one in USA is denied health care. There are many safeguards.

(V): And Jules, it's not up to the government to " Christianize" policies. What were you thinking? Oh yeah, you weren't.

Some Americans do not qualify for government-provided health insurance, are not provided health insurance by an employer, and are unable to afford, cannot qualify for, or choose not to purchase, private health insurance. When charity or "uncompensated" care is not available, they sometimes simply go without needed medical treatment. This problem has become a source of considerable political controversy on a national level.

A report from the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies states: "Lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States." [27] A 2009 Harvard study published in the American Journal of Public Health found more than 44,800 excess deaths annually in the United States associated with uninsurance.[28][29] Johns Hopkins University professor Vicente Navarro stated, more broadly, in 2003, "the problem does not end here, with the uninsured. An even larger problem is the underinsured" and "The most credible estimate of the number of people in the United States who have died because of lack of medical care was provided by a study carried out by Harvard Medical School Professors David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler (New England Journal of Medicine 336, no. 11 [1997]). They concluded that almost 100,000 people died in the United States each year because of lack of needed care—three times the number of people who died of AIDS."[30]

A study published in the American Journal of Public Health in 2009 found that "[u]ninsurance is associated with mortality. The strength of that association appears similar to that from a study that evaluated data from the mid-1980s, despite changes in medical therapeutics and the demography of the uninsured since that time."[46] The study estimated that lack of insurance is associated with 45,000 deaths annually.[46] This is two and a half times higher than an estimate produced by the Institute of Medicine in 2002.[47] One of the authors characterized the results as "now one dies every 12 minutes."

(V): That report is seriously flawed. Do you know how many factors lead to death? It cannot be attributed to lack of health care. Many die with health care! Some die because of bad choices like eating unhealthy foods and getting fat.

Either way Jules (who is addressing me without addressing me, classic Middle School!) it's not up to the govt to force me to pay more just so people without can have. And seriously, what has the government ever undertaken that turned out well? Only private industry can effectively run anything! The government mucks everything up. And we're gonna trust them running a national health care system?

Here come the death panels.

Alcohol abuse kills some 75,000 Americans each year and shortens the lives of these people by an average of 30 years, a U.S. government study suggested Thursday.


How many of these loons don't have health care coverage?

Hmmmm, maybe the government should regulate who gets to drink?

Carbonite lost 12% of their stock value after pulling from Rush

The Economist said the phrase was used as an "outrageous allegation" to confront politicians at town hall meetings during the August 2009 congressional recess.[54] The New York Times said the term became a standard slogan among many conservatives opposed to the Obama administration’s health care overhaul.[22] Former Newsweek editor Jon Meacham said it was "a lie crafted to foment opposition to the president's push for reform"[55] and Fox News analyst Juan Williams said "of course there is no such thing as any death panel."[56] The Christian Science Monitor reported that some Republicans used the term as a "jumping-off point" to discuss government rationing of health care services, while some liberal groups applied the term to private health insurance companies.[57] Journalist Paul Waldman of The American Prospect called the "death panel" charge a consequential policy lie, a falsehood about a policy that had definite effects on the policy, a type of lie that is not as condemned in the media as personal lies.[58]

The right-leaning British paper, The Daily Telegraph noted that some critics of the U.S. reform used the United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)—"as an example of [doing] the sort of drug rationing that amounted to a 'death panel'". NICE, as one of its functions, uses cost-effectiveness analysis to determine whether new treatments and drugs should be available to those covered by Britain's National Health Service [59] The Sunday Times, a British paper owned by Rupert Murdoch, wrote that Sarah Palin's use of the "death panels" term was a reference to NICE.




Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) stated that "death panels" were a baseless charge that unnecessarily incited fear and detracted from real problems in the proposed legislation.[67] She said the proposed legislation was "bad enough that we don't need to be making things up". Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA), thought there was illogical confusion over "death panels"; he said advance directives put "authority in the individual rather than the government."[68] In July 2010 Rep. Bob Inglis, (R-SC) said that he thought it was counterproductive for the conservative movement for some to promote misinformation about death panels when they do not exist.[69] Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) endorsed Rep. Charles Boustany's statement that "medical panels of people who care about what's best for their patients ... is good science and good medicine."[70] Speaking for himself, Issa said "Republicans have to step back from the words 'death panels'."[70] Michael F. Cannon, a former domestic policy analyst for the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee and a member of the Cato Institute, wrote that "[p]aying doctors to help seniors sort out their preferences for end-of-life care is consumer-directed rationing, not bureaucratic rationing."

The Nazis did say they learnt how to make a big lie from American politicians

INTERESTING:
I find it interesting that so many protesters spoke about the so called death panels if the presidents healthcare bill got passed,,What I really see is that the death panels have been in place for a long time when insurance companies refuse you coverage,or in some cases drop you and even out right refuse to cover many cancer treatments that they say is to costly,,or when the hospital refuses you treatment for lack of health care insurance,,Even cases where people are constantly denied medicaid 3 or 4 times with appeals after appeals in which I see that time does not give anyone a good mental outlook of a chance at improving there lives with this illness,,For the first time, Here we have a president who is looking out for the health of this country,and I have seen nothing but hatred,anger,bitterness from the opposition,,But that same opposition will take up the cause and beat the drums of war,and in the same breath claim to be pro-life..Interesting (Hummm)

Right now, under the private health care system, we have delays in treatment, threats to our health and even worse (corporate death panels).

There has been a tremendous consolidation in the health insurance industry over the past fifteen years. A cartel of very large for-profit insurance companies dominates the industry. One out of every three Americans is enrolled in some kind of plan offered by just seven of those large companies.

America has granted insurance companies the right to create bottlenecks in the financing of health care in order to extract profits out of the suffering of ordinary people, without providing any actual health care whatsoever.

The lure of economic incentives to provide unnecessary or unproven care, or even that known to be ineffective, drives many physicians to make the lucrative choice. Hospitals and especially academic medical centers are also motivated to profit from many expensive procedures.


The truth??

(V): your sentences don't make sense...use full stops.

Bernice: There are many horror stories from Britain and Canada where people who needed urgent care were ignored (due to the waiting period and determinations that their problems weren't "urgent") and died.

If I'm selling a product (insurance) don't I have the right to offer this, this, and this as covered but not that? Why must the government determine what a company is to carry? If someone on my policy needs hearing aids, there is NO COVERAGE for the 4500$ cost. Why no coverage? Because it's not cost effective to offer the coverage. I'd pay a few hundred dollars a year and some devices are in excess of 5 thousand dollars. It adds up when one considers that it's normal for older people to lose certain portions of their hearing. Most old farts could use hearing aids.

As for death panels, I think they will exist. There is a determination of what procedure is worth the cost and what isn't. Watch and see. If this health care bill survives, we will see some procedure where some "wanted" procedures will be denied (such as a heart transplant for people over 70). Mike Wallace just died at 93. A heart transplant extends one's life for up to 15 more years. Yeah, I want that!!!

Artful Dodger: horror stories are not only Britain and Canada....try Aus as well...especially the town I live in...absobloodylutely shocking reputation Qld Health has :(

Bernice: The cost of Obama Care is already double and there will be "panels" that make policy and deny people certain procedures.

There are those in the liberal party that complained that VP Cheney received a heart transplant. Too old they said. They would have let him die if they had their way. That's a death panel and it's coming our way.

Artful Dodger: OMG..that is awful - that is the opposite end of the scale to abortion.....