As someone who gets his American politics coverage from Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert ( :blush: ) here's a question to the Americans here.
Is FOX News really as bad as they make it seem? Blowing things out of proportion, misrepresenting things, riling people up, and even contradicting themselves in their opinion on some things depending on whether Republitards or Dumbocrats did it?
I find Glenn Beck funny.
Predicted answer: Conservatards will say "no".
Incidentally people who watch the daily show are better informed then people who watch Fox News.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2009, 11:36:26 AM
Incidentally people who watch the daily show are better informed then people who watch Fox News.
:yeahright:
Quote from: Barrister on October 30, 2009, 11:38:23 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2009, 11:36:26 AM
Incidentally people who watch the daily show are better informed then people who watch Fox News.
:yeahright:
Conservatard
As a conservative that has bitched about the "Clinton News Network" & other leftwing bias, I don't think any of the networks are as bad as some are claiming Fox News to be, let alone Fox News itself.
Frankly, I think they're the only fair and balanced media outlet left.
I watched Fox a bit at the beginning of GW II, but had to switch because their expert commentators were just too much.
My opinion, based on very very little viewing, is that their presentation of the news per se is pretty straightforward, it's when the talking heads have their go that Fox goes nuts.
I remember reading something written by a media watchdog type a few years back about Fox News. He made the point that Fox News' actual news content actually is "fair and balanced" in that it is at least as objective and accurate as any other major news outlet, but it's editorial content and news discussion programs are clearly slanted towards a conservative viewpoint. I tend to agree with him.
It is pretty bad. It's so bad that I've never even watched it.
Quote from: Barrister on October 30, 2009, 11:38:23 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2009, 11:36:26 AM
Incidentally people who watch the daily show are better informed then people who watch Fox News.
:yeahright:
http://people-press.org/report/319/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2009, 11:57:14 AM
I watched Fox a bit at the beginning of GW II, but had to switch because their expert commentators were just too much.
My opinion, based on very very little viewing, is that their presentation of the news per se is pretty straightforward, it's when the talking heads have their go that Fox goes nuts.
I'll go along with that, but add that when they do in depth looks at certain aspects of the news, they are almost always the issues that republicans would want an in depth look.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2009, 11:57:14 AM
I watched Fox a bit at the beginning of GW II, but had to switch because their expert commentators were just too much.
My opinion, based on very very little viewing, is that their presentation of the news per se is pretty straightforward, it's when the talking heads have their go that Fox goes nuts.
Would you say that FOX News is dominated by actual news reporting or by the opinion folks? In a similar vein, do the opinion people get more coverage than their role at FOXN warrants?
Question on Glen Beck: he started on CNN, and switched to Fox. Since he switched to Fox, he has become enormously controversial. Is that because the left wing attack groups weren't inclined to go after a personality on CNN, he has a bigger audiance on Fox, his opinions have become more controversial on Fox (I only saw him on CNN), or some other reason?
Quote from: dps on October 30, 2009, 11:59:31 AM
I remember reading something written by a media watchdog type a few years back about Fox News. He made the point that Fox News' actual news content actually is "fair and balanced" in that it is at least as objective and accurate as any other major news outlet, but it's editorial content and news discussion programs are clearly slanted towards a conservative viewpoint. I tend to agree with him.
Apparently, leftwingers have forgotten that there is (or at least there is supposed to be) a line drawn between editorial content & news reporting.
My biggest gripe about Fox News's news reporting is that they try wayyyy too hard to outdo the other networks on the sensational missing blonde chick-type stories.
Their fairness has always been iffy, but in the last year it's taken a nosedive.
Of course, I'm still more likely to watch Fox than the other guys because it's more entertaining. :blush:
Quote from: alfred russel on October 30, 2009, 12:09:47 PM
Question on Glen Beck: he started on CNN, and switched to Fox. Since he switched to Fox, he has become enormously controversial. Is that because the left wing attack groups weren't inclined to go after a personality on CNN, he has a bigger audiance on Fox, his opinions have become more controversial on Fox (I only saw him on CNN), or some other reason?
I haven't watched him much on TV at all, but I had trouble trying to listen to his radio show because he seemed to have a tendency to run short on actual content, which he would try to make up for by re-stating the same thing 100 times. Sometimes he would even fail to do that, resulting in dead air time.
Having said that, he does seem to be able to piss off the correct groups of people, so he's definitely doing something right.
Quote from: Syt on October 30, 2009, 11:32:26 AM
Is FOX News really as bad as they make it seem? Blowing things out of proportion, misrepresenting things, riling people up, and even contradicting themselves in their opinion on some things depending on whether Republitards or Dumbocrats did it?
They do have a tendancy to do that. More so than other medias. They are not 100% untrustworthy though. They usually get the facts right, but the way they treat it...
Quote from: Syt on October 30, 2009, 12:09:33 PM
Would you say that FOX News is dominated by actual news reporting or by the opinion folks? In a similar vein, do the opinion people get more coverage than their role at FOXN warrants?
