Very Interesting!

Below is from the New York Times.  I was floored!  52% of Americans voted for Obama, so many Dems want his healthcare yet this special ranked THIRD???  BEHIND CBS;s rerun???   What's up with that??  I know ABC has tanked in its ratings for quite some time now but I thought for sure that this "special" with Obama about his health care would at least for this one evening (Wednesday) bring ABC to the top, at least for that one evening just to find out that people rather watched CBS's reruns.  That speaks volumes IMO.



"President Obama may still have high approval ratings but his television ratings have tanked. ABC’s “Primetime” special on Wednesday, featuring a townhall discussion with the president about health care, attracted just 4.7 million viewers, according to Nielsen’s estimates. The special ranked third in its 10 p.m. time slot behind CBS’s rerun of “CSI: NY” and NBC’s premiere of “The Philanthropist,” both of which drew 7.4 million viewers".

[teko]

You are so right when you say it speaks volumes! All the naysayers are more interested in re runs than hearing questions and answers live. Hmmm, but they are here giving quotes from Fox on why it is sooo bad of an idea? Bottom line! They might just have to speak of facts for a change. Outta the horses mouth or what fox tells people he said? You decide?

[Barbarella]

My point is this:  21% Liberals live in the U.S.  The U.S. has about 300 million people or more, that is about 63 million Liberals living in the U.S, yet the Obama "health care special" on ABC ONLY attracted 4.7 million viewers???  Where is the interest for Obama from the rest of the 58 million Liberals???  The ones who just had to vote for him because of "change".  Now he is talking about change as in health care and they don't even watch him???  Could it be they too do not want naturalized health care???  You'd think that they woud've been interested to hear what Obama had to say.  I think they really do not want his plan.  That was my point!

As for FOX, give people some credit for some intelligence.  People who are really interested in their and their families future also do research about health care, the economy etc, and don't just listen to the TV or radio.  Google is full of links about all kinds of healthcare information, what cost, what plans etc etc etc.  All kinds of info about meds, where to get them cheap, and no, I'm not talking about ordering them from overseas or Canada, but right here in the U.S.  I'm not advertising for them and therefore suggest that people "google" it like I do.  Yes, all this takes some time to research, investigate, and compare, but that is what people have to do to get informed.

[ILADVOCATE]

I think a general opinion poll might say more. Firstly, the average American statistically watches less televison because of the internet and also the television coverage of any president is something that people will watch less later into their career (after the initial attention after the inaguration wears off) because the average American person is not very interested in politics, from any political background.  Even essential news coverage will get ignored for the latest reality tv show. It disappoints me as well. Anyway, not as much as happenned as people expected as the reccession is not really "stablizing" and people are honestly disappointed, including myself so people are becoming apathetetic which is the worst mindset. There are a lot of factors but the presidential coverage has turned into a popularity contest so an opinion poll of people in general might show more what's going on in general.

[HelpinUtah]

I have to admit I did not watch the President last night - because I completely forgot he was on - I got home from work and my mother needed some help and hubby came home and need to chat about couple things and I spaced it!  UGH!!!!  I am saddened that people do not stay involved with our government past the election process.  I think if more people stayed involved our politicians would have to be more accountable for their actions.  

[ILADVOCATE]

I'd be interested in the statistics as regards who is a liberal because the liberal party like the conservative party does not win elections as the two party system has monopolized the political system. Not all politicians from the democratic party are liberal. And not all republicans are completely conservative. When one thinks of the idiocy in California about legalizing marijuana their governor is a republican but hardly conservative. Its hard to get exact statistics about political leanings. As for nationalized ("naturalized" refers to immigrants) health care I'm not sure if the current health care plan goes that far as it is not going to be completely free for everyone the way it is in socialist countries in Europe who themselves are going bankrupt and getting rid of policies like that. I am not sure how the health care plan that is being discussed and debated will end up because its in its early stages and they still haven't come up with a workable idea yet.

