And another thing I dislike about America

[windelina]

Turning everything into a for-profit business.

News media is now run for-profit, so it's not about doing the job - it's about making money. Keeping the bottom line nice and low.
So, news corporations don't pay for in-depth investigations. They're too expensive. The Watergate investigation would never happen today - too risky, too expensive.
If we don't need investigations, we don't need investigative reporters. Less people salaried. More of the employees can be inexperienced because they're cheaper.

See how this benefits nobody?

And now they're again talking tort reform wanting to cap medical malpractice awards to keep down insurance premiums. Except that perhaps it's not the awards that are the problem. Insurance rates are rising 33% this year (I may be misquoting, but it's still an egregious amount). Perhaps we should instead institute insurance reform? Insurance has always been a scam, but now it's really about making the money, not doing the job of insuring against problems.

But we don't want to reform business. We don't want to control it, oversee it, or limit it. Business is good for America.

It's just not good for the average American.

One of these days, I'm gonna cross over the line and become some radical socialist. I just know it.

Comments

[jenx.livejournal.com]

Business is good for America.
It's just not good for the average American.

In that respect, business is NOT good for America if it doesn't benefit the average American. All the shuffling around of cash in this country happens way over our heads, but it's supposed to benefit us in the end (supposedly). Just like 'trickle-down economics', we're expected to wait for the crumbs of millionaires to fall into our mouths and feed us - and we're considered greedy or lazy if we want more than crumbs, or ask for nutrious crumbs or crumbs without radiation. It's our own fault if we aren't filled with whatever they've left to us.

The way the world is...

[vackovich.livejournal.com]

Is not just American practice of outsourcing everything for profit, every country does that. I would like to see in your posts is a counter example of a system that works that has free speech and encourages individuality other than just hearing how America is bad and the rest of the world is good. I like counter examples, please provide one.

My only advice to you regarding your angst about the capitialistic system is, if you can't beat them, join them. Make more money or accept the fact the captialistic world is oiled by the blood of its workers.

Finally, as for your Watergate news speculation... Any scandal involving presidents easedropping on their oppenent during an election year will ALWAYS get investigated. Cost is not the object here, it is the possible humiliation of a president. Look how long the networks hung on the Bill Clinton/Monica deal and that court case. Viewers loved that story and hung every statement and crumb of news.

Humiliating a president, even a great one, priceless!

you socialists and your "state"...

[burnunit.livejournal.com]

just don't become a national socialist


in any case, when you're ready, when you're done with the capitalist heartache and the socialist headache, the anarchists will still be here...

Re: you socialists and your "state"...

[hedgiewan.livejournal.com]

"I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos."

Re: you socialists and your "state"...

[burnunit.livejournal.com]

"And tomorrow we come back and we cut off your chonson!"

[romeoa.livejournal.com]

"So, news corporations don't pay for in-depth investigations. They're too expensive. The Watergate investigation would never happen today - too risky, too expensive."

It's also about ratings and advertisers. There will always be in depth reporting, Every news station wants the next big story. If anything, it's actually more competitive for reporters out there in this day and age of the 24hr cable news channels. Hell just look at CBS, they didn't care about the facts... they just thought they had a big story during an election year and it ended up biting them in the ass. But hey, at least they took a risk. And the majority of media have always had to answer to advertisers no matter what, so they were always for profit. I don't recall too many mainstream news outfits not being for profit. There is nothing new there. In other words.. not really news worthy.

I think the real problem with news outlets is that they wear their party affiliation on their sleeves. No longer do they report the facts, they also give you an opinion. Oh, And anyone who thinks this practice is exclusive to FOX is blind.

[wombat-socho.livejournal.com]

It would be nice if they were up front about their party affiliation. Yeah, anybody who pays attention to the news (like most of us political junkies) knows what kind of bias they're sporting, but most folks just aren't that focused on politics.

As for insurance, the main problem with it is that it disconnects people from the true costs of medicine so that people go running to the doctor for every scratch and sniffle. There's also the indirect costs of Medicare - the government doesn't reimburse doctors, clinics or hospitals at anywhere near the full cost of the services they provide, which is why a lot of them won't accept Medicare any more. Malpractice insurance premiums are directly affected by tort claims, and are easier to deal with politically (besides, it makes for great news when doctors are leaving particular states) so that's why the news tends top focus on it...Medicare reimbursement isn't as "sexy", and telling people they ought to stay home, sleep and drink lots of fluids doesn't sell well either. *shrugs*

[romeoa.livejournal.com]

I totally agree. Say what you will about FOX News, But at least you know where they stand.

I can't say I am for Socializing healthcare. I do agree that costs are syrocketing. But I also belive in letting an open market dictate costs. Unfourtnatley, the healthcare industry is not really part of an open market. I think if it was (just like the airline industry, stores like Target and the evil walmart) consumers would drive the cost down by choosing the most cost effective plans, perscriptions, ect. Plus, any sort of Goverment run Healthcare would just be so corrupt. all you have to do is look at any government run program now to see that. In short, I think the more power the consumer has and the less power the government have over a consumers decision is always a better way to start solving a major problem like health care.

[wombat-socho.livejournal.com]

Well, that's part of the problem - this business of treating healthcare as a fringe benefit of employment is a relic of the WW2 wage and price controls, and like a lot of other government stuff from the 1940s it's still around. So if we're going to get the government out of healthcare, we need to start by decoupling the job you have from your retirement and your health insurance.

[windelina.livejournal.com]

Actually, this story I read said that California passed a cap on awards and it had no effect on insurance premiums.
Then they passed a law that put insurance review into effect, and the premiums went down and stayed down. Because the insurance company had to open their books to the government and prove that premium hikes were necessary - and they couldn't.

Instead of screwing over the people who have already been screwed over by bad medicine, how about we make sure we're keeping the insurance companies in line? But we won't do that, because the current mindset of America is to coddle the corporation over the needs of the people.

Malpractice claims are a very small percentage of the costs of insurance, but they get the biggest blame when the premiums go up - and the insurance companies put the blame there instead of on their own business practices (unsurprisingly). Adding insult to injury - a majority of malpractice claims are all directed at a handful of doctors. There are doctors that have had multiple malpractice lawsuits and the medical boards won't remove or discipline them.

The whole system is broken.

[wombat-socho.livejournal.com]

Malpractice claims and awards may be a small percentage of the costs, but the premiums paid by doctors reflect those claims and awards - and since all OB/GYNs and ER doctors are in the same actuarial group for risk purposes, their premiums can go up by a staggering amount regardless of their records.

I think you're off base when you suggest that people who were legitimately hurt are going to get screwed under malpractice reform. Nobody has suggested capping those awards - all the attention has gone to punitive damages and "pain & suffering" damages, which imao are out of line unless the doctor can be proved to have done something demonstrably stupid like leaving instruments behind. A lot of malpractice awards come because the doctor guessed wrong about what was affecting the patient, as if people were all the same make & model and reacted the same way to everything. Medicine is not like auto repair - not all diseases and conditions react the same to the same therapy from one patient to the next, and holding doctors to a zero-defects standard is unrealistic.

I'd like to see that link to the story about California insurance, because I find it very hard to believe. Insurance companies are regulated damn near as strictly as banks, and for the same reasons - they're handling other peoples' money, and government tends to keep a close eye on that sort of thing.

No, the whole system isn't broken - but it sure could use some fixing.

[hedgiewan.livejournal.com]

Come to the Dark Side!