Depends on what time of day you watch. If you're watching mid-morning thru the afternoon, it's pretty much all news. Prime-time is pretty dominated by the opinion folks, but that is not really when most people are watching for news anyway.
I think the point of that Stewart piece was that sure maybe there's some "straight-up" news on Fox... but it gets drowned out by the op-ed people who are louder, more colourful (to put it nicely) .... real news stories that don't have a so-called "right wing" slant are buried under non stories about kids singing songs they won't remember the next week, let alone be "indoctrinated" by. (for example. CNN has been OJ-ized for a long time. the only news they care about is of the balloon boy variety, but just like Fox the odd tidbit of actual news still trickles through... but you have to look for it.
Sadly the venerable CBC has now joined into this style of tabloid silliness, making the radio the only way to get interesting, important news instead of opinions about news disgusied as news. the world sucks.
There's News on Fox News?
All tv news pretty much blows, especially Stewart.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2009, 12:00:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 30, 2009, 11:38:23 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2009, 11:36:26 AM
Incidentally people who watch the daily show are better informed then people who watch Fox News.
:yeahright:
http://people-press.org/report/319/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions
From your very own link:
QuoteEven after taking into account their overall news gathering habits and their political and demographic characteristics, the audiences for the comedy shows, The O'Reilly Factor, the web sites of national newspapers, and NPR all have significantly higher knowledge scores than the average.
As I'm sure you're aware, The O'Reilly Factor is a show on Fox News.
Your link does prove that people who watch news-oriented shows are more knowledgeable about current affairs - no surprise there. What it does NOT show is that people who watch Colbert are more knowledgeable that people who watch Fox News. In fact they tend to be about the same.
:contract:
I find people who get their news from the comedy central shows to be overly smug and deserving a punch in the nuts.
Also, Beck, Olbermann and Dobbs watchers deserve two punches in the nuts.
Pay no attention to Raz. FOX News is fine. I do think it has a bit of a right lean, but not nearly as much of a lean as, say, CNN (which obviously goes the other way). For example, over the past few months nearly every day on CNN.com there is some sob story on about how some moron did stupid shit that resulted in them being uninsured and now owing like millions in healthcare cost... the underlying message being OMFG WE NEED SOCIELIZED MEDICINE.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 30, 2009, 01:14:08 PM
Also, Beck, Olbermann and Dobbs watchers deserve two punches in the nuts.
Agree on Beck... that guy is simply annoying as fuck, not to mention rude and a total blowhard. Princesca seems to love him though :ph34r:
Quote from: Caliga on October 30, 2009, 01:19:39 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 30, 2009, 01:14:08 PM
Also, Beck, Olbermann and Dobbs watchers deserve two punches in the nuts.
Agree on Beck... that guy is simply annoying as fuck, not to mention rude and a total blowhard. Princesca seems to love him though :ph34r:
A punch in the ovaries then.
Quote from: Barrister on October 30, 2009, 01:13:26 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2009, 12:00:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 30, 2009, 11:38:23 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2009, 11:36:26 AM
Incidentally people who watch the daily show are better informed then people who watch Fox News.
:yeahright:
http://people-press.org/report/319/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions
From your very own link:
QuoteEven after taking into account their overall news gathering habits and their political and demographic characteristics, the audiences for the comedy shows, The O'Reilly Factor, the web sites of national newspapers, and NPR all have significantly higher knowledge scores than the average.
As I'm sure you're aware, The O'Reilly Factor is a show on Fox News.
Your link does prove that people who watch news-oriented shows are more knowledgeable about current affairs - no surprise there. What it does NOT show is that people who watch Colbert are more knowledgeable that people who watch Fox News. In fact they tend to be about the same.
:contract:
Also It's still below Colbert. Fox News in general is at the bottom.
Seriously, I was once in a hotel room with absolutely nothing to do, so I watched Fox News. Huckabee was on at the time, and I actually thought he was very even-handed when having guests on his show. The guy has some contemptible beliefs, but at least he can muster up some decorum and humor, something that very few on the right can do on TV.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2009, 01:24:33 PM
Also It's still below Colbert. Fox News in general is at the bottom.
Yeah, right beside local news.
O'Reilly is right there at the top in a statistical tie with Colbert.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpeople-press.org%2Freports%2Fimages%2F319-14.gif&hash=59aa44830dbe0fa9e0ab01a268f835367772fb59)
Also, Fox usually has the best cop chase footage.
Quote from: Barrister on October 30, 2009, 01:26:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2009, 01:24:33 PM
Also It's still below Colbert. Fox News in general is at the bottom.
Yeah, right beside local news.
O'Reilly is right there at the top in a statistical tie with Colbert.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpeople-press.org%2Freports%2Fimages%2F319-14.gif&hash=59aa44830dbe0fa9e0ab01a268f835367772fb59)
Yeah, that's pretty fucking impressive. One show got on the network got a little under a fake newscast. Impressive. Fox news in general. Pretty crappy.
Quote from: Caliga on October 30, 2009, 01:19:39 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 30, 2009, 01:14:08 PM
Also, Beck, Olbermann and Dobbs watchers deserve two punches in the nuts.
Agree on Beck... that guy is simply annoying as fuck, not to mention rude and a total blowhard. Princesca seems to love him though :ph34r:
I felt like punching him just by seeing his face on the cover of his last book in the libraries while over there, so I guess he projects a certain "jerk" aura. :P
BTW, every time they report about Fox News over here, it's always about something Beck says in his program.
Beeb, Raz is right. The O'Reilly audience is a subset of the Fox audience which is better informed than the general Fox audience.
The part where Raz goes amiss is in assuming causation.
Now that I see those numbers for the first time, as an applied statistician I realize how bunk they are when it comes to supporting the argument that Daily Show is most informative. The implication of this survey is that some programs are more informative than others, and so the viewers of more informative programs are more informed.
However, to me, the difference seems to me is in the audiences. The audiences of the opinion shows are more interested in politics, and for pretty much all opinion shows they are more informed. For the general news shows, the interest is lower, and so are the knowledge scores. That's the only conclusion that can be taken from this. Using this as a proof that Daily Show is more informative than Fox News is stretching it big time.
Quote from: The Larch on October 30, 2009, 01:32:12 PM
BTW, every time they report about Fox News over here, it's always about something Beck says in his program.
Did they report on stupid stuff he said while he was at CNN?
Quote from: alfred russel on October 30, 2009, 01:37:31 PM
Quote from: The Larch on October 30, 2009, 01:32:12 PM
BTW, every time they report about Fox News over here, it's always about something Beck says in his program.
Did they report on stupid stuff he said while he was at CNN?
If a tree falls and no one hears it, does it make a sound?
Quote from: DGuller on October 30, 2009, 01:37:00 PM
Now that I see those numbers for the first time, as an applied statistician I realize how bunk they are when it comes to supporting the argument that Daily Show is most informative. The implication of this survey is that some programs are more informative than others, and so the viewers of more informative programs are more informed.
However, to me, the difference seems to me is in the audiences. The audiences of the opinion shows are more interested in politics, and for pretty much all opinion shows they are more informed. For the general news shows, the interest is lower, and so are the knowledge scores. That's the only conclusion that can be taken from this. Using this as a proof that Daily Show is more informative than Fox News is stretching it big time.
Well you are the stat guy.
I agreed with this (http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/10/on_the_fox_news_white_house_di.php), and I tend to think that Fallows post-Japanese Crash is a pretty smart, nice guy.
Quote
I didn't see anything on Fox from mid-2006 through mid-2009; for better or worse, it's not carried in China. (The English TV news channels you can get there are BBC, CNN International, CNBC, sometimes Bloomberg.) I have seen it since coming back this summer. And in a way, I realize that I had been seeing it all along: except for more modern production values, it's the closest thing America offers to what it's like to be exposed to the Chinese government's 24/7 internal propaganda machine. When I saw the clip below from Media Matters, as highlighted by Andrew Sullivan, I thought: make it a little more boring, put it in Mandarin, and substitute "splittists" etc for the people Fox is talking about (maybe the Dalai Lama in place of Van Jones), and I could be right back in Beijing.
Are Maddow and Olbermann on MSNBC comparably relentless and "biased"? Of course they are. But no one pretends their shows are "real" news operations or are "fair and balanced." And certainly they have become what they are as a market and political response to Fox's success. Indeed, the general polarization and spectacle-mindedness of the news ecology in part is homage to what Fox has figured out as a business and political model. Any fair person also has to acknowledge the better production values Fox brought to TV news over the past decade: it's lively, it's fast, it's interesting, the women on screen (to a shocking degree, if you've been away) set a new standard in physical looks, the whole thing gets your attention.
But a crucial part of this clip, and of the White House complaint, is that it's not just the out-and-out commentators on Fox -- the Hannities and O'Reillies who begat Maddow and Olbermann -- who supply a one-note politicized world view. It's the texture of the overall operation. I can think of honorable exceptions among correspondents and anchors, like Major Garrett (whom I do know) and Shepherd Smith (whom I don't). But this clip suggests the seamlessness of the Fox News outlook, which has impressed me on watching it. Again something it shares with China Central TV.
Main point: I disagree with my journalistic colleagues who are huffy because the Obama White House is treating Fox differently from the way it is treating other news organizations. Fox is different. As a practical matter, saying so could backfire on the White House. But as a matter of observing and stating reality, they're right.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2009, 12:00:38 PM
http://people-press.org/report/319/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions
I got 11 out of 12 on their quiz. Kinda surprised.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 30, 2009, 01:37:31 PM
Quote from: The Larch on October 30, 2009, 01:32:12 PM
BTW, every time they report about Fox News over here, it's always about something Beck says in his program.
Did they report on stupid stuff he said while he was at CNN?
They only really started paying attention to him in the last few months, basically after he called Obama racist. I doubt that he scored in anyone's radar over here before that.
It is 'that' bad.
The notion that people who watch the daily show are better, however, is of course nonsense. The salt of the earth trumps the psuedointelligentsia every time.
