[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Warning America About Palantir: Richie From Boston
I'm not done asking questions about the killing of Charlie Kirk.
6 reasons the stock market bubble is worse than anyone expected.
Elon Musk: Charlie Kirk was killed because his words made a difference.
Try It For 5 Days! - The Most EFFICIENT Way To LOSE FAT
Number Of US Student Visas Issued To Asians Tumbles
Range than U.S HIMARS, Russia Unveils New Variant of 300mm Rocket Launcher on KamAZ-63501 Chassis
Keir Starmer’s Hidden Past: The Cases Nobody Talks About
BRICS Bombshell! Putin & China just DESTROYED the U.S. Dollar with this gold move
Clashes, arrests as tens of thousands protest flood-control corruption in Philippines
The death of Yu Menglong: Political scandal in China (Homo Rape & murder of Actor)
The Pacific Plate Is CRACKING: A Massive Geological Disaster Is Unfolding!
Waste Of The Day: Veterans' Hospital Equipment Is Missing
The Earth Has Been Shaken By 466,742 Earthquakes So Far In 2025
LadyX
Half of the US secret service and every gov't three letter agency wants Trump dead. Tomorrow should be a good show
1963 Chrysler Turbine
3I/ATLAS is Beginning to Reveal What it Truly Is
Deep Intel on the Damning New F-35 Report
CONFIRMED “A 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon on 9/11” says Military witnesses on the scene
NEW: Armed man detained at site of Kirk memorial: Report
$200 Silver Is "VERY ATTAINABLE In Coming Rush" Here's Why - Mike Maloney
Trump’s Project 2025 and Big Tech could put 30% of jobs at risk by 2030
Brigitte Macron is going all the way to a U.S. court to prove she’s actually a woman
China's 'Rocket Artillery 360 Mile Range 990 Pound Warhead
FED's $3.5 Billion Gold Margin Call
France Riots: Battle On Streets Of Paris Intensifies After Macron’s New Move Sparks Renewed Violence
Saudi Arabia Pakistan Defence pact agreement explained | Geopolitical Analysis
Fooling Us Badly With Psyops
The Nobel Prize That Proved Einstein Wrong
Title: Anti-Obamacare Ad BANNED by ABC and NBC Source: http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com URL Source: http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2009 ... -ad-banned-by-abc-and-nbc.html Published: Aug 28, 2009 Author: ? Post Date: 2009-08-28 10:38:44 by freepatriot32 Ping List: *libertarians* Subscribe to *libertarians* Keywords: Obamacare Ad, BANNED, ABC, NBCViews: 77 Comments: 3
Maybe Mickey Mouse is in the tank for Obama as much as General Electric, Both Disney-owned ABC and GE-owned NBC are refusing to run anti-Obamacare ads from the League of American Voters, which features a neurosurgeon who warns that a government-run health care system will lead to the rationing of procedures and medicine, especially for seniors. Maybe Disney is feels it owes something to Obama because ACORN registered good old Mickey to vote. The networks supposedly rejected the ad because there was not enough proof of the claims in the ad. Of course NBC ran a Today Show special in the White House talking about Health Care, and ABC ran a prime time Obamacare special. Here's some of the Proof that the networks were missing, at a Town Hall yesterday,Democratic Congresswoman Betsy Markey said that the Obamacare bill will hurt seniors. Some people, including Medicare recipients, will have to give up some current benefits to truly reform the nation's health-care system, Rep. Betsy Markey told a gathering of constituents in Fort Collins on Wednesday. Markey has repeatedly said during the August congressional recess that Medicare spending needs to be reined in to help pay for reforming the broader health-care system."There's going to be some people who are going to have to give up some things, honestly, for all of this to work," Markey said at a Congress on Your Corner event at CSU. "But we have to do this because we're Americans." Are the networks rejecting the Ad for Unsubstantiated Claims, or because it advocates a position against the President for whom they are in the tank. Read the Rest and you decide: ABC, NBC Won't Air Ad Critical of Obama's Health Care Plan By Joshua Rhett Miller The refusal by ABC and NBC to run a national ad critical of President Obama's health care reform plan is raising questions from the group behind the spot -- particularly in light of ABC's health care special aired in prime time last June hosted at the White House The 33-second ad by the League of American Voters, which features a neurosurgeon who warns that a government-run health care system will lead to the rationing of procedures and medicine, began airing two weeks ago on local affiliates of ABC, NBC, FOX and CBS. On a national level, however, ABC and NBC have refused to run the spot in its present form. "It's a powerful ad," said Bob Adams, executive director of the League of American Voters, a national nonprofit group with 15,000 members who advocate individual liberty and government accountability. "It tells the truth and it really highlights one of the biggest vulnerabilities and problems with this proposed legislation, which