Scott Brown's 'tea party' fans feel burned by jobs vote

spike

spike

New Member
catocom said:
yeah they had one yesterday.
I saw the protest outside by seiu, and Fox covered a little of it.
see
See you didn't even know.
No publicity, coverage, transparency...nothing.
Just more backdoor dealing.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you're saying here cat. There was a big protest against the insurance companies. I agree that it should have got more coverage.

You think this indicates a lack of transparency and backdoor dealing by the insurance companies? Maybe because the insurance companies have backdoor dealings with the media?
 
spike

spike

New Member
You say there was a lack of coverage about this protest against the insurance companies. I agree, but how the hell are you trying to tie it to Obama?

Why would Obama want less coverage on a protest against the insurance companies?
 
catocom

catocom

Well-Known Member
no, I'm saying there was a lack of coverage of Obama and the ins. companies,
and that may be why the lack of coverage on the protests.

I don't really care about the lack of coverage of the protest,
because in actuality, I no fan of seiu, but that part seems to me
to show that they are turning on Obama somewhat.

Why is the admin keeping the meeting so hush hush?
 
V

valkyrie

Well-Known Member
catocom said:
no, I'm saying there was a lack of coverage of Obama and the ins. companies,
and that may be why the lack of coverage on the protests.

I don't really care about the lack of coverage of the protest,
because in actuality, I no fan of seiu, but that part seems to me
to show that they are turning on Obama somewhat.

Why is the admin keeping the meeting so hush hush?
Click to expand...
I doubt that it was the "admin" keeping the meeting "hush hush". If it were then you wouldn't know about it. But I believe what you wanted was a televised media opportunity of the meeting and I seriously doubt that the insurance companies would have met under those circumstances. They are evil spawn in the eyes of the majority of the public and any first hand media coverage (TV cameras, etc.) would have had them running.
 
catocom

catocom

Well-Known Member
valkyrie said:
But I believe what you wanted was a televised media opportunity of the meeting.
Click to expand...

no I don't want the spectacle like last time with the congress meeting.

Of coarse there will always be some playing to the cameras I guess, but
just some low keyed camera, maybe even out of sight, and no commentary...
like c-span.
or even...like in some court cases...just a steno of something.

Surely there's a way to make these meeting more open than they have been,
without all the theatrics.
 
catocom

catocom

Well-Known Member
valkyrie said:
It's been open, but people don't pay much attention until the media fluffs it all up (or someone makes up crazy shit like the "death panels"). In some ways I wish it had been televised on every station, every evening, because most of the Republicans stuck their heads in the sand and wouldn't participate. They forgot that they are not needed to pass the bill.
Click to expand...

catocom said:
I think C-Span would beg to differ.

I haven't been able to find much on their website either, but OK, if you say so.
Click to expand...

Govt. Transparency Down in ‘09
http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/03/16/chasing-transparency/
 
V

valkyrie

Well-Known Member
catocom said:
no I don't want the spectacle like last time with the congress meeting.

Of coarse there will always be some playing to the cameras I guess, but
just some low keyed camera, maybe even out of sight, and no commentary...
like c-span.
or even...like in some court cases...just a steno of something.

Surely there's a way to make these meeting more open than they have been,
without all the theatrics.
Click to expand...
I don't think the insurance companies would have appreciated a stealth camera recording the meeting. They're already in a bad light with the public. I'm sure there was some sort of record of the meeting (transcripts or something). There may have been a deal between the prez and the insurance companies to keep it all private or they would not cooperate.

BTW, Cat... that link is to a blog, which means it's just someone's opinion and/or dissatisfaction with whatever the subject is that they choose.
 
catocom

catocom

Well-Known Member
I saw the protesters on camera myself though.

anyway, I couldn't care less if the ins. co. wanted there.
God help me, I'm with the union on this one.
I think I'm going to throw-up nnow....excus...:sick5:
 
spike

spike

New Member
There definitely should have been more coverage of that protest against the insurance companies. If Fox can cover empty lots where a few tea partiers were earlier they should certainly have vetter coverage of something the size of the SEIU protest.
 
catocom

catocom

Well-Known Member
At least they covered it some.
I didn't see ANYTHING ANYWHERE else.
Where was all the other media?
 
V

valkyrie

Well-Known Member
catocom said:
At least they covered it some.
I didn't see ANYTHING ANYWHERE else.
Where was all the other media?
Click to expand...
NPR covered it also, and continue to cover other protests over the health care debate (both sides).

My point with the insurance companies was that they have a choice with coming to that meeting or refusing. This is a free country and there is no legal requirement for them to cooperate. I believe that meeting their requirements of no public media coverage was to get them to the table to get the dialogue started.

As we have since seen, the insurance companies have decided that any health care reform is not in the best interest of their profits. They're pulling out the heavy PR artillery with ads (so I've heard through NPR coverage).

On that note, there was an interesting story about how Blue Cross and Blue Shield started out as a "not for profit" and turned into a publicly traded company (for profit).
 
catocom

catocom

Well-Known Member
ok, well, I can't find a story on their website, but I'll take your work for it.

MY point is though even with NPR, that's still a minuscule amount of coverage of that particular event it seems.
I also haven't heard of anything that was discussed in that meeting.
Why is it so closed?

Also, Why won't Kucinich or the pres. talk about why Kucinich Really change his mind on the vote?

I just don't see all the so-called transparency they are claiming.
 
V

valkyrie

Well-Known Member
catocom said:
ok, well, I can't find a story on their website, but I'll take your work for it.

MY point is though even with NPR, that's still a minuscule amount of coverage of that particular event it seems.
I also haven't heard of anything that was discussed in that meeting.
Why is it so closed?

Also, Why won't Kucinich or the pres. talk about why Kucinich Really change his mind on the vote?

I just don't see all the so-called transparency they are claiming.
Click to expand...
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/HealthCare...h-switches-vote-health-care/story?id=10123393

I beg to differ on your opinion that NPR and PRI represent a minuscule part of the radio media. They are a very large part of it and present a fair and unbiased report. :) I listen to it on my way to work and going home. I feel like the time I spent in my car in traffic was not as much a waste of time.

Here's why Dennis Kucinich (Dem - Ohio) said he changed his mind.
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/HealthCare...h-switches-vote-health-care/story?id=10123393
I agree with him on his former stance but voting "no" would (as President Obama stated) be casting a vote for the status quo. There needs to be reform. I do not agree with the bill as it stands without a public option, but if the wording can be such that insurance companies accept everyone regardless of age or health status and charge a fee that is affordable (that I don't believe will ever happen without government intervention) then I can accept forcing everyone by law to carry health insurance. However, this bill, as it stands, leave much to be desired. There has been far too much compromised in favor of the special interest groups (i.e., insurance company lobbyists).
 
V

valkyrie

Well-Known Member
Here are some of the articles regarding Kathleen Sebelius..
http://www.npr.org/search/index.php?searchinput=Kathleen+Sebelius

This is the story about Blue Cross and it's turn from a not-for-profit to a for-profit health insurance company...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124807720

Sorry I didn't provide the links. I thought the story about Blue Cross was interesting. I did not know that it was started as a not-for-profit organization for the purpose of providing affordable health insurance. They've certainly come a long way (Health Point).
 
catocom

catocom

Well-Known Member
"I have doubts about the bill. I do not think it's a step toward anything I've supported in the past. This is not the bill I wanted to support," Kucinich, D-Ohio, said at a news conference today. "However, after careful discussions with President Obama, Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi, my wife Elizabeth and close friends, I have decided to cast a vote in favor of the legislation."
Click to expand...
Reason? I still see no reason

I still see not one word that was discussed in that meeting. Just rhetoric.
 
spike

spike

New Member
The reason is right there cat. He doesn't want to keep the status quo and feels the bill will get us closer to what he would like. We still need the public option though or Grayson's new bill for Medicare for all.
 
catocom

catocom

Well-Known Member
I Can comprehend what I posted.

It still doesn't give not one specific reason why, of what.

Just more 'double talk'. Saying nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top