CNN seems to be the only cable news network today that strives to be fair and balanced. And they're paying for it with their ratings.
MSNBC has become the mirror image of Fox. Fox has Hannity, O'Reilley and Beck. MSNBC has Olbermann, Maddow and Schultz. They're all preaching to their respective choirs.
I wish I got MSNBC on basic cable. I want to see the lefty versions of Beck & Hannity. :(
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 30, 2009, 02:30:18 PM
I wish I got MSNBC on basic cable. I want to see the lefty versions of Beck & Hannity. :(
Olbermann is a dork, Maddow is a Kike dike and Schultz is an angry, progressive white man.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 30, 2009, 02:30:18 PM
I wish I got MSNBC on basic cable. I want to see the lefty versions of Beck & Hannity. :(
Can't you YouTube a sample? Every show is pretty much the same.
It's not a particularly ardent wish. -_-
Quote from: dps on October 30, 2009, 11:59:31 AM
I remember reading something written by a media watchdog type a few years back about Fox News. He made the point that Fox News' actual news content actually is "fair and balanced" in that it is at least as objective and accurate as any other major news outlet, but it's editorial content and news discussion programs are clearly slanted towards a conservative viewpoint. I tend to agree with him.
That's hilarious. Of course editorial content will be slanted in one way or another. The only real problem comes when the news are slanted and reported in such a way as to give a false impression of reality.
Quote from: citizen k on October 30, 2009, 02:18:11 PM
CNN seems to be the only cable news network today that strives to be fair and balanced. And they're paying for it with their ratings.
MSNBC has become the mirror image of Fox. Fox has Hannity, O'Reilley and Beck. MSNBC has Olbermann, Maddow and Schultz. They're all preaching to their respective choirs.
CNN maes no effort to be fair and balanced, they only make an effort at obfuscating their editorial opinions as news. I'll much rather have somebody flat out stating their opinions than hiding it under the pretense of news.
The reason nobody watches CNN is because most of their anchors seem to be self-important, condescending assholes.
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 30, 2009, 05:27:59 PM
The reason nobody watches CNN is because most of their anchors seem to be self-important, condescending assholes.
Weird that you should be able to spot these traits.
Quote from: PDH on October 30, 2009, 07:55:51 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 30, 2009, 05:27:59 PM
The reason nobody watches CNN is because most of their anchors seem to be self-important, condescending assholes.
Weird that you should be able to spot these traits.
He who smelt it.....
I am more a pompous asshole. Just ask my ex-wife.
Quote from: Caliga on October 30, 2009, 01:18:24 PM
Pay no attention to Raz. FOX News is fine. I do think it has a bit of a right lean, but not nearly as much of a lean as, say, CNN (which obviously goes the other way). For example, over the past few months nearly every day on CNN.com there is some sob story on about how some moron did stupid shit that resulted in them being uninsured and now owing like millions in healthcare cost... the underlying message being OMFG WE NEED SOCIELIZED MEDICINE.
No. what you need is healthcare that isn't so overinflated in price that it costs millions. No procedure is actually worth the hundreds of thousands that people end up owing in the states. pharma and HMOs basically have licenses to print their own money.
my take is that while doctors and nurses should be well paid, the system is full of fatcat business types who are reaping nothing but profit from people's ill health.
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 30, 2009, 05:27:59 PM
Quote from: citizen k on October 30, 2009, 02:18:11 PM
CNN seems to be the only cable news network today that strives to be fair and balanced. And they're paying for it with their ratings.
MSNBC has become the mirror image of Fox. Fox has Hannity, O'Reilley and Beck. MSNBC has Olbermann, Maddow and Schultz. They're all preaching to their respective choirs.
CNN maes no effort to be fair and balanced, they only make an effort at obfuscating their editorial opinions as news. I'll much rather have somebody flat out stating their opinions than hiding it under the pretense of news.
The reason nobody watches CNN is because most of their anchors seem to be self-important, condescending assholes.
just like Fox & MSNBC and whatever other so called news outlets anyone watches everywhere. it's endemic to all news now (just from different slants)
Fox has run a bunch of stories about how awful health care is in foreign countries btw. It's not just the editorials.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 30, 2009, 09:46:14 PM
Quote from: Caliga on October 30, 2009, 01:18:24 PM
Pay no attention to Raz. FOX News is fine. I do think it has a bit of a right lean, but not nearly as much of a lean as, say, CNN (which obviously goes the other way). For example, over the past few months nearly every day on CNN.com there is some sob story on about how some moron did stupid shit that resulted in them being uninsured and now owing like millions in healthcare cost... the underlying message being OMFG WE NEED SOCIELIZED MEDICINE.
No. what you need is healthcare that isn't so overinflated in price that it costs millions. No procedure is actually worth the hundreds of thousands that people end up owing in the states. pharma and HMOs basically have licenses to print their own money.
my take is that while doctors and nurses should be well paid, the system is full of fatcat business types who are reaping nothing but profit from people's ill health.
:lmfao:
Wow, what childlike naivete!