is it rations health care and disproportionately will decimate the quality of health care for seniors." Adams said the advertisement is running on local network affiliates in states like Louisiana, Arkansas, Maine and Pennsylvania. But although CBS has approved the ad for national distribution and talks are ongoing with FOX, NBC has questioned some of the ad's facts while ABC has labeled it "partisan." "The ABC Television Network has a long-standing policy that we do not sell time for advertising that presents a partisan position on a controversial public issue," spokeswoman Susan Sewell said in a written statement. "Just to be clear, this is a policy for the entire network, not just ABC News." NBC, meanwhile, said it has not turned down the ad and will reconsider it with some revisions. "We have not rejected the ad," spokeswoman Liz Fischer told FOXNews.com. "We have communicated with the media agency about some factual claims that require additional substantiation. As always, we are happy to reconsider the ad once these issues are addressed." Adams objects to ABC's assertion that his group's position is partisan. "It's a position that we would argue a vast majority of Americans stand behind," he said. "Obviously, it's a message that ABC and the Obama administration haven't received yet." Dick Morris, a FOX News political analyst and the League of American Voters' chief strategist, conceptualized the advertisement and said its purpose was to "refocus" the debate on health care reform. "I feel the whole debate on health care reform needed to be refocused on the issue of Medicare," he told FOXNews.com. "Most of the debate had been on issues of socialized medicine and cost. I felt that the impact of the legislation in cutting the Medicare program and enforcing rationing needed to be addressed." Morris, a onetime advisor to former President Bill Clinton, said he was particularly troubled by ABC's decision not to air the spot. "It's the ultimate act of chutzpah because ABC is the network that turned itself over completely to Obama for a daylong propaganda fest about health care reform," he said. "For them to be pious and say they will not accept advertising on health care shuts their viewers out from any possible understanding of both sides of this issue." Subscribe to *libertarians*
Maybe Mickey Mouse is in the tank for Obama as much as General Electric, Both Disney-owned ABC and GE-owned NBC are refusing to run anti-Obamacare ads from the League of American Voters, which features a neurosurgeon who warns that a government-run health care system will lead to the rationing of procedures and medicine, especially for seniors. Maybe Disney is feels it owes something to Obama because ACORN registered good old Mickey to vote.
The networks supposedly rejected the ad because there was not enough proof of the claims in the ad. Of course NBC ran a Today Show special in the White House talking about Health Care, and ABC ran a prime time Obamacare special.
Here's some of the Proof that the networks were missing, at a Town Hall yesterday,Democratic Congresswoman Betsy Markey said that the Obamacare bill will hurt seniors.
Some people, including Medicare recipients, will have to give up some current benefits to truly reform the nation's health-care system, Rep. Betsy Markey told a gathering of constituents in Fort Collins on Wednesday.
Markey has repeatedly said during the August congressional recess that Medicare spending needs to be reined in to help pay for reforming the broader health-care system."There's going to be some people who are going to have to give up some things, honestly, for all of this to work," Markey said at a Congress on Your Corner event at CSU. "But we have to do this because we're Americans."
Are the networks rejecting the Ad for Unsubstantiated Claims, or because it advocates a position against the President for whom they are in the tank. Read the Rest and you decide:
ABC, NBC Won't Air Ad Critical of Obama's Health Care Plan By Joshua Rhett Miller The refusal by ABC and NBC to run a national ad critical of President Obama's health care reform plan is raising questions from the group behind the spot -- particularly in light of ABC's health care special aired in prime time last June hosted at the White House
The 33-second ad by the League of American Voters, which features a neurosurgeon who warns that a government-run health care system will lead to the rationing of procedures and medicine, began airing two weeks ago on local affiliates of ABC, NBC, FOX and CBS. On a national level, however, ABC and NBC have refused to run the spot in its present form.
"It's a powerful ad," said Bob Adams, executive director of the League of American Voters, a national nonprofit group with 15,000 members who advocate individual liberty and government accountability. "It tells the truth and it really highlights one of the biggest vulnerabilities and problems with this proposed legislation, which is it rations health care and disproportionately will decimate the quality of health care for seniors."