[HelpinUtah]

Great point about some people who run on a certain political ticket - they are not always what they run for - look at Arlen Specter in PA - he knows he cannot win the Republican vote and so he has switched to the Democratic ticket.  I know people in PA who are liberal and furious about it because Rendel is backing him and so is Obama.  They wanted a progressive liberal as their Senator not Specter.  I can't blame them - I think Specter needs to go - but I suppose it was a smart move on his part.

[margypops]

I didnt bother putting it on we see him all the time anyway, so its another love fest, were any pertinent questions asked , or was it all one sided...

[teko]

Ok margy, you didnt bother? So you did not want to actually hear from him yourself? To have him answer any of your many fears? Were there any pertinent questions asked you say? Well my answer to you is you should have tuned in and found out. Oh I forgot, Fox will tell yal all about their version of what went on. Certainly more reliable source im sure.

[Barbarella]

You asked about statistics.  I googled it and found this (see below) from the "Gallup Poll".  You're right not all Democrats are Liberal and not all Republicans are Conservative, but since Obama is a Liberal I talked about "Liberal viewers", but especially since there are also Democrats and Independants pulling for Obama its even more surprising that only 4.7 mill watched ABC last night.  I do understand that speeches of Presidents get boring after awhile, especially after the election, but I just thought more people from the Left would be interested what he had to say about health care, that's all.


"PRINCETON, NJ -- Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004. The 21% calling themselves liberal is in line with findings throughout this decade, but is up from the 1990s."

[margypops]

I read the transcript today and he isnt going to use his own plan for his famiiy ..I wonder Why

[twehner5]

Let's move 'er up!!!!

[hope4thegoodstuff]

Just because President Obama wants a healthcare plan doesn't mean he's going to get it.  I feel that there are two many of our folks in Washingto that is against it on both sides.  There is too much money going into too many pockets.  When I feel like there is some movement on health care...I'll start watching.  

A few months ago, there were supposed to be people getting together all over the country to come up with ideas of what would help them with their medical expenses.  I'm guessing what comes in the end will be a far cry from anything that will help my parents...When they first retired...medicare took care of them very well and they had a lovely supplemental too, but then the economy went to heck, the supplemental became too expensive, medicare covers less and they are really struggling with all the meds that they need to be on.  

I'm young and can fend for myself if I have to.  But my folks deserve more.  They worked hard all their lives and they are good people, but medical expenses have taken them from comfortable middle class to what I'd consider poor.  It's a hard thing for my dad.  He feels so useless these days.  I help when I can, but they have their pride too.  They don't want me to help.  I have to be sneaky about it.  

[Piparskeggr]

If I may?

I have just finished rereading the US Constitution.
( http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html )

No where in the text do I find authority granted to the federal government of our Republic to have and maintain programs, which take care of individual citizens; including the health plan being discussed.

I should be glad of knowledge to the contrary; something I missed in the Constitution, extra-Constitutional legislation or Supreme Court decision, a vote by Citizens giving up their individual sovereignty...???

be well - Steven

(PS: I do have sympathy for those with health problems and great ordeals over them.  Even though I have a good plan through my employer, I still have a good level of debt from health troubles.

But as government "help" and interference in medicine have become greater over time, it seems less care is spent upon the proper role of government, which is to call to account those who abuse the system as it is, including themselves, lawyers, doctors, insurers and cheats...leading in part to the increased cost of health care.)

[twehner5]

Yes!    What HE said.  I have said this to several in PM's, but lack this fine gentleman's eloquence.  What an awesome addition to the community!

[ILADVOCATE]

I would agree but the Constitution is a working document for how the laws of the United States are to be drafted in general. And as there are amendments it is a work in progress. Of course if a law is found to be unconstitutional it can be overruled by the Supreme Court. As for public benefits, the concept didn't exist at the time of the Constitution that's true. But its not neccessarily a good thing. If one goes to the Social Security website ssa.gov and looks under "history" one will see photos of what poor houses were like and those were from the great depression. Surely not something we'd want to revisit. The idea of people with disabilities (which under the Americans with Disabilities is something that "impairs a major life function and lasts more than 6 months or leads to death") having civil rights didn't exist then. People with disabilities (including physical disabilities) were left to die or put in institutions. As per the ADA definition anyone here unless what they have is temporary is a person with a disability.
  But moving it back to the original discussion I believe people's concern is that they be required to have health insurance and that the money would be used for people who could work but don't want to. I can understand those concerns and believe they should be addressed. I do believe health care should be available to all people (as I said I well understand people's concerns about illegal immigrants but that would be a seperate thread and might not last long..) and affordable as well. The question is how and I do believe that Americans as a whole should have a say on this issue if it will affect all of us and I well understand the issue of state's rights but it would get confusing if there were totally different forms of health care coverage and restrictions in different states. Its not an easy issue and I can't say the current bill gets it right but it must be addressed. When I heard of that story of that kid that died of heart failure because his parent's health care coverage couldn't cover a heart transplant operation for him, that alone convinced me.

[Piparskeggr]

Good afternoon;

Bear with me, please, I tend to long answers in this sort of discussion.

My understanding is that a Right preexists any government, as a gift of Nature's God under Nature's Laws; our Constitution acknowledges this part of our human condition, it does not grant these Rights.

From your words, which seem thoughtful to me, I believe you are familiar with this point of view.  I am stating this position for our mutual audience.

However, the acknowledgment of the universality of Rights, and protection thereof by those we put in authority over us as citizens, has evolved over time, especially for those amongst us who have a "lesser voice" (so to speak).   Also, the idea of who is a Citizen has broadened over man's development; ancient Rome's concept thereof and the changes therein are a good case to study, especially as it developed from kingdom to republic to principiate.

The idea of Human Rights being a separate category from Civil Rights is also a fairly recent philosophical development in the history of mankind in my view.  For me, Rights are Rights; what come into play in the Civic arena are virtues, morals and ethics.

The ethics of my worldview are fairly simple.  I strive to do that which is right for family, friends and community, with wisdom, generosity and personal honor.  Admittedly, helping strangers outside of my community does not enter into this, as to do so would slight my ability to help those to whom I am most fully obligated.  And yes, my military service would be an aberration under this ethos as it involves helping (in a way) millions of strangers.

Government will restrict our liberty, sometimes for good reason, to exercise our rights as freeborn men and women.  These areas, which are licensed or regulated, then become privileges.  

Constitutions and laws are set up by us (or our trusted representatives) as a communal set of strictures upon government, and upon ourselves.

Governments are also instituted to do things that smaller subdivisions of society cannot do for themselves.

My hometown could not have pulled off a project in the scale of Boulder dam; a much larger pool of resources is needed.

I am well aware of poor houses, my father's uncle Jack died in one back in the 1930's, along with his wife.  It was a time when the family was unable to afford to help them.  It was a hard time for everyone.  But, it was still the family's responsibility to try and help them, something in which we did fail.  The poorhouse was supposed to be a drastic measure of last resort supplied by the community at large (or, in this case, by the Church), which it was.

Much of my suspicion of government claiming that they are here to help is colored by a few pieces of family history: I had ancestors on Daniel Shays side of that fracas, ancestors coming to America due to help by the British during the Potato Famine years, my maternal grandfather having witnessed Fascism in Italy and my mother-in-law's family having seen Communism, both in Russia and in Greece.

I am at heart, an Anglo-Saxon freeholder, who looks upon family and community as the largest, workable, social units.  Larger entities are needy, and get greedy; for money, power...look at how the Church and State grew bloated with both over the history of Europe.

I also grew up under the New England Town Meeting form of local government, a very democratic form of republicanism. =)

Any bureaucracy, no matter how benign in original intent, will tend towards consolidating its control over its sector of policy and polity; mission creep also tends to move in...justifying the bureau's existence by claiming more and more areas of responsibility, building new agencies where none need to exist at a federal level, keeping their "clients" in a sort of bondage to the conditions that bring them to the "helpers" in the first place.

Health care reform is needed, but I think any fixes need to come from the bottom up, not the top down.

Be well - Pip