What’s scary is, there are so many uninformed and/or completely stupid people who will believe Sinclair’s pile of lies. Maybe Kerry should resurrect and update that old antiGoldwater commercial, with the little girl and the nuke. With today’s technology, it would be real easy to substitute Bush’s face in place of Goldwater’s.
So blinded by conspiracies, that you see them everywhere, eh? I’d love to see the sources of your theory that the CBO is biased. They are bean counters, Jack. Numbers don’t have a real political bias.
It’s certainly odd then that Dems have gotten plenty of ammo for political attacks on the GOP in recent years out of the CBO, and Republicans consistently gripe about CBO appraisals. Must just be a fiendish plot by the GOP.
Here’s one little gem for you:
*Top Republicans have been known to ask CBO to score Democratic healthcare plans. After then-first lady Hillary Clinton released her healthcare plan in 1993, then-House Minority Leader Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) urged CBO Director Robert Reischauer to score the proposal.
After Reischauer declined to do so repeatedly, a frustrated Gingrich asked the CBO chief what it would take for the agency to score Clinton’s plan.
Reischauer replied, “Get in the majority.”*
Entirely by coincidence, I’m sure, there’s recently been major wrangling over budget deficit projections churned out by the CBO vs. those of the Bush Administration. On that particular issue I’d sooner believe the CBO, but based on past history I wouldn’t swallow their figures without skepticism either.
I notice you have nothing to say about the flagrant editorializing on the part of the NPR reporter, or the completely one-sided handling of the med malpractice story. Not surprising, given that there’s little to defend.
I wonder though who will be watching this, however. Strong Bush people might watch. But, will the very few undecided voters left decide to watch a one hour long anti-Kerry film during prime time? Fahrenheit 9/11 will be on pay per view, not broadcast television. I doubt F 9/11 will, on election eve, have much impact either.
I can imagine a lot of people who have had politics beaten into their heads for the past year, will take one look at this anti-Kerry movie and scream, “NO MORE FUCKING POLITICS!!!” and change the channel. They’ll be going up against tough competition on the other networks.
If I was a shareholder, I’d be pissed. I would be royally pissed that Sinclair broadcast group is sacrificing ad money to air their political agenda.
It is still a disgusting idea. This should help debunk the “liberal media” myth once and for all.
So you claim a bias, but even the Republican appointed director of the CBO doesn’t seem to see that bias? Where is the house cleaning? Pardon me if I take her opinion over yours.
And to your anecdote, from your own cite:
Anyone know where I could get a list of Sinclairs advertisers? Maybe they would reconsider if it becomes a pocketbook issue. I, for on, would be more than willing to drop a note to each advertiser letting them know what I think of Sinclair’s plan.
Hit em in the pocketbook. It’s the American way.
It’s not the CBO’s fault if the Republicans continue to fuck up the country…
NurseCarmen, I’d have a better idea of what world-beating point you think you’re making, if you didn’t post statements I did not make and then attribute them to me. Your first “quote” in your most recent post addressing me comes from somewhere else.
Apologies. The quote came from your cite.
The CBO is a Congressional agency. As such, they follow Congressional policy and assumptions, within the confines of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. When the Congress is controlled by the Democrats, then CBO numbers tend to favor Democrats; when the GOP controls Congress, the CBO tends to favor the Republicans. I’m not accusing the CBO of any failure of integrity here, but there are often questions of interpretation in accounting, and the CBO answers those questions by referencing the policies and assumptions set by the party in control of the Congress. Using an anecdote from when the Dems were the majority party in Congress to prove that the CBO favors Democrats is absurd for this reason – heck, even the anecdote you cite disproves your point.
–Cliffy
I’m not sure what “anecdote” you’re referencing - but the point was made in the NCPA piece that just changing the CBO director doesn’t have much impact, when the staff that grinds out the supposedly unimpeachable numbers is the same.
*There were no major staff changes and most of the top positions at CBO continued to be filled by the same people who produced the analyses Republicans had long criticized. *
Of course, we all know that accounting is an exact science and that numbers don’t lie. In fact, I can’t remember the last time there was a major accounting scandal. :rolleyes:
Well, I found this:
Jack, not every job in DC is a political appointment. The bean counters at the CBO are career bean counters. Working from administration to administration, not turning over every election. The Director is politically appointed by whomever controls congress. The Director puts into place the generally accepted accounting practices favored by those in power.
Now even as much as conservative sites such as the NCPA might kvetch that the GAO (Now under the Republican influenced name “The Government Accountability Office”(Ya gotta wonder how much that useless name change cost the taxpayers)) isn’t treating them fairly, the fact remains that they deal with numbers, and within the contraints of the of general accounting principles. If the Republicans are complaining that the numbers coming from the GAO aren’t the numbers they want to see, it’s pretty clear where the fault lies.
The anecdote is the Gingrich tidbit you brought up earlier. You are either being obtuse, or you need to buck up on that reading comprehension, for it’s pretty clear.
If Sinclair does go ahead and show Betrayal, some of the other networks will have no choice but to show Fahrenheit 9/11. otherwise, they will be forever called ‘chicken’.
Nurse, it is bizarre how your singleminded (or simpleminded) devotion to defending the honor of the CBO has blinded you to the other defects in the NPR story on potential healthcare savings in relation to malpractice reform.
To remind you yet again, these include a scornful editorial remark by the “reporter” that wonders why this should even be a campaign issue, and the failure to seek out opinion within the healthcare professions.
Provide me with a link and I’ll take a listen. Otherwise, I can’t really comment on it. You’ve been around here long enough to know that most of us won’t accept a third party take on a report that we didn’t hear as fact. Especially when a certain amount of spin is interjected into the retelling.
Hell, you’ve been commenting all along. Now you’re just squirming because you can’t defend the indefensible.
Since noone else picks it up … My impression was that the impact of malpractice lawsuits on the cost of healthcare is very small, only about 1%. Cites? Not tonight. But that the problem isn’t the cases won in the courtroom, but a legal system allowing people to sue for virtually anything for free (just hire a lawyer for a piece of a potential pie). Defending myself against such a charge could cost six or seven figures even before the case appears before court, therefore it’s usually cheaper to settle the case early, even if there’s no blame to go around in the first place. True or false?
Great…Now Jackmannii decides that the CBO must be biased because NCPA says they are biased?!?! Do you even know who the hell NCPA is?!?! (For those who don’t, they are a libertarian outfit best known to me for lying vociferously on the subject of climate change.)
Noone is claiming that CBO is perfect and always right but I have never heard claim that they have a bias. The Republicans rely on them and cite them too. And, a few supposed facts with no context or cite provided from NCPA is not exactly going to make your case!
I actually wrote a very polite e-mail last year to one of the fellows at NCPA asking for evidence on two claims on climate change in a position paper he had written that I essentially could tell were wrong. Never got a reply.
As for your complaints on NPR, you always bring up these anecdotal cases where we can’t even verify their accuracy, let alone decide how they fit in the larger context. Well, I can remember an NPR report when the one “expert” they consulted was from the Cato Institute. And, of course, we have FAIR which actually goes beyond anecdotes and gets hard numbers on who they cite. But, I guess you prefer anecdotes.
Potentially very true, insurance companies will generally try to settle lawsuits rather than take them to court and risk losing big. However these costs get passed right along to docs in their malpractice insurance rates. If insurance companies had the balls to risk trial on a bunch of lawsuits they were very likely to win, it might put a damper on runaway lawsuits(especially if laws requiring those bringing an unsuccessful suit to pay the suees legal costs were passed)-but they won’t. The work on a rigid cost/benefit basis which says that it’s better for their bottom line in the long run to pay people to go away. The upside of this is that malpractice insurance costs are KILLING docs in a lot of specialties. For a Pediatrician, say, it’s not bad - $8-10K/ year for malpractice insurance. For an OB/Gyn it’s insane - here in Maryland their insurance costs start at $150K/year and go up from there. (These are real numbers from family members in the medical profession) Las Vegas curently has only 78 OB/Gyns to cover a city of half a million people. (This cite is from memory of an article I was reading last week, I have not been able to locate it, so if I am remembering wrong and someone has more correct figures, please post them) Now do you see why Tort Reform is a pretty important issue?