Adams said the advertisement is running on local network affiliates in states like Louisiana, Arkansas, Maine and Pennsylvania. But although CBS has approved the ad for national distribution and talks are ongoing with FOX, NBC has questioned some of the ad's facts while ABC has labeled it "partisan."
"The ABC Television Network has a long-standing policy that we do not sell time for advertising that presents a partisan position on a controversial public issue," spokeswoman Susan Sewell said in a written statement. "Just to be clear, this is a policy for the entire network, not just ABC News."
NBC, meanwhile, said it has not turned down the ad and will reconsider it with some revisions.
"We have not rejected the ad," spokeswoman Liz Fischer told FOXNews.com. "We have communicated with the media agency about some factual claims that require additional substantiation. As always, we are happy to reconsider the ad once these issues are addressed."
Adams objects to ABC's assertion that his group's position is partisan.
"It's a position that we would argue a vast majority of Americans stand behind," he said. "Obviously, it's a message that ABC and the Obama administration haven't received yet."
Dick Morris, a FOX News political analyst and the League of American Voters' chief strategist, conceptualized the advertisement and said its purpose was to "refocus" the debate on health care reform.
"I feel the whole debate on health care reform needed to be refocused on the issue of Medicare," he told FOXNews.com. "Most of the debate had been on issues of socialized medicine and cost. I felt that the impact of the legislation in cutting the Medicare program and enforcing rationing needed to be addressed."
Morris, a onetime advisor to former President Bill Clinton, said he was particularly troubled by ABC's decision not to air the spot.
"It's the ultimate act of chutzpah because ABC is the network that turned itself over completely to Obama for a daylong propaganda fest about health care reform," he said. "For them to be pious and say they will not accept advertising on health care shuts their viewers out from any possible understanding of both sides of this issue."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
#1. To: freepatriot32 (#0) The multinational corporations such as Disney are FOR the federal government replacing the private, for-profit racketeers in terms of health care because they then will no longer have to concern themselves with providing this benefit to employees. They also know from real-world experience in the other so-called "socialized medicine" countries (which includes most countries in the so-called "Western" world compared to the way ours is operated) in which they operate that it is going to be FAR BETTER for their bottom line should the private racketeers eventually be run out of business. This is undeniably one reason (not the only one, for sure) our auto companies were run out of business by foreign competitors. The foreigners had no "legacy" costs. Sam Houston posted on 2009-08-28 11:10:14 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply Replies to Comment # 1. #2. To: Sam Houston (#1) That is the strongest argument for a national health service that I've heard mustered. Health care costs are a ball and chain for our manufacturers. The damned problem is that no one trusts that bunch of quacks in Washington to do anything that is in our interest. The consensus is that there is no one in that city who is not in the pocket of some lobbyist. Buckeroo put it like this: Let me get this straight. Obama's health care plan shall be written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who smokes and has no birth certificate, funded by a treasury chief who did not pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is overweight and financed by a country that is nearly broke. What could possibly go wrong? Whatever will be done will be done in the interest of the insurance industry and pharma and their allies. We'll likely have nothing but bureaucracy, stagnation and taxes out of it. If ever this should have been attempted, we should have done something like this many years ago when things were more or less humming along. I worked in Europe many years ago and had a minor operation under national health insurance. The system was pretty good, and I felt that people were put first in that system of care. It's a system that wasn't created overnight in a smoke-filled room. They've been working on it for a hundred years, for gosh sakes. Honestly, I don't have the sense that what they tried to cram through Congress takes account of our need for choice, privacy or adequate delivery in medical care. Far better to do nothing now and start over when the current bunch is out of office. Let's start with tort reform, which has helped bring physicians back to Texas, for example. randge posted on 2009-08-28 11:32:11 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply End Trace Mode for Comment # 1. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
The multinational corporations such as Disney are FOR the federal government replacing the private, for-profit racketeers in terms of health care because they then will no longer have to concern themselves with providing this benefit to employees. They also know from real-world experience in the other so-called "socialized medicine" countries (which includes most countries in the so-called "Western" world compared to the way ours is operated) in which they operate that it is going to be FAR BETTER for their bottom line should the private racketeers eventually be run out of business. This is undeniably one reason (not the only one, for sure) our auto companies were run out of business by foreign competitors. The foreigners had no "legacy" costs.