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 30, 2009, 10:21:01 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 30, 2009, 09:46:14 PM
No. what you need is healthcare that isn't so overinflated in price that it costs millions. No procedure is actually worth the hundreds of thousands that people end up owing in the states. pharma and HMOs basically have licenses to print their own money.
my take is that while doctors and nurses should be well paid, the system is full of fatcat business types who are reaping nothing but profit from people's ill health.
:lmfao:
Wow, what childlike naivete!
It's true. My medicines cost $5000 per month. Can you explain to me, in childlike terms, why it should cost so much to get two shots?
Quote from: citizen k on October 30, 2009, 11:33:05 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 30, 2009, 10:21:01 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 30, 2009, 09:46:14 PM
No. what you need is healthcare that isn't so overinflated in price that it costs millions. No procedure is actually worth the hundreds of thousands that people end up owing in the states. pharma and HMOs basically have licenses to print their own money.
my take is that while doctors and nurses should be well paid, the system is full of fatcat business types who are reaping nothing but profit from people's ill health.
:lmfao:
Wow, what childlike naivete!
It's true. My medicines cost $5000 per month. Can you explain to me, in childlike terms, why it should cost so much to get two shots?
Oh, I don't know if you can grasp simple concepts like medical research costs a lot of money, particularly since 98% of research results in dead ends.
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 31, 2009, 12:02:38 AM
Quote from: citizen k on October 30, 2009, 11:33:05 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 30, 2009, 10:21:01 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 30, 2009, 09:46:14 PM
No. what you need is healthcare that isn't so overinflated in price that it costs millions. No procedure is actually worth the hundreds of thousands that people end up owing in the states. pharma and HMOs basically have licenses to print their own money.
my take is that while doctors and nurses should be well paid, the system is full of fatcat business types who are reaping nothing but profit from people's ill health.
:lmfao:
Wow, what childlike naivete!
*cough* Democrat
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 31, 2009, 12:02:38 AM
Quote from: citizen k on October 30, 2009, 11:33:05 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on October 30, 2009, 10:21:01 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 30, 2009, 09:46:14 PM
No. what you need is healthcare that isn't so overinflated in price that it costs millions. No procedure is actually worth the hundreds of thousands that people end up owing in the states. pharma and HMOs basically have licenses to print their own money.
my take is that while doctors and nurses should be well paid, the system is full of fatcat business types who are reaping nothing but profit from people's ill health.
:lmfao:
Wow, what childlike naivete!
It's true. My medicines cost $5000 per month. Can you explain to me, in childlike terms, why it should cost so much to get two shots?
Oh, I don't know if you can grasp simple concepts like medical research costs a lot of money, particularly since 98% of research results in dead ends.
Maybe i recall incorrectly, but last time we had a thread on this topic didn't someone show stats that in terms of spending Pharma companies advertising expenditures are greater then their R&D costs.
Quote from: citizen k on October 30, 2009, 11:33:05 PM
It's true. My medicines cost $5000 per month. Can you explain to me, in childlike terms, why it should cost so much to get two shots?
Because if they didn't cost $5000 they probably woudn't exist.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 31, 2009, 02:30:22 AM
Quote from: citizen k on October 30, 2009, 11:33:05 PM
It's true. My medicines cost $5000 per month. Can you explain to me, in childlike terms, why it should cost so much to get two shots?
Because if they didn't cost $5000 they probably woudn't exist.
Oh really? When I started these medications 9 years ago they "only" cost about $2000 per month.
Many more people need these medicines than people have the ability to produce them. As such, the outrageous demand outpacing supply results in your obscene prices.
Quote from: Lettow77 on October 31, 2009, 06:00:59 AM
Many more people need these medicines than people have the ability to produce them. As such, the outrageous demand outpacing supply results in your obscene prices.
Whatever the reason, I am fairly certain this is not it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 31, 2009, 02:30:22 AM
Because if they didn't cost $5000 they probably woudn't exist.
Even supposing that were true, it's better to have affordable mass produced medicines than bleeding edge research that only the rich can benefit from.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 31, 2009, 02:30:22 AM
Quote from: citizen k on October 30, 2009, 11:33:05 PM
It's true. My medicines cost $5000 per month. Can you explain to me, in childlike terms, why it should cost so much to get two shots?
Because if they didn't cost $5000 they probably woudn't exist.
I would bet it costs that much primarily because the person who wants it is not the person who has to pay for it, combined with the fact that there is only one supplied of the medicine.
However, I wonder if his insurance company really pays $5k/month for it, or if that is just what the pharm's list price is.
There is no real question that medical care pricing in the US is a complete mess. Simple economics will tell you that when you divorce the consumer from the pricing, you are going to end up with stupid prices.
How much does an MRI cost in the US these days?
Quote from: Berkut on October 31, 2009, 08:58:16 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 31, 2009, 02:30:22 AM
Quote from: citizen k on October 30, 2009, 11:33:05 PM
It's true. My medicines cost $5000 per month. Can you explain to me, in childlike terms, why it should cost so much to get two shots?
Because if they didn't cost $5000 they probably woudn't exist.
How much does an MRI cost in the US these days?
My dads last one iirc was $4200
Quote from: JacobL on October 31, 2009, 09:07:46 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 31, 2009, 08:58:16 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 31, 2009, 02:30:22 AM
Quote from: citizen k on October 30, 2009, 11:33:05 PM
It's true. My medicines cost $5000 per month. Can you explain to me, in childlike terms, why it should cost so much to get two shots?
Because if they didn't cost $5000 they probably woudn't exist.
How much does an MRI cost in the US these days?
My dads last one iirc was $4200
Wow. Just wow.
Yeah my father just had one a few weeks back, was for a workmans comp claim so no idea how much it cost.
If I had my old bills from '06 handy, it would throw several people on this forum into shock.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 31, 2009, 10:06:48 AM
If I had my old bills from '06 handy, it would throw several people on this forum into shock.
Not I, i recall how much my dad's bills were from his minor heart attack in '03 even with his medical insurance covering 80%
:lol:
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 31, 2009, 10:00:35 AM
Quote from: JacobL on October 31, 2009, 09:07:46 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 31, 2009, 08:58:16 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 31, 2009, 02:30:22 AM
Quote from: citizen k on October 30, 2009, 11:33:05 PM
It's true. My medicines cost $5000 per month. Can you explain to me, in childlike terms, why it should cost so much to get two shots?
Because if they didn't cost $5000 they probably woudn't exist.
How much does an MRI cost in the US these days?
My dads last one iirc was $4200
Wow. Just wow.
They're still paying off the R&D :P
The drugs my mom used to try and stop her brain cancer cost 3500 for 1 weeks supply.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 31, 2009, 08:02:40 AM
Even supposing that were true, it's better to have affordable mass produced medicines than bleeding edge research that only the rich can benefit from.
How do we get those affordable mass produced medicines? Someone somewhere has to pay for the R&D and testing. As Hans mentioned this includes the drugs that are unsuccesful, never used. Right now the someone is US customers (generally) during the patent period.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 31, 2009, 12:11:06 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 31, 2009, 08:02:40 AM
Even supposing that were true, it's better to have affordable mass produced medicines than bleeding edge research that only the rich can benefit from.
How do we get those affordable mass produced medicines? Someone somewhere has to pay for the R&D and testing. As Hans mentioned this includes the drugs that are unsuccesful, never used. Right now the someone is US customers (generally) during the patent period.
On the other hand, if the US government decides to legislate price caps for drugs, what options do the pharmaceuticals have? They lack the ability to just take their ball and go home.
Quote from: katmai on October 31, 2009, 10:11:43 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 31, 2009, 10:06:48 AM
If I had my old bills from '06 handy, it would throw several people on this forum into shock.
Not I, i recall how much my dad's bills were from his minor heart attack in '03 even with his medical insurance covering 80%
:lol:
Yeah, my old man had a major heart attack and the next year the another catastrophic illness. The medical bills were insane even with good insurance. Almost lost the house.
Those financial records open or are we just assuming?
Quote from: Neil on October 31, 2009, 12:17:26 PM
On the other hand, if the US government decides to legislate price caps for drugs, what options do the pharmaceuticals have? They lack the ability to just take their ball and go home.
That's exactly the ability they have. Stop researching new drugs. What person in his right mind would pour a couple hundred million into developing a new drug if it could be legally copied the second it hit the shelves?
"If America doesn't do it, who will?" I think we should start calling that bluff.
Besides, it's not like easily copied pharmaceuticals will help us win any wars.
Yi, governments have doing that for ages.
And while they have their disadvantages they have at least four advantages:
1) A good deal of the money is not spent on cures for baldness or impotence.
2) Minimal marketing costs.
3) Avoids the inefficient practice of tweaking existing drugs with patents about to expire.
4) Opens up avenues of research that are simply not profitable for private business (yet are extremely profitable for society).
If you want to lower drug costs on the US you have to put on price caps, as simple as that. Caps on brib ... err, marketing, are advisable as well. And stop granting patents to the same drug with mere facelifts.
Quote from: JacobL on October 31, 2009, 11:59:14 AM
The drugs my mom used to try and stop her brain cancer cost 3500 for 1 weeks supply.
ridiculous
A huge cost factor in clinical R&D is paying doctors with "useful patients" substantial honoraries for participating in clinical studies with their patients.
Or so I've heard. :whistle:
OTOH you have no idea how much it costs (fees, toll, etc.) to get non-approved drugs into former USSR.
Quote from: Iormlund on October 31, 2009, 01:28:19 PM
Yi, governments have doing that for ages.
And while they have their disadvantages they have at least four advantages:
1) A good deal of the money is not spent on cures for baldness or impotence.
2) Minimal marketing costs.
3) Avoids the inefficient practice of tweaking existing drugs with patents about to expire.
4) Opens up avenues of research that are simply not profitable for private business (yet are extremely profitable for society).
If you want to lower drug costs on the US you have to put on price caps, as simple as that. Caps on brib ... err, marketing, are advisable as well. And stop granting patents to the same drug with mere facelifts.
Publicly funded R&D is a reasonable alternative to privately funded (although off the top of my head I'm hard pressed to come up with an example of drugs developed by the government). My main beef is with is with people who think we can eliminate the market incentives for private R&D and not replace it with anything else.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 31, 2009, 12:52:51 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 31, 2009, 12:17:26 PM
On the other hand, if the US government decides to legislate price caps for drugs, what options do the pharmaceuticals have? They lack the ability to just take their ball and go home.
That's exactly the ability they have. Stop researching new drugs. What person in his right mind would pour a couple hundred million into developing a new drug if it could be legally copied the second it hit the shelves?
Who are you arguing with, exactly?
Quote from: Neil on October 31, 2009, 01:58:37 PM
Who are you arguing with, exactly?
You, for one. Although I erred in responding to your suggestion for price caps with a defense of patents.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 31, 2009, 02:00:50 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 31, 2009, 01:58:37 PM
Who are you arguing with, exactly?
You, for one. Although I erred in responding to your suggestion for price caps with a defense of patents.
Eliminating patents on drugs isn't very likely. It should only be considered as an 'ultimate weapon', should drug companies attempt to take actions that the government doesn't like.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on October 30, 2009, 01:41:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 30, 2009, 12:00:38 PM
http://people-press.org/report/319/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions
I got 11 out of 12 on their quiz. Kinda surprised.
I don't like the choices offered on the Dow and unemployment questions. The exact number on those is so close to the midpoint between their choices that its a crapshoot as to what the "correct" answer is.
Fox News is an excellent form of entertainment for bitter, old white people.
Quote from: Fate on October 31, 2009, 06:19:58 PM
Fox News is an excellent form of entertainment for bitter, old white people.
Especially the kind that clings to their guns and bibles.
In case you're interested, here's a small adition for the health care debate regarding prices for new drugs.
A local pharma company has just received approval from the corresponding EU agency for a new drug they've developed, and they've already started negotiations to place it in the European market. The news say that it'll soon-ish be available in the UK, Austria, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Norway, as drug price is set by the company alone in those countries, while they'll have to negotiate the price of the drug with the rest of the EU countries' health systems.
And if France wants it, they'll vacate the patent and generics will flood the market. Drug companies can't afford to get too cute.
FOX does ok with its news reporting. Have to separate the news from the opinion shows. But the Obama admin is trying to stifle one of the larger media outlets that are willing to be critical, no surprise. But it's backfiring on the administration, except among those who support them no matter what.
So a big part of this is the political wars, and the games and jockeying that go with it. MSNBC is very left, but gets no mention by the Obama admin, of course. FOX is right wing and more likely to look critically at the Obama admin, which is what the media should do anyway to the political process. Pres Bush got lambasted for years by the media, lots of nasty stuff, and it wasn't just about holding him accountable. Now the Obama admin is whining over FOX? Get over it - I'm glad that at least one channel is looking things more critically, and I think CNN is also, to some extent, for the cable news shows. Otherwise, there's a wide range of politically left and right oriented newspapers/media/magazines across the country, with many of the most influential news papers being left, I think. It's just dumb how FOX gets the attention; just more whining by the Obama admin. The Obama admin has been targeting FOX news, and that isn't working out so well for them. They tried to exclude FOX from White House briefings with the pay czar but all the other news orgs refused to go along with that. And in the meantime FOX's ratings are rising.
Quote from: KRonn on November 02, 2009, 12:45:54 PM
FOX does ok with its news reporting. Have to separate the news from the opinion shows. But the Obama admin is trying to stifle one of the larger media outlets that are willing to be critical, no surprise.
How are they "stifling" Fox?
Fox and MSNBC are total garbage.
CNN is merely garbage.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2009, 03:20:37 PM
Quote from: KRonn on November 02, 2009, 12:45:54 PM
FOX does ok with its news reporting. Have to separate the news from the opinion shows. But the Obama admin is trying to stifle one of the larger media outlets that are willing to be critical, no surprise.
How are they "stifling" Fox?
They've been on a tear, Axelrod and other admin officials, talking down on FOX. On Sunday talk shows, etc. As I said, they also tried to deny FOX interviews as part of the Washington press pool rotation, but all the other media outlets said no, that if FOX was denied then they wouldn't take part either. Good for the media for once, since I think they realized that next it could be them, under this admin or the next admin in the future.
Quote from: KRonn on November 02, 2009, 03:43:19 PM
They've been on a tear, Axelrod and other admin officials, talking down on FOX. On Sunday talk shows, etc. As I said, they also tried to deny FOX interviews as part of the Washington press pool rotation, but all the other media outlets said no, that if FOX was denied then they wouldn't take part either. Good for the media for once, since I think they realized that next it could be them, under this admin or the next admin in the future.
An overreach by the Obama admin, sure, but it doesn't exactly make Fox the pinnacle of journalistic integrity. The Obama camp was probably trying to give them a slap for the disingenuous "editorial" claptrap they tack onto every piece they cover.
Quote from: KRonn on November 02, 2009, 03:43:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2009, 03:20:37 PM
Quote from: KRonn on November 02, 2009, 12:45:54 PM
FOX does ok with its news reporting. Have to separate the news from the opinion shows. But the Obama admin is trying to stifle one of the larger media outlets that are willing to be critical, no surprise.
How are they "stifling" Fox?
They've been on a tear, Axelrod and other admin officials, talking down on FOX. On Sunday talk shows, etc. As I said, they also tried to deny FOX interviews as part of the Washington press pool rotation, but all the other media outlets said no, that if FOX was denied then they wouldn't take part either. Good for the media for once, since I think they realized that next it could be them, under this admin or the next admin in the future.
Oh I thought they were actually doing something to warrant the word "Stifle".
A thought: if anybody should be smacking down FOX, it should be the other news providers, since FOX has done so much to cheapen the brand of press credentials.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 02, 2009, 09:39:35 PM
A thought: if anybody should be smacking down FOX, it should be the other news providers, since FOX has done so much to cheapen the brand of press credentials.
Don't be silly. They've all cheapened the press.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 02, 2009, 09:39:35 PM
A thought: if anybody should be smacking down FOX, it should be the other news providers, since FOX has done so much to cheapen the brand of press credentials.
It is indeed tragic to see the damage they've done to the noble profession of such luminaries as Dan Rather and Katie Couric.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2009, 09:05:32 PM
Quote from: KRonn on November 02, 2009, 03:43:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2009, 03:20:37 PM
Quote from: KRonn on November 02, 2009, 12:45:54 PM
FOX does ok with its news reporting. Have to separate the news from the opinion shows. But the Obama admin is trying to stifle one of the larger media outlets that are willing to be critical, no surprise.
How are they "stifling" Fox?
They've been on a tear, Axelrod and other admin officials, talking down on FOX. On Sunday talk shows, etc. As I said, they also tried to deny FOX interviews as part of the Washington press pool rotation, but all the other media outlets said no, that if FOX was denied then they wouldn't take part either. Good for the media for once, since I think they realized that next it could be them, under this admin or the next admin in the future.
Oh I thought they were actually doing something to warrant the word "Stifle".
You don't think refusing to grant interviews warrants the word?
Not really. If that was the case every president would be stifling the press since they aren't granting interviews everytime any news agency asks for one.
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2009, 10:51:13 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2009, 09:05:32 PM
Quote from: KRonn on November 02, 2009, 03:43:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2009, 03:20:37 PM
Quote from: KRonn on November 02, 2009, 12:45:54 PM
FOX does ok with its news reporting. Have to separate the news from the opinion shows. But the Obama admin is trying to stifle one of the larger media outlets that are willing to be critical, no surprise.
How are they "stifling" Fox?
They've been on a tear, Axelrod and other admin officials, talking down on FOX. On Sunday talk shows, etc. As I said, they also tried to deny FOX interviews as part of the Washington press pool rotation, but all the other media outlets said no, that if FOX was denied then they wouldn't take part either. Good for the media for once, since I think they realized that next it could be them, under this admin or the next admin in the future.
Oh I thought they were actually doing something to warrant the word "Stifle".
You don't think refusing to grant interviews warrants the word?
That'd be impossible, as Fox News doesn't conduct interviews. However, they do great infotainment sessions.
Quote from: Fate on November 02, 2009, 11:34:14 PM
That'd be impossible, as Fox News doesn't conduct interviews. However, they do great infotainment sessions.
Indeed.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fimages%2F367034%2F1_61_320_obama_fns.jpg&hash=b682fe239e4f4b26dad731d85950523efc75eef0)
Quote from: citizen k on November 03, 2009, 12:30:25 AM
Indeed.
There's an old saying in Texas, and maybe in Canadia too. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, you can't get fooled again.
Quote from: Fate on November 03, 2009, 01:18:55 AM
Quote from: citizen k on November 03, 2009, 12:30:25 AM
Indeed.
There's an old saying in Texas, and maybe in Canadia too. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, you can't get fooled again.
Ah yes, the Oracle of Crawford. ;)
General thought: I increasingly feel that most news outlets should add "ZOMG!" or "WTF?" to their headlines to properly capture their style of reporting.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2009, 11:33:41 PM
Not really. If that was the case every president would be stifling the press since they aren't granting interviews everytime any news agency asks for one.
I think you're misunderstanding the nature of these interviews, thinking maybe they're requests for admin staffers to appear on FOX, or other media.
My understanding of the process is that these are the regular interviews given by White House staffers to the Washington Press Pool. The pool of reporters stationed in Washington from around the nation. NOT requests by media outlets for staffers to appear on their networks or give interviews for news papers. The White House told the Washington media pool that they'd allow staffers, in this case the pay Czar, to do the interviews with which ever media outlet is in the rotation, but would exclude FOX. All the other media outlets said no, that they wouldn't go along with that, and that all media should be included. The Obama admin then gave in on the issue. As I said, I applaud the media on this, since if one could be singled out then next time it could be another media, or another administration, Republican perhaps.