They also know from real-world experience in the other so-called "socialized medicine" countries (which includes most countries in the so-called "Western" world compared to the way ours is operated) in which they operate that it is going to be FAR BETTER for their bottom line should the private racketeers eventually be run out of business.
This is undeniably one reason (not the only one, for sure) our auto companies were run out of business by foreign competitors. The foreigners had no "legacy" costs.
Sam Houston posted on 2009-08-28 11:10:14 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#2. To: Sam Houston (#1) That is the strongest argument for a national health service that I've heard mustered. Health care costs are a ball and chain for our manufacturers. The damned problem is that no one trusts that bunch of quacks in Washington to do anything that is in our interest. The consensus is that there is no one in that city who is not in the pocket of some lobbyist. Buckeroo put it like this: Let me get this straight. Obama's health care plan shall be written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who smokes and has no birth certificate, funded by a treasury chief who did not pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is overweight and financed by a country that is nearly broke. What could possibly go wrong? Whatever will be done will be done in the interest of the insurance industry and pharma and their allies. We'll likely have nothing but bureaucracy, stagnation and taxes out of it. If ever this should have been attempted, we should have done something like this many years ago when things were more or less humming along. I worked in Europe many years ago and had a minor operation under national health insurance. The system was pretty good, and I felt that people were put first in that system of care. It's a system that wasn't created overnight in a smoke-filled room. They've been working on it for a hundred years, for gosh sakes. Honestly, I don't have the sense that what they tried to cram through Congress takes account of our need for choice, privacy or adequate delivery in medical care. Far better to do nothing now and start over when the current bunch is out of office. Let's start with tort reform, which has helped bring physicians back to Texas, for example. randge posted on 2009-08-28 11:32:11 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply End Trace Mode for Comment # 1. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
That is the strongest argument for a national health service that I've heard mustered. Health care costs are a ball and chain for our manufacturers. The damned problem is that no one trusts that bunch of quacks in Washington to do anything that is in our interest. The consensus is that there is no one in that city who is not in the pocket of some lobbyist. Buckeroo put it like this: Let me get this straight. Obama's health care plan shall be written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who smokes and has no birth certificate, funded by a treasury chief who did not pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is overweight and financed by a country that is nearly broke. What could possibly go wrong? Whatever will be done will be done in the interest of the insurance industry and pharma and their allies. We'll likely have nothing but bureaucracy, stagnation and taxes out of it. If ever this should have been attempted, we should have done something like this many years ago when things were more or less humming along. I worked in Europe many years ago and had a minor operation under national health insurance. The system was pretty good, and I felt that people were put first in that system of care. It's a system that wasn't created overnight in a smoke-filled room. They've been working on it for a hundred years, for gosh sakes. Honestly, I don't have the sense that what they tried to cram through Congress takes account of our need for choice, privacy or adequate delivery in medical care. Far better to do nothing now and start over when the current bunch is out of office. Let's start with tort reform, which has helped bring physicians back to Texas, for example.
The damned problem is that no one trusts that bunch of quacks in Washington to do anything that is in our interest. The consensus is that there is no one in that city who is not in the pocket of some lobbyist.
Buckeroo put it like this:
Let me get this straight. Obama's health care plan shall be written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who smokes and has no birth certificate, funded by a treasury chief who did not pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is overweight and financed by a country that is nearly broke. What could possibly go wrong?
Obama's health care plan shall be written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who smokes and has no birth certificate, funded by a treasury chief who did not pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is overweight and financed by a country that is nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong?
Whatever will be done will be done in the interest of the insurance industry and pharma and their allies. We'll likely have nothing but bureaucracy, stagnation and taxes out of it. If ever this should have been attempted, we should have done something like this many years ago when things were more or less humming along.
I worked in Europe many years ago and had a minor operation under national health insurance. The system was pretty good, and I felt that people were put first in that system of care. It's a system that wasn't created overnight in a smoke-filled room. They've been working on it for a hundred years, for gosh sakes. Honestly, I don't have the sense that what they tried to cram through Congress takes account of our need for choice, privacy or adequate delivery in medical care.
Far better to do nothing now and start over when the current bunch is out of office. Let's start with tort reform, which has helped bring physicians back to Texas, for example.
randge posted on 2009-08-28 11:32:11 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest