backtop


Print 192 comment(s) - last by Atheist Icon.. on Oct 14 at 11:41 PM


Fox News this week attacked Tesla Motors and Fisker Automotive with blatantly inaccurate commentary claiming they were European companies and infering they received money illegitimately. Fox has not apologied for these mistatements.  (Source: AutoBlog)

Fisker is actually a U.S. firm and its DOE loan to retool a plant to shift the majority of the production of its hot electric sports cars back into the U.S.  (Source: AutoBlog)

Tesla Motors is in fact a U.S. company -- and for the first time a profitable one. The new loan will in fact help it expand its U.S. operations and offerings.
News networks takes a shot at the green movement

Fox News anchors aggressively attacked Fisker and Tesla -- two independent leaders of America's growing electric car movement -- after the U.S. Department of Energy granted the companies loans to help further expand and commercialize promising products.  Leading the attack was Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum who emphasized that Al Gore had invested in Fisker, while failing to note that prominent conservative Colin Powell was also an investor and strong supporter (to Fox News' credit, the Wall Street Journal took a similar route).

However, that was the least skewed portion of segment.  Fox News and its analysts went on to infer that Tesla and Fisker were not American companies and had illegitimately obtained loans from U.S. taxpayers.  The commentators claimed that Tesla was based in England and Fisker in Finland.  They also criticized the vehicles for being too expensive for "most Americans" to afford.  Cheered by the Fox News anchor, hosted analyst David Williams remarked, "This isn't going to help average Americans.  This isn't going to help the working class get these cars." [video here, courtesy of Media Matters]

In both cases the testimony was misleading.  Tesla's European headquarters is indeed based in Windsor, UK.  However, the majority of its business is within the United States, as is its international headquarters -- located in San Carlos, California.  Similarly, Fisker does have a Finnish connection -- its plug-in hybrid Karma sports car is being sub-manufactured by Valet Automotive in Finland.  Fisker's headquarters, though, is in Irvine, California.  Furthermore, the practice of outsourcing manufacturing is commonplace among the U.S.'s larger automakers, GM, Ford, and Chrysler.  A recent study indicated that Toyota Motors -- a non-American firm has in fact, the greatest amount of parts, monetarily, produced in the U.S.

The $528.7M USD for Fisker and $465M USD doled out to Tesla hardly seem egregious in comparison to the tens of billions that GM and Chrysler received.  Even Ford has received far more -- receiving $5.9B USD in the most recent round of advanced technology loans.  

Fisker chose to put out a press release to try to correct these inaccuracies, while declining to specifically target Fox News.  CEO, Henrik Fisker writes, "American automaker Fisker Automotive was recently approved for a conditional loan of $528 million by the Department of Energy (DOE). While news reports were mostly factual, some ignored or marginalized the truth, or sensationalized irrelevant aspects of the loan and our company."

The release emphasizes that the DOE funding will not be used in overseas operations and will, in fact, help create or save 5,000 U.S. jobs.  The company laments that the Karma is being assembled in Finland, saying it only turned to outsourcing when no U.S. plant would agree to produce the vehicle, likely due to its small production numbers.  It says that much of the loan money is going towards retooling a U.S. assembly plant for its $40,000 plug-in hybrid (Project NINA) – the facility will have the capacity to build 75,000 to 100,000 vehicles a year by 2012.  It also states that it is confident that it will be able to repay taxpayers, with interest.

Fisker concludes, "It is unfortunate how false information can be disseminated and it is our intention to correct as much of it as possible."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By ixelion on 10/5/2009 8:10:30 AM , Rating: 5
Why is the fact that Tesla may not be an American company a sticking point? Is Fox news against globalization? Doesn't this contradict the whole free global market ideology?




RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By oldscotch on 10/5/2009 8:24:13 AM , Rating: 5
Fox News is against whatever Big Oil and Haliburton tell them to be against.


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By dark matter on 10/5/2009 9:20:44 AM , Rating: 1
This man speaketh the truth.


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By knutjb on 10/5/09, Rating: -1
RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By MrBlastman on 10/5/2009 10:56:20 AM , Rating: 5
What is funny is Jason Mick is writing an article about Fox news sensationalizing things when he himself has sensationalized quite a bit right here on DT.

Am I the only one who finds a little humor in this? :)


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By spuddyt on 10/5/2009 11:31:43 AM , Rating: 5
He's a noob compared to Fox..


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By Maxima2k2se on 10/5/2009 11:40:50 AM , Rating: 4
While he may be a noob compared to Fox, he is still guilty as charged. I do not blame him though, I cannot think of any news outlet or journalist that does not do this at some point.


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By MrBlastman on 10/5/2009 12:08:56 PM , Rating: 3
They all do it nowadays, be it CNN, MSNBC, CBS, Fox etc., every one of them is busy pushing their side and their agenda. They are all doing it and that is the problem.

Sure, before Fox, all we had was a leftist view. When they first started, they were actually pretty fair and balanced. In recent years though, they have moved into pushing their own agenda quite a bit (to the point where it is obvious) just like the other Networks, though in this case it is the opposite of the mainstream news rather than just another cheerleader squad. At least we have a contrasting opinion, I'd rather it be this way than none at all.

Regardless, the opinionated bias that each of these networks have is getting to be quite stale. This goes for _all_ of them. Journalistic integrity has gone down the tubes and it is apparent not only in video news but also in print media from all fascets of "printopia."

What ever happened to the editorial section? What ever happened to "Print just the facts, nothing but the facts?" The sad thing is, I believe we've gone so long without just the facts that there probably is not a single practicing journalist alive today that even remembers what that was like. To be fair though, even back in the twenties there was still bias in print. You could find a bastion to guard against it however. Now, you can only try and duck your head against the barrage of opinions (like this one), unfortunately, when you do, your head ends up landing in a quagmire of agenda slime even then.

No, there is very little chance of escape for now.


By callmeroy on 10/5/2009 1:29:22 PM , Rating: 4
Finally someone else has said it...I've been saying this for a while now....

They ALL do the same things now..


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By NA1NSXR on 10/5/09, Rating: -1
RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By MrBlastman on 10/5/09, Rating: -1
RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By Reclaimer77 on 10/5/09, Rating: -1
RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By eddieroolz on 10/5/2009 7:12:32 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
If we allow the Government to destroy 1/6 'th of our Economy, and rob future generations of the prosperity we had, then what's the point of talking about "other things" ?


As a Canadian watching from the sidelines, this is quite amusing with our "death panels" xD


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By Reclaimer77 on 10/5/09, Rating: -1
RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By smitty3268 on 10/6/2009 12:03:54 AM , Rating: 4
Sorry, but we already have death panels as well. They work for the private insurance companies. And tens of millions don't even have insurance, which means they don't even get as far as death panels, they're just turned away at the door.

No system is going to be perfect, I mean we could spend 100% of our GDP on health care and there would still be some treatments out there that were just infeasible to give to everyone.


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By Reclaimer77 on 10/6/09, Rating: -1
By smitty3268 on 10/6/2009 2:00:10 AM , Rating: 1
You're completely missing the point. I don't care if it's 300 million or 30 people, it's ridiculous to claim that the new system will introduce death panels to ration care when the truth is that exactly that already happens.

I know I'd love to have a doctor tailing me around 24/7, giving me daily checkups, but my insurer's death panel has decided I'm not worthy of that kind of attention and I don't have any recourse. And the truth is that I'm actually fairly well off, with nothing to complain about. I don't know that the new system will be any better for me - actually i think it will end up about the same. I'm sure it will be slightly worse for the very rich who will end up subsidizing the very poor. In the end, both sides are overreacting a bit. But claiming that the problem doesn't even exist and burying your head in the sand is a recipe for disaster.


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By vic5014 on 10/6/2009 12:23:23 AM , Rating: 4
Do you honestly think there is no rationing in our system? Any first-year economics student or even anyone who ever took an econ class and was paying attention could see this claim is nonsense. To break it down, unlimited wants (everyone would love to be able to see a team of specialists for every bump, bruise, and ache) plus limited resources (there simply aren't an infinite number of doctors, nurses, doses of medicine, etc.) equals you have to ration care. its just that our system rations care based on ability to pay, not on need.
And by the way, these decisions are made by bureaucrats in our system as well. its just that those bureaucrats are employed by insurance companies that are primarily, if not solely, interested in their own profits. I have nothing against this fact. they are all for-profit companies with shareholders and thus their focus is on finding ways to maximize profits. whether or not they should be allowed to operate as for-profit corporations is an entirely separate issue. I'm sure you can guess where I stand on that. At least if the government were involved in this, you'd have someone to complain to and could even, if it came down to it, try to have the responsible party replaced through the political system. needless to say, that is not in any way possible now.


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By Reclaimer77 on 10/6/09, Rating: 0
By smitty3268 on 10/6/2009 2:27:40 AM , Rating: 2
As has been brought up before, there are 3 likely scenarios that could play out:

1. The government option is fantastic, everyone loves it, and private insurance dies out. If the option is so great, then I don't think this is the disaster that conservatives say it would be. Seniors seem to be relatively happy about their government run health care and they don't really have any other options to speak of. And you can't say they don't have a strong voice in determining what Medicare does - it's a rare politician who argues that money should be cut out and lose their votes.

2. The government plan sucks, no one uses it unless they absolutely have no other choice (because they lack money). In which case the situation is pretty much exactly the same as it is now, except that the rich would be subsidizing low-quality care for the poor instead of giving them none at all.

3. The most likely one IMO, where the government option is OK but nothing special and ends up in pretty good competition with the private companies. I would imagine the govt. plan might be a bit cheaper while the private companies would do what they do best - innovate and provide value adding services to make up for their increased prices. Everyone would seem to win, since the market has more choices that are more widely available to everyone.

Anyway, while i think the public option would be nice, I don't think it's necessary. The really important stuff is the extra regulations, like not allowing insurance companies to dump you after you've been diagnosed with something. At that point, they would be basically as good as the public option with the only remaining concern being affordability.


By Shandorn on 10/6/2009 3:20:58 AM , Rating: 1
Wow, your ignorance is astounding! There is no REAL competition! There are certain areas in the country with one ONE health care provider in the ENTIRE STATE! What kind of competition is that? What if you have a preexisting condition such as say... a pregnancy? There have been women rejected for coverage because their pregnancy was considered a preexisting condition! Do you not see an issue here? The only way for costs to come down to a reasonable level and to eliminate the whole concept of preexisting conditions is for the government to get involved. Better still would be a single payer system that would level the playing field for everyone.


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By lco45 on 10/6/2009 1:33:39 AM , Rating: 1
You do realize that you can still have private insurance, right?

It's not like the USSR and getting your haircut at Salon #26 whether you like it or not :-)

The only difference is that your tax is about 1% higher and you get free healthcare.

The people who are drumming up all the noise are the wealthy, for whom 1% is a lot of money. They convince the rest of the poor saps, who'd probably be better off with a national health system.

Luke


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By Reclaimer77 on 10/6/09, Rating: 0
RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By smitty3268 on 10/6/2009 2:16:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
No private insurance company will be able to compete with the government and stay in business, because everyone will switch to "free" healthcare.

Yeah, just like the post office wiped out all private competition. Oh yeah....

quote:
Especially when they slip on the clause that makes it illegal to not have government insurance.

Oh, come on. Who's stupid or uninformed now? The democrats have their largest majority in a long time, and it will almost certainly become smaller in the next election. And they're nowhere near having the votes for that. I highly doubt they could even reach a simple majority for it in the House, which is completely dominated by Dems.


By Atheist Icon on 10/14/2009 11:41:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah, just like the post office wiped out all private competition. Oh yeah....


You do realize that the ONLY reason the Post Office is in existence today, is because the government granted them a monopoly on First Class Mail. No other carrier, FedEx, UPS, or DHL, can handle it. I can guarantee that, just like everything else the government touches turns to crap, USPS would not be here today if it did not have that protection.

How can any private company compete with a government entity that can tax, with health insurance? The government can tax all 300 million+ of us to keep their plan going, but an insurance company can only get money from whomever they cover. How can a private insurance company compete with it?


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By hyvonen on 10/6/2009 2:44:12 AM , Rating: 1
Good riddance - insurance companies are profit making instances that don't need to be there. Any profit they are making is just going to make everyone's health care more expensive. And don't even get me started on wasting resources on billing...

Having a huge health care provider (=government) means economics of scale can drive down cost. The only ones fighting this are the ones that are at a risk of losing their cash cows (insurance companies, doctors)...

And the selfish attitude of "I'm well covered, so nothing should change - I don't care about my uninsured neighbor" is just appalling.


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By Shandorn on 10/6/2009 3:39:24 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
God you kids are either stupid, uninformed, or probably both.


No, I'd say YOU are the ill informed one.The insurance will not be free. It will still carry premiums for those that can afford it. There will also be co-pays for those that are above a certain income level.The OPTION will be offered through employers who will pay their percentage just as it is now. The BIG difference is that there will be REAL competition! Big Pharma and the insurance companies won't have the game all to themselves. There will be new rules to play by. They won't just disappear! They have huge infrastructures and resources that are at their disposal! They will, in the short term, lose some of their profits (boo hoo)but, in the end, they will make their cut backs and forge ahead as leaner, more aggressive companies. They will still be in business no matter what the FOX hate-mongers "report". Their CEO's just won't be making $25 million a year, that's all.


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By Reclaimer77 on 10/6/09, Rating: 0
By smitty3268 on 10/6/2009 1:24:22 PM , Rating: 2
Can I have a couple more straw men, please?

No one said anything about making a profit being evil and wrong. They just think that letting people die so you can make a profit is wrong.

Read some history books yourself, there are plenty of instances where government programs have been wonderful for the public. Should NASA have left the moon landing to private companies (it never would have happened, at least not for another 50 years). What about Medicare and the VA? Do you want to privatize the police and firemen? Now, you can argue that medical care is different than the cases above, or you can argue that the cases above actually should be run privately. But don't just stand there yelling that socialism is evil and everything the government touches turns into disaster.


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By Fiskertalk on 10/6/2009 2:10:33 PM , Rating: 2
Hey Reclaimer, shoot me an email so we can talk.


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By lco45 on 10/12/2009 8:31:52 PM , Rating: 2
I'm posting from Australia, where we pay a 1% medicare levy for free national health care.

There are around half a dozen mainstream private health insurance companies that are doing very well, because some people prefer private hospitals, and they also include benefits like physio and dental, which aren't ocvered by medicare.

It has been like this for 30 years, so I'm not sure why you think private insurance companies can't compete.
Also not sure why the fact that for a 1% levy we get free healthcare makes you say "Wow, just wow."

Some of the private insurance companies are:
http://www.mbf.com.au/
http://www.hbf.com.au/
http://www.medibank.com.au/

And finally, I'm not a kid. I'm middle aged with my own family, and have lived in Australia (free health), the UK (free health), France (free health), Japan (free health, but not for foreigners...).
If my writing style seems childlike perhaps I'm subconsciously writing to the level of my audience.

Reclaim that,

Luke


By eddieroolz on 10/6/2009 11:50:26 PM , Rating: 1
Buddy you gotta calm down man. There's only so many people on Dailytech to dish out downrate points.

Either way, I'm quite content with my healthcare system where my mother pays $100 a month to receive access to free family doctor who will care for us one-to-one after scheduling (no, it does not require a month ahead to schedule, whatever you Republicans might say to your people) and I get the attention I need, should I require it. Oh, also ER visits are also free, but I've never needed one. Furthermore the "demonic death panel" healthcare of mine coupled with my mother's insurance provides me with free dental checkups every 6 months and covers a good chunk of dental costs. Removing wisdom teeth? Free for me.

In the end, you have to take a look at both sides of the debate, though in recent weeks it's starting to resemble more of an one-way flamefest. Just because it's a Democrat-proposed bill doesn't make it demonic and not even worth consideration. It's good to open your eyes to other opinions no matter how different it may be.

P.S. Don't pretend you know my system better than me. You're just making yourself look more and more like a fool each passing moment.


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By room200 on 10/5/2009 1:56:31 PM , Rating: 1
Well, it's his article and nobody's forcing you to read them.


By MrBlastman on 10/5/2009 2:58:30 PM , Rating: 2
I never said it was a bad thing, just a humorous one. :P


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By jconan on 10/5/2009 3:23:55 PM , Rating: 1
fox news is a conservative news group and also likes to spread FUD


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By Reclaimer77 on 10/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By Reclaimer77 on 10/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By scrapsma54 on 10/5/2009 8:38:53 AM , Rating: 2
Well, no the stupid part is how is this going to help the working class american get these cars. I laughed.

The working class doesn't need these cars, they need to be making these cars. Rich people spend money so the working class can actually afford to buy a decent lifestyle.


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By Reclaimer77 on 10/5/09, Rating: -1
RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By dark matter on 10/5/2009 9:21:48 AM , Rating: 3
Have you bothered to even read the article or are you too busy out front shooting your guns and going "yeeehaa"?


By scrapsma54 on 10/5/2009 9:27:59 AM , Rating: 2
I read the article, it just appears will still have gasoline powered fatheads in this country.


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By JasonMick (blog) on 10/5/2009 9:29:43 AM , Rating: 4
Tesla/Fisker are AMERICAN companies.

While they do business overseas that makes them no more or less American than GM/Chrysler.

Again, you're parroting the political rhetoric of Fox News, which is inaccurate. Tesla and Fisker are based in America, sell chiefly to America, and will -- with the help of these loans -- produce primarily in America.

You can argue other points (the validity of loaning them money, etc.), but there's no arguing that.


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By The0ne on 10/5/09, Rating: -1
RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By Iaiken on 10/5/2009 11:07:55 AM , Rating: 4
I work for a leading energy retailer (sorry, can't say who) but we are looking at strategic partnerships with many of the electric car manufacturers. Basically we are looking into the business of installing leased intelligent electric charging stations.

I have been to BOTH headquarters and I even got to tour the Tesla assembly plant in Menlo Park, California. They both pay US corporate tax on income in California.

YOU don't know what the hell you are talking about. Please stop believing and redistributing lies and kindly go to hell.


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By The0ne on 10/5/09, Rating: -1
RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By Reclaimer77 on 10/5/09, Rating: -1
RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By noirsoft on 10/5/2009 12:02:09 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
They are BASED oversees. How can a company that was created, founded, and has their headquarters in the UK be considered an American company ??

I don't understand, can somebody help me figure this out? Am I taking crazy pills or are you guys nuts/retarded...


You are taking crazy pills. Your statement that they are based overseas is incorrect. I point you to the article. First up, for Tesla:

quote:
international headquarters -- located in San Carlos, California.
See? based in CA. "International Headquarters" is where a company is based. "European Headquarters" is not.

Fisker:
quote:
Fisker's headquarters, though, is in Irvine, California.


See? Based in CA. While many idiots around here have an irrational hatred of the Golden State, it is still in the USA.


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By Reclaimer77 on 10/5/09, Rating: -1
By yomamafor1 on 10/5/2009 12:58:51 PM , Rating: 2
You must be pants on head retarded to not bother to look up on their website.

Fisker:
http://karma.fiskerautomotive.com/pages/company
quote:
Fisker Automotive is a green American premium sports car company with a mission to create a range of beautiful environmentally friendly cars that make environmental sense without compromise.


Tesla:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Motors
quote:
Tesla Motors Inc. is a Silicon Valley-based company that engineers and manufactures electric vehicles (EVs).


Seriously, stow your bias.


By mcnabney on 10/5/2009 12:11:10 PM , Rating: 2
They are not BASED overseas either.

Tesla has offices in the UK as well as the US because they have contracted with Lotus to assemble their roadster. The 'Big Three' weren't interested in building a competitor's car. Tesla is using these loans to build their own factory here in the US so they don't depend on Lotus or other competitors to assemble their products.


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By Reclaimer77 on 10/5/09, Rating: -1
RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By Reclaimer77 on 10/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By Iaiken on 10/5/2009 1:09:45 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently you skipped your history lessons...

The first petrol motor coaches were simply a curiosity piece and only the rich could afford them. It took decades to get them to the point where they could not only be be produced for the masses, but so that the masses could afford them.

The building of high-end electric vehicle is an intelligent business choice as it offers them immunity from the problems of mass market appeal and the continuity required to do the R&D that will put effective and affordable mass market electric vehicles on the road.

Electric vehicles right now are curiosity pieces that only the rich can afford. Give GM, Nissan, Tesla and Fisker a decade worth of lessons and competition driven design and innovation and who knows... One of them could create the Model T of our century.


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By Reclaimer77 on 10/5/2009 1:14:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The building of high-end electric vehicle is an intelligent business choice as it offers them immunity from the problems of mass market appeal and the continuity required to do the R&D that will put effective and affordable mass market electric vehicles on the road.


Intelligent business choices don't require government subsidies. Again, they are NOT a "green" company. They are out to maximize profit margins, not saving the planet.


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By Iaiken on 10/5/2009 2:07:25 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Intelligent business choices don't require government subsidies. Again, they are NOT a "green" company. They are out to maximize profit margins, not saving the planet.


Let's see... If I were running the company and all my completion is securing long-term low-cost loans from the government... I would be an idiot not to.

So yes, even the application and acceptance of the loan was an intelligent business choice on the part of Tesla management. They have a clearly marked out business strategy where they planned to start with the roaster, then move into luxury sedans (that's what the loan is actually for) and then again down to passenger cars in the future as they expand their line up. However, you have to start somewhere and the Roadster has become both a fiscal and PR success.

Where did I say anything about saving the planet? I was talking about building a sustainable company that designs, develops and sells awesome electric vehicles to the people who want them and can afford them.

You're not really good at this whole debating thing... :P


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By The0ne on 10/5/2009 4:27:27 PM , Rating: 2
You're pathetic in your arguments, really. From your stace that electric vehicles are "simply a curiusity piece and only the rich.." to

"I was talking about building a sustainable company that designs, develops and sells awesome electric vehicles to the people who want them and can afford them."

So what is your stance? Do you mean to say Telsa has a good plan moving forward? Does this include the mass layoffs, the late delivery of vehicles to customers, the acceptance of the loans to keep going, etc? And what is your vision of being electric? It appears you dislike it having to be cheap to produce and sell. Let me tell you, it doesn't have to cost an arm and leg to be electric. Of course you're not going to believe me or anyone else because those "awesome" 70k+ electrics are your thing. Or maybe your common sense comments should persuade us all to start a company and in order to make profit we should be starting with complex, costly products. Yea, concentrate on the 5% market share and forget about the rest.

And please don't try to sound smart with lines like "You're not really good at this whole debating thing... :P " If you don't know that there are several sides to an issue then you would do best to STFU.


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By Iaiken on 10/5/2009 5:53:42 PM , Rating: 2
Those were all teething problems.

Now you might not know this about business, but you can't just jump in and be large and in charge. You have to start somewhere and believe you me, companies like Lotus, Ferrari and now Tesla can be profitable. You can then stay small (like Ferrari) or you can put forward plans to grow like Fisker and Tesla have.

Both are footing plans to create electric luxury sedans at around the same $40,000 that the Volt will be entering. Appeal is a word you probably don't understand, but before you can enter a market with a product like this you need it to have a certain appeal to the people you are trying to sell it to.

In that vein, building an electric super car as your first car as both companies have done, was a smart move. There is a common misconception that electric cars cannot be performance vehicles and Tesla has set about stomping it out with a vengeance.

As for growth... the most likely culprit in the death of many companies is growing too big or too fast that you cannot be flexible and adaptive. Trying to tell me that a company that had NOTHING to do with the automotive industry until recently should come out of the gate like gangbusters with a full line of cars, trucks and SUV's is nothing short of stupid.


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By hyvonen on 10/6/2009 2:54:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And please don't try to sound smart with lines like "You're not really good at this whole debating thing... :P " If you don't know that there are several sides to an issue then you would do best to STFU.


What a pathetic response. Debating is about understanding both sides of the issue but defending one with strong (and usually logical) arguments. I don't think "STFU" is a strong argument.

I see two sides here, and you guys are completely losing the debate.


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By erple2 on 10/9/2009 5:38:15 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You know what Mick, seeing as how over half your articles here get ripped apart for being inaccurate, poorly edited, and terribly biased, I'll take my chances with Fox News thank you much.


Sigh. Really? You're just going to sit back and let someone with an agenda (be it Fox News, CNN, or Jason Mick) tell you what to believe? You're not going to actually do the research to help form your own opinion? You're just going to parrot what someone else says?

Then you, sir, are a moron. Do some research first. It's clear that there are at least 2 completely different sides to this issue. One group MUST be wrong (you can't be both an American Company and non-American company). Figure out the truth for yourself.

I'm sure you'll find a significant number of sources that claim Tesla and Fisker are American Companies (at least as American as Ford). You'll probably also find some other sources that claim otherwise. You'll have to do some research to determine which source is actually lying.


By Shandorn on 10/6/2009 4:13:33 AM , Rating: 1
Moron! Did you READ the article?! They are American companies based in California! The manufacturing of the Karma is done elsewhere because an American manufacturing company didn't see the profit upside.Tesla has sold out of it's initial product run and Fisker has had very strong sales as well. I've put my $5k down for one! Big oil needs to DIE. These two companies are just the beginning of that end.


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By Hiawa23 on 10/5/2009 8:47:38 AM , Rating: 4
The working or lower class doesn't need these cars. They need gas prices to be below $2/gallon, & desperately need some sort of energy plan to bring down the ridiculous prices we pay for energy, & need a reformed healthcare system.


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By Reclaimer77 on 10/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By lagitup on 10/5/2009 9:11:40 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
electric roasters for rich playboys.

Name me one new technology that hasn't had a (n at least relatively) high entry cost which drops over time. This is a futures investment: by pumping money into these companies DOE is hoping to push us up the learning curve and get some cheap electric vehicles.

quote:
we're giving almost a billion dollars of taxpayer money

Remind me again, how many dollars did GM get? The company that uses less American-made parts then Toyota? Oh yeah. That's what I thought.


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By Reclaimer77 on 10/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By mcnabney on 10/5/2009 12:16:45 PM , Rating: 2
You apparently know nothing about capitalism.

#1 - New technologies cost more
#2 - Things that cost more are purchased by people with more money
#3 - People with more money like to buy things that look expensive
#4 - New technologies show up on higher end products firt, but spread to the mainstream shortly after.

For example:
Airbags
ABS
Traction control
Side Curtain airbags

All of these safety features first appeared on higher end products, but can now be found as standard or as an option on all but the cheapest cards.


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By Reclaimer77 on 10/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By yomamafor1 on 10/5/2009 1:01:26 PM , Rating: 2
Last I checked, an EV capable of running 300 miles without recharging is new technology.


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By Reclaimer77 on 10/5/2009 1:05:25 PM , Rating: 2
Was that patented and developed by Tesla ?? Wtf relevance does that have with this discussion ??

You people are so dense light can't even escape you !


By eddieroolz on 10/5/2009 8:04:44 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, it in fact was Tesla that took the technology from one-of-a-kind university projects and put them in a relatively affordable $100k car.

I would say that you are the one living in a delusional fog being dense.


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By Maxima2k2se on 10/5/2009 12:35:12 PM , Rating: 1
Well said!


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By Reclaimer77 on 10/5/09, Rating: 0
By Maxima2k2se on 10/5/2009 6:34:26 PM , Rating: 1
You forgot MSNBC it TRUTH and the C linton N ews N etwork is THE BEST EVER, and ABC allows views from ALL SIDES!!!!!!!!!!!


By dark matter on 10/5/2009 9:17:49 AM , Rating: 3
Erm, the blatantly lied about the facts and yet you still have your head up your arse.

The media isn't supposed to do anything but make a profit to deliver to the shareholders, at least you I thought would have understood that!

I guess the money spent on educating you was a complete waste.


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By JoshuaBuss on 10/5/2009 12:19:07 PM , Rating: 2
how much was spent on the war again?


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By Reclaimer77 on 10/5/2009 12:25:22 PM , Rating: 1
About a 10'th over a period of 8 years than Obmama has spent in his first 90 days.


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By Chernobyl68 on 10/5/2009 1:26:42 PM , Rating: 3
money that Bush signed for.


By Reclaimer77 on 10/5/2009 6:26:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
money that Bush signed for.


And practically all of congress, but hey, don't let me bring facts into your bashing.


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By Reclaimer77 on 10/5/09, Rating: -1
RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By dark matter on 10/5/2009 9:19:12 AM , Rating: 3
Mick is doing something called "rationalising" and "putting into perspective". Something you so desperately need to do yourself. Wipe your mouth, your frothing.


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By Reclaimer77 on 10/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By Iaiken on 10/5/2009 1:17:58 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Maybe I'm just another 'dumb right winger'


You guessed it! :D


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By rtrski on 10/5/2009 2:41:23 PM , Rating: 1
He's also doing so inaccurately, lumping together the "bailout" funds with the "green initiative" funds.

But hey, its not like any one money pot is politically 'pure'...and it all came out of the pockets of the minority of US citizens who are actually paying net taxes.

No, I don't consider either pot in this case to be a good way to spend my money. But then I'm only asked once every couple years what I think, and even then my voice is practically gerrymandered out of mattering....


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By eddieroolz on 10/5/2009 7:14:41 PM , Rating: 2
GM makes most of your parts in Mexico or Asia.
Chrysler, ditto.
Ford, not as much but still significantly outsources.

Tesla makes almost 100% of their cars in the US.

If anything, Tesla should've been given the $30-billion cash and GM left to die.


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By knutjb on 10/5/2009 8:12:21 PM , Rating: 1
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,556330,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,547987,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/26/gore-ba...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125383160812639013...

If you would have READ these articles you would find they point out Tesla's $109,000 roadster IS built in the UK by Lotus then Tesla installs the sparks. They have do not have any other car for sale at this time. You can place a deposit on the 4 door for 49,900 for 2012. http://www.teslamotors.com/buy/buyshowroom.php

Fisker has PLANS to build cars in the US but that car is on the drawing board. The Karma might be delivered in 2010.http://karma.fiskerautomotive.com/pages/preorder

The reason they are under scrutiny is there are questions whether or not Al Gore had improper influence with the DOE on the loans. Several companies who have received one page rejection letters short on detail are wondering.

Where are either Fisker's or Tesla's currently available cars manufactured? Who cares, this IS a waste of my money no matter who gets it. This is venture capital's business not Uncle Sams.

Maybe if you left wing wackos had read the original articles you could have made intelligent comments.


By Reclaimer77 on 10/5/2009 8:46:18 PM , Rating: 2
^^
Win


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By Hiawa23 on 10/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By surfer on 10/5/2009 10:01:54 AM , Rating: 5
Why does anyone want the government providing money for ANY of these private companies? Don't you understand where that leads? There is no free lunch, you take government money you are essentially owned by them - they will influence you into bankruptcy.

Venture capitalists...this is their job not the governments.

Remember every dollar spent by the government is money taken out of your pocket, your childen's pockets, etc. We are so far in debt now it makes absolutely NO SENSE that the government is spending any money on anything EXCEPT that absolute essentials.

People lack the perspective of what is happening...take a look at this website - it should make it pretty clear to you:

http://usdebtclock.org/

BTW...since when has a government investment into a business enterprise ever worked? USPS, Amtrack, Social Security, Medicare, literally every "company" that the government has ever bailed out, invested in has become an anchor around the taxpayer's neck. WAKE UP TAXPAYERS!!!


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By Murst on 10/5/2009 11:14:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
BTW...since when has a government investment into a business enterprise ever worked?

Boeing and Halliburton seem to be doing pretty well. Chase and Wells Fargo (and most other major banks that received TARP funds) aren't doing too shabby either.


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By surfer on 10/5/2009 12:04:02 PM , Rating: 2
You are kidding right?

Boeing and Haliburton got contracts, not a government take-over and of course they received contracts through corruption so how does that make it better?

Guess you haven't seen the news today on the banks that received TARP...we were lied to by Paulson and Bernanke about the solvency of the institutions when we gave them money. - and they should have been allowed to go out of business - that is what happens when you let greed determine your destiny.

What about the 90% of the rest of the economy that is small business? Do you want to bail all of them out as well?

It can't be done and shouldn't be done. If you take any business that is losing $10 billion dollars and give them $10 billion dollars they are going to look better on paper but guess what they haven't solved the problem which got them there in the first place? How do you think that will be solved? Oh yeah...wait a second...Barney Frank wants to create yet another housing bubble...OMG...wake up.


By Oregonian2 on 10/5/2009 2:47:28 PM , Rating: 2
Don't you know that if a Republican led US government buys anything from a domestic company that it's only due to corruption? Only foreign companies are pure and clean with no corruption, so unless all purchases by the US government are foreign based, then something is definitely wrong (at least during Republican years).


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By Murst on 10/5/2009 2:54:25 PM , Rating: 2
You asked about government investment into a private business. I think you'll find it hard to argue that the gov't didn't invest in Boeing and Halliburton. I provided you with examples. If that is not what you intended to ask, then whose fault is that?

I haven't seen any particularly bad news about the banks that received TARP. Could you point me to it? Cause last thing I heard was the JP Morgan Chase had a $2.7B quarterly profit, and Wells Fargo had a profit of almost $2.6B... and that's after paying dividends. I don't see how you can define that as poor performance.


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By Spuke on 10/5/2009 7:23:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I haven't seen any particularly bad news about the banks that received TARP.
There was some news recently that these institutions were failing when the TARP money was given to them. The public was told, at the time, that they were solvent.


By Reclaimer77 on 10/5/2009 8:48:52 PM , Rating: 2
We were also told they were "too big to fail", so weather they were solvent or not doesn't seem to matter. The bailouts were gonna be rammed through no matter what. As if we ever had a choice in it.

I really lost all respect for Bush when he did that. I don't hate him, and I thank him for doing his best to keep my family and country safe, but politically he drank the 'Lib Koolaid far too many times.


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By surfer on 10/6/2009 12:03:27 AM , Rating: 2
Point is the following:

Government investment into private companies could work if the companies are solvent and they are not trying act like a venture capitalist.

In regard to Boeing, and other defense contractors a lot of investment is probably required because of the nature of the developments.

On the other hand bailing out failing businesses under the guise of investment is a sham. The examples I gave Amtrak, USPS were failing and going out of business and the government stepped in and bailed them out through investment - those business lose billions annually.

In regard to the banks...they show a couple billion in profit...well darn I would hope so they received many billions in TARP...they better show a profit...the truth is without TARP these banks would be gone (they were not solvent when TARP was applied - we were lied to). Look at the bailout for GM...cost...$300k per job saved - before layoffs...what is that all about? The ROI just isn't there.

In regard to this blog posting...the government shouldn't be making these investments right now.

You will see this economy is about to implode - it is a house of cards and we are not being told the truth on what is happening. Just wait until the international players knock out the dollar as the standard currency...


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By The0ne on 10/5/2009 4:34:06 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, some banks, if not all, are doing well now. Hmm, could it be that they are raising interest rates, reducing the limit, over-charging fees, etc. Well, I don't know about you but I have letters from BoA and Americanexpress saying so.

Yea, 21% interest, they aren't going down for sure. And that's from me being a bad...oh wait, I've have no issues at all so why the raise. It's because they can. They're getting our tax money to help them and they're still digging more from us! Fck the banks, rather fck the bastards who are making these decisions.


By ChristopherO on 10/5/2009 4:06:51 PM , Rating: 3
You're forgetting something huge that contradicts many arguments along the lines of what you (and many others) suggest.

quote:
Why does anyone want the government providing money for ANY of these private companies?


The problem is that most successful American companies today, started in an era when there was *no corporate tax*. So who cares if two highly intelligent start-ups get either tax breaks or reasonable loans? Personally I'd rather give new industries a tax break, but that's just me. How many of our mega-corporations wouldn't exist if they had to start their businesses in a day of punitive taxation?

I have no idea how financially sound these car companies are, but if they're worthwhile, they deserve a chance to make an industry. They've also received a lot of private financing too, because individual investors also found them to be attractive. However, in order to take it to the next level, they need money that's hard to find during this economy... Let them build their factories now, because by the time everything is operational, hopefully the recession will be over and people can afford their products. The best R&D is typically done in a recession, because then consumers are hungry for new products when the money starts flowing again. I also have more faith that these companies can repay their loans (like a lot of the TARP banks), than I do GM/Chrysler.

Regarding FOX, as much as I like Special Report with Bret Bair (hard news show, no celebs, missing kids, sports, etc), they do sensationalize a lot on other programs. I didn't see the original report so I don't know if it's as bad as Mick suggests... But come on... 2 minutes of background checking would have revealed that these companies were started here, have R&D here, have American CEOs, patents, incorporation, etc, etc.

All the news outlets tend to be sensational, but most stories tend to spot glaring problems. I like reading TV Newser (an inside the media blog), because they routinely highlight stuff like this (from any source). I don't blame the networks for making a mistake, but the cable ones seem to be the worst repeat-offenders since they have 24 hours to fill.


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By mars2k on 10/5/2009 11:00:29 AM , Rating: 5
Yes Fox "News" is retarded. Further, their viewers are retarded as well. No human being capable of critical thinking can watch "Fox and Fiends" for 5 minutes and not see that.
They are not a news channel they are an entertainment channel. The wierd part is that so many people find that right wing clap trap entertaining.


By Oregonian2 on 10/5/2009 2:55:02 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, which show makes a big difference on Fox news. Hannity drive me insane because he's the ultimate spinmaster. Can't stand him. But he's on right after Bill Oreilly's show which is very non-spin and straight-up and a show I like very much. Very very different and shows that are one after another.

FoxNews isn't a continuous news broadcast like HNN, it has a lot of different shows with different styles like a broadcast network (plus they do have 'straight' news in the morning -- just not all day). Many of their shows are that of individuals (and are so named).


By mikefarinha on 10/5/2009 11:37:05 AM , Rating: 1
Ummm... so you're saying that it's ok for American tax payers to back loans to non-American companies? How does this relate to free market principals again?


By OnyxNite on 10/5/2009 12:30:47 PM , Rating: 2
The fact that a company is not American is only a sticking point if the company receives Federal Funds. A lot of people aren't real keen right now with the idea of the government giving American tax payers money to foreign companies with the economy as it is.


By Oregonian2 on 10/5/2009 2:17:03 PM , Rating: 2
Fox is generally critical of the US government spending a great deal of money on auto companies -- including being critical of government actions (spending taxpayer money) supporting GM and Chrysler. Something about trillions of debt (in like just one year) and getting worse.


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By NA1NSXR on 10/5/2009 3:06:31 PM , Rating: 1
THey are not against free markets, they are against American subsidy of foreign entities, a fact which still stands even though this blurb tries to somehow make it right by saying these entities help American competitiveness by having a large or otherwise most of their presence here. This post is retarded to be frank. I am the Fisker equivalent in another kind of product in China and I sure don't get funding (directly, anyways) from the Chinese government. They are an ethical mess but at least they know sending money overseas to solidify a future company drawing income from their country in exchange for a handful of jobs doesn't pay off.

Whoever wrote this on DailyTech is probably just naive rather than dumb.


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By ZachDontScare on 10/5/2009 3:18:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why is the fact that Tesla may not be an American company a sticking point?

I believe its due to these companies being subsidized by american taxpayers. That Gore, an ex-VP, has a big stake in one makes it even more questionable.

Also, Colin Powell is not a conservative. He endorsed Obama. Just saying.


By adiposity on 10/5/2009 6:37:35 PM , Rating: 2
But McCain is not a conservative. So Powell's endorsement may not be about "politics".

-Dan


RE: News Flash Fox News is Retarded
By pjs on 10/5/2009 11:53:14 PM , Rating: 2
Jeeeeez, it's Fox "news" so what do you expect?


What YOU don't get
By elmikethemike on 10/5/2009 8:58:03 AM , Rating: 2
First of all: This is "Cable News" news. In other words, it's news nobody really gives a shit about. News that won't be covered outside of the internet and cable. All it does is give people something to whine about and cry about and nothing more. It's meaningless. Period.

Secondly, I understand a lot of people dislike Fox News and that's fine. But for those that do: You do realize that all Fox is doing is presenting a different point of view than what you typically get on CNN and MSNBC, right?

What is the harm in that? The other two networks are chock full of leftist, liberal, and ridiculous commentators just like Fox. But you rip on FNC as if it's the most biased news organization on the planet while accepting people like Olbermann as the second coming on your station of choice. Really people, get over yourselves.

It's a ridiculous double standard and if you thought about it for a second, you'd see that.

Cable news is unimportant. Those people really don't matter and they don't have nearly as much influence as you seem to think. Same goes for conservative talk radio.




RE: What YOU don't get
By FITCamaro on 10/5/2009 10:44:47 AM , Rating: 1
Great post.

Fox News is bashed as being "extreme" and "out there" all the time. But when CNN and MSNBC goes on the air and calls a good majority of the American people stupid and racists for not being on board with universal health care, they're mainstream. Not to mention their horrid coverage of things like the tea parties. Attacking those who attended and completely ignoring them when they try to speak.


RE: What YOU don't get
By room200 on 10/5/2009 11:31:10 AM , Rating: 3
Fox News is bashed as being "extreme" and "out there" all the time. But when CNN and MSNBC goes on the air and calls a good majority of the American people stupid and racists for not being on board with universal health care, they're mainstream. Not to mention their horrid coverage of things like the tea parties. Attacking those who attended and completely ignoring them when they try to speak.

A good majority? According to whom? All recent polls indicate that the majority of Americans are for a public option. I know you may not like it, but it's the truth. A few phony grassroots idiot shouting down discussion doesn't change that fact. Obama said he was for universal healthcare when he ran, and the majority of Americans put him in office based on those ideas. You may not like it, but you can't try to revise history. Furthermore, Fox News promoted the teaparties they didn't just "cover" them. And those people didn't "try to speak". They tried to keep anyone else from speaking.


RE: What YOU don't get
By elmikethemike on 10/5/2009 11:47:22 AM , Rating: 2
Where are you getting your poll information from? Are you just making it up to prove your point?

A majority of Americans are absolutely not in favor of a public option.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/pol...

As far as the tea parties - If Fox News promoted them, then folks on MSNBC trumpeted them as all being racist. Once again, you're only seeing things from your POV and utterly FAILING at seeing anyone else's. Everyone else is wrong, and clearly you are right.../sarcasm. Please, give me a break.


RE: What YOU don't get
By room200 on 10/5/2009 12:53:06 PM , Rating: 4
The same place you're getting yours and other sources also (not just theones that support my position). There have been many polls favoring the public option, but here's a look at the poll you referenced (whiched is heavily skewed):

A perfect example is provided by recent polling from Rasmussen and CBS on the public option. CBS puts support for the public option at 65%. Rasmussen meanwhile puts support at just 35% for the public option. Is it really possible for either organization (with decent reputations) to be off by 30% in their projections?

The answer is no. A closer look at each poll reveals two main reasons why the results differ so greatly.

First the survey sample for each poll is significantly different. Rasmussen's poll includes only "likely voters" which excludes more lower incomes individuals and Democrats who support the public option but may not vote. The CBS poll is a telephone survey of all citizens not just "likely voters" which will naturally increase the amount of people who support the public option.

While the survey population helps to explain the results an even more important factor can be found in the wording of the questions. CBS ask their audience about the public option with the following question:

"Would you favor or oppose government offering everyone a government-administered health insurance plan like Medicare that would compete with private insurance?"

Compare that question with the Rasmussen question which asks:

"Would it be a good idea to set up a government health insurance company to compete with private health insurance companies?"

The CBS poll is clearly more friendly to public option in asking about government offering a "plan" which is "like Medicare" to "compete with private insurance." The idea of a "plan" is much more acceptable than government setting up a "company" under the Rasmussen poll. In addition Medicare is a relatively popular program so setting up a "plan" like Medicare would increase support among many survey participants including seniors.

So what can we conclude from these polls? Like most things in politics the rejection or acceptance of an idea largely depends on who you ask and the wording of the question. Whether the public option is supported by a majority of Americans depends largely on whether you believe government is setting up a "plan like Medicare" or a "company."


RE: What YOU don't get
By nct on 10/5/2009 6:29:26 PM , Rating: 2
While I understand and appreciate your point, if someone isn't planning to vote then why would I give a damn about their opinion?


RE: What YOU don't get
By room200 on 10/5/2009 8:59:30 PM , Rating: 3
Because many of those same people who don't vote may all of a sudden turn out in droves (doesn't mean they'll NEVER vote). Barack Obama anyone?


RE: What YOU don't get
By surfer on 10/6/2009 12:07:14 AM , Rating: 2
Well unfortunately you forget one major point...

Rasmussen has a track record of being the most accurate in reporting public opinion.

CBS...well how many times have their polls been showed to be skewed planted with many people that support the issue being polled.

Likely voters is key because the people that are going to vote on any public option are going to have to face the likely voters in 2010. Mark my words anyone that votes in a public option will be voted out in 2010.

We need to stop creating victims in this country and we need to help people get on their feet and achieve something. Healthcare with a public option will destroy this country - it hasn't worked anywhere else.


RE: What YOU don't get
By adiposity on 10/5/2009 6:41:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As far as the tea parties - If Fox News promoted them, then folks on MSNBC trumpeted them as all being racist. Once again, you're only seeing things from your POV and utterly FAILING at seeing anyone else's. Everyone else is wrong, and clearly you are right.../sarcasm. Please, give me a break.


Well, isn't there a difference between stating an opinion about a protest, and actually organizing the protest and then reporting on the protest as if it were an independent gathering?

Not that I support accusing protestors of being racist. I am no fan of MSNBC. But for the equivalent, MSNBC would have had to hire a bunch of black people who showed and said, "this is really racist!" and then said, "many who saw the protest felt it was racist, as seen here in the counter protest we organized."

-Dan


RE: What YOU don't get
By FITCamaro on 10/5/2009 12:34:27 PM , Rating: 1
Actually during the election he said he was not for a public option(lying as he did so). He even admitted that he changed his mind. Nevermind that he'd been on record of being for a single payer system for years.

He told people what they wanted to hear and they bought it.


RE: What YOU don't get
By room200 on 10/5/2009 12:55:58 PM , Rating: 1
Whether the words used were "public option", "choice", "single payer", it all amounts to trying to control the outrageous growth of healthcare costs in this country while healthcare corporations deny healthcare and make billions doing it.


RE: What YOU don't get
By Oregonian2 on 10/5/2009 2:29:26 PM , Rating: 2
Out of curiosity, who exactly is profiting those billions, and what percentage of revenue are those billions (company grossing a million and profiting a million is ripping folk off, while a company grossing a billion and profiting a million is in danger of having to do layoffs). Also, how is that specific company denying healthcare?

Note that I had cancer surgery a couple months ago and have a lung surgery coming up later this week, so I have particular interest.


RE: What YOU don't get
By room200 on 10/5/2009 4:42:25 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry to hear about your condition. You should just pray that you never have to change jobs so that you have to switch insurance companies. Because of your "preexisting condition", other insurers will likely not cover you. I suffer congestive heart failure. I can't get long term disbility and I can't afford to lose my job because I won't be able to get coverage. Here's a story that appeared just today at Huffington Post (a liberal website).

Dawn Smith, Brain Tumor Victim: How Her Story Became Rallying Cry For Health Care Reform Supporters

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/05/dawn-smit...

The past few years of Dawn Smith's life have been a medical nightmare turned around only when her story became a rallying cry for health care reform.

Four years ago, the Georgia native was diagnosed with a benign brain tumor. Her problems were as much bureaucratic as medical -- Smith's insurer, CIGNA, declined to cover the costs associated with going to an out-of-network epilepsy center. Without more innovative testing and treatment, she was left with crippling head pains.

Her saving grace was her political symbolism. After months of reaching out fruitlessly to her representatives in Washington, the progressive action group MoveOn.org sent word of her story to its massive email list. Pressured to act, CIGNA agreed days later to cover tests for Smith at the fabled Cleveland Clinic.

It was a much-needed break. But it didn't fully get rid of the red tape. Last week, Smith received a call from a CIGNA representative telling her that the co-pay on her anti-epileptic medicine was being jacked up by more than $3,000 a year. "I was knocked to the floor," she told the Huffington Post. "When they told me I'd have to get another medicine -- in this matter-of-fact-type tone -- I just started crying."

With no personal income to cover her costs, Smith once again was saved through the intervention of a third party. Hours after reporters began questioning CIGNA's latest move, the insurance company brought the drug price back to its original level. The mistake, it said, was made by Smith's doctor who misfiled the prescription.

"I think that it is fair to say that we were unaware of the issue until we started to hear about it through Twitter and blogs," said Christopher Curran, a CIGNA spokesperson.
"We have been in contact with both Ms. Smith and her physician and have corrected the inaccuracy. Customer service and satisfaction is important to us, we remain committed to working with our customers and physicians to ensure they receive the highest level of service."

Depending on one's particular disposition, Dawn Smith is either the saddest tale of someone who finally caught a bit of good luck or the fortunate tale of someone whose life has been defined by suffering and sadness. The last few years of her life, she told the Huffington Post, have been an unmitigated horror: her brain tumor, while benign, was discovered in the worst possible location - the Parieto-occipital fissure - leaving her riddled with what she describes as "electric-shock-like head pains"

CIGNA covered Smith's brain biopsy and medication. But for two years it declined her request for the more specialized treatment, which would have required her to leave the Atlanta area. Smith's life became increasingly unglued. Confined mostly to her home and unable to recruit clients or handle more detailed subject matter, her career as a freelance writer stalled.
This past spring, CIGNA increased her monthly rate from $366.75 to $753.47. Forced to pay more the higher rate, things grew even worse. Smith said she went months without getting a bump on her breast checked out by her gynecologist for fear of the cost. It ended up being benign.

Her condition forced her to use her dead grandmother's wheelchair to get around. For Christmas last year, her mother got her a walker. She was 33-years-old.

"It's not normal that that's what my mother got me as a gift," she recalled. "This was all so avoidable. If they had just let me go to Cleveland Clinic in the first place I wouldn't have had to exhaust all my savings, I wouldn't have had to give up all my dreams. I wouldn't have had to give up my right to make a living. And I wouldn't be sitting here in pain everyday."

And yet, there was an element of serendipity to Smith's story -- her suffering made a compelling case for health care reform. The broader objective of passing legislation and the narrower objective of getting her well again aligned. Smith was already doing her best to attract political attention, writing notes to her members of Congress and even the president multiple times a month. Early in the year, she posted a diary on the website of Barack Obama's campaign arm, Organizing for America.

"Your administration brings citizens' stories to the forefront," she wrote, in a note addressed to the White House. "I also challenge you to make our stories the concern of policymakers and insurance providers."

Her breakthrough came in early September when she submitted her story to MoveOn for the group's use in a web advertisement. It was adopted for the spot and, ten days later, MoveOn highlighted it again in an email to its members. The ball began rolling. Hours after the email was sent out, a nurse from CIGNA's Catastrophic Case Department called Smith to tell her that the insurance company was reversing course. Too shocked to discuss the details of her new treatment, she asked her to call back after the weekend.

Though CIGNA had changed its policy, MoveOn kept applying the pressure. A week later it sent a follow-up email, this time featuring a video of Smith asking her insurer for an explanation for their years of denied coverage. Four days later, CIGNA informed Smith that her co-pay for the medicine she had been taking for four years was going up from $10 every two-and-a-half months to $1,115. The decision, the insurer told Smith, had come from the member services department. CIGNA didn't have further information.

"I called back," Smith recalled, "because I wanted to make sure they would not bill me for those prescriptions. It would have wiped out my credit account. I couldn't afford the medication."

CIGNA, which corrected the price increase several hours after being contacted by the Huffington Post, insists that there was nothing retributive about what happened. The insurer's spokesperson, Curran, said that Smith's doctor had filled out a prescription for a more specific prescription drug. Once alerted to the error, it was corrected.

"We went and filled it based on what the doctor ordered (as we do not get between the doctor and patient in terms)," he emailed. "Once we heard it was an issue we reached out to both the doctor and Ms. Smith to find out what the inaccuracy was and corrected it after speaking to both of them."

For Smith, however, the latest problem with CIGNA seemed more than coincidental. After all, she had been taking the same prescription drug at the same price for years. Often her doctor would fill out the form without specifying "brand name needed."....
you can read the rest here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/05/dawn-smit...

snipped



RE: What YOU don't get
By MrBlastman on 10/5/2009 5:10:32 PM , Rating: 2
While her story is tragic and Cigna has acted quite dastardly, I wonder if she had an HMO-type plan versus a PPO one. A PPO plan will undoubtedly give far more choice as to what physician you see and where you seek to obtain that treatment at.

While I agree reform is needed--it is, I still feel that having public health insurers is a better way to go. I feel that if they do pass a bill to provides some reform, hopefully it would be in the form of regulating the insurers and making it a fairer system for all, without socializing it into the Government.

A good start would be to remove the pre-existing condition clauses which are a joke. Thankfully in Georgia we have a law that requires all insurers to insure you for the pre-existing condition if you switch jobs as long as there is zero lapse in coverage. What this means is, if you are laid off you have to go on COBRA immediately until you obtain employment. At that point, your new employers insurer would be required by law to cover your condition without making you wait a whole year before it is covered.

This alone would help a great deal of people.


RE: What YOU don't get
By Oregonian2 on 10/9/2009 1:27:26 PM , Rating: 2
Note: It's worse than you might imagine,my insurance is on COBRA (and I'm actually in the hospital now where the lung surgery brought out cancer -- I'm not the happiest of campers). They've free 'G' wifi hospital-wide.


RE: What YOU don't get
By Reclaimer77 on 10/5/2009 2:40:20 PM , Rating: 2
If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait till the government makes it "free"...


RE: What YOU don't get
By adiposity on 10/5/2009 6:45:39 PM , Rating: 2
When did Obama say he didn't support a public option?

I thought he said he didn't support single-payer.

Help me out here, I really don't remember, do you have a quote?

-Dan


RE: What YOU don't get
By Iaiken on 10/5/2009 1:58:00 PM , Rating: 2
Let's pull up the World Health Organization's healthcare assessment of modern nations:

http://www.who.int/whr/2008/whr08_en.pdf

I believe this line says it all:

quote:
The persistent under-performance of the United States health sector across domains of health outcomes, quality, access, efficiency and equity, explains opinion polls that show increasing consensus of the notion of government intervention to secure more equitable access to essential health care.

A more effective public sector stewardship of
the health sector is, thus, justified on the grounds
of greater efficiency and equity.This crucial stewardship
role is often misinterpreted as a mandate
for centralized planning and complete administrative
control of the health sector.


In the last WHO report card in 2000 the United States of America ranked 37th an average grade of D. This despite the fact that it had the highest expenditure per capita on both medical care and drugs. Worse yet, practically all of the 36 nations that ranked higher than them offer universal health care. Even Turkey, Columbia, Chile, and Morocco were able to beat out the US in overall care and accessibility... That's embarrassing...


RE: What YOU don't get
By Steve1981 on 10/5/2009 3:14:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Worse yet, practically all of the 36 nations that ranked higher than them offer universal health care.


Of course they did. If you noticed, the WHO values universal and equal access to health care. Therefore, nations that offer a universal health care plan are going to rank higher. At the end of the day though, the best care in the US is easily the equal of the best care you can obtain anywhere else in the world. Then again, perhaps you'd opt to have a procedure in Columbia over the Mayo Clinic???

Of course, I personally have as much interest in a universal health care plan as I do being told how loud I can listen to music, what kind of food I can eat, how much I need to exercise, how much alcohol I can consume, whether or not I can smoke, etc. That is to say, I'm not interested in a universal health care plan for the simple matter that those details that I have sole dominion over now will be up for public debate because the public is going to be paying for my care.


RE: What YOU don't get
By jRaskell on 10/5/2009 3:32:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even Turkey, Columbia, Chile, and Morocco were able to beat out the US in overall care and accessibility... That's embarrassing...


Stress on the word overall. I seriously doubt ANY of those, or the other 36 countries, are able to beat out MY accessibility and quality of healthcare.

And there's also the fact that the US is easily the most litigious country in the entire world, and that seriously inflates the cost of healthcare in this country. Just ask any Dr. how much they pay in malpractice insurance, and that cost extends to every single Hospital, medical equipment supplier, and pharmaceutical company as well.

The US is NOT Canada. We're NOT England. We are definitely NOT Turkey, Columbia, Chile, or Morocco.


RE: What YOU don't get
By Reclaimer77 on 10/5/2009 3:53:40 PM , Rating: 2
I can't believe people are still quoting the WHO report when it has been rebutted over and over again for being not accurate and biased against the US.

We have the best healthcare in the world. Period.


RE: What YOU don't get
By Iaiken on 10/5/2009 4:20:46 PM , Rating: 2
Tell me that again after you die of cancer while waiting on HMO approval.

And no, you don't... Japan does. :P


RE: What YOU don't get
By Reclaimer77 on 10/5/2009 5:07:39 PM , Rating: 2
Are you an idiot ??

HMO's almost don't even exist anymore in this country because they were bad. And guess what ? The government didn't decide HMO's would go away, the FREE MARKET decided.

quote:
Tell me that again after you die of cancer while waiting months for MRI's, appointments, and other procedures readily available in the US


There I fixed your statement. That actually happens in Canada and other "free" healthcare systems.


RE: What YOU don't get
By adiposity on 10/5/2009 7:03:15 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.benico.com/newsroom/news/300-hmos-lose-...

13.6% is a bit better than "not existing," but your point is taken.

-Dan


RE: What YOU don't get
By eddieroolz on 10/5/2009 7:51:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Tell me that again after you die of cancer while waiting months for MRI's, appointments, and other procedures readily available in the US


Except that we have it for free and the US has it for more than a fair price to pay. Usually in the tens of thousands for something we can get for free here.

Ultimately, if you just don't have the funds, then the Canadian system will be superior, just because it can cover everyone and get them treated within a year.

Though I must say that all the illegal immigrants are weighing our system down. It needs reform, much like your sysetm in the US.


RE: What YOU don't get
By Reclaimer77 on 10/5/2009 8:37:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Except that we have it for free and the US has it for more than a fair price to pay. Usually in the tens of thousands for something we can get for free here.


It's not free. You pay for it, dear lord do you pay for it...


RE: What YOU don't get
By Iaiken on 10/8/2009 11:00:58 AM , Rating: 2
Yes,

We pay for it, but ironically our system has a lower total cost of ownership per capita than the US system because there is a reason to keep costs down.

In the US system, there is NO reason to keep costs down because you have a captive market. Costs rise and the providers simply pass the buck.

One of my aunts recently accepted a $400k/year job as a dietitian in California... and even SHE thinks that the pay is beyond ridiculous.


RE: What YOU don't get
By room200 on 10/5/2009 5:00:29 PM , Rating: 2
There has been no link whatsoever showing a link between the cost of healtcare and doctors practicing "defensive medicine" or any relationship between "frivolous lawsuits" and the cost of healthcare.
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/...

A recent study found no link whatsoever between the defensive medicine and the cost of healthcare. Case in point, Texas revamped limited liabitlity to $250,000 in medical malpractice cases. Frivolous lawsuits dropped drastically. What about the ordering of medical tests? There has been no change in the number of tests ordered by doctors.
http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2009/09/24/opin...

Further, big hospitals are always protected while the little guy gets shafted. When the hospital injures you, they are not required to immediately disclose to you the malpractice of the doctor. Why do you think that is?


RE: What YOU don't get
By Steve1981 on 10/5/2009 5:06:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There has been no link whatsoever showing a link between the cost of healtcare and doctors practicing "defensive medicine" or any relationship between "frivolous lawsuits" and the cost of healthcare.


http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/10/news/economy/healt...

quote:
Doctors ordering tests or procedures not based on need but concern over liability or increasing their income is the biggest waste of health care dollars, costing the system at least $210 billion a year, according to the report. The problem is called "defensive medicine."

"Sometimes the motivation is to avoid malpractice suits, or to make more money because they are compensated more for doing more," said Dr. Arthur Garson, provost of the University of Virginia and former dean of its medical school. "Many are also convinced that doing more tests is the right thing to do."


Seems like somebody managed to find a link.


RE: What YOU don't get
By room200 on 10/5/2009 8:57:16 PM , Rating: 2
You have to read deeper into your own references (from the link explaining defensive medicine within that article you referenced:

Pricing fear: Still, the effects of defensive medicine aren't easy to quantify. Estimates vary vastly.

"Each doctor has a very different risk profile," said Dr. David Chin, managing partner of consulting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers' Global Healthcare Research Institute. "If one doctor asks for an additional test, it's not always because they are practicing defensive medicine."

The Congressional Budget Office, the federal agency that will calculate how much money health reform will cost or save, has estimated that medical malpractice costs -- which include defensive medicine -- amount to less than 2% of overall health care spending.

Chin said his guess is in line with the CBO's number.

Michael Morrisey, a professor of health economics and health insurance at the University of Alabama's Lister Hill Center for Health Policy, is also skeptical about defensive medicine's impact on health care costs. He said states that have capped malpractice claims haven't seen any significant decreases in health care costs or heath insurance premiums.

"To me, the three biggest challenges for health care reform are tax treatment of employer-sponsored insurance, retooling health care payment systems and technological advancement in health care," said Morrisey.


Further, the argument has also been made that doctors paid in a fee for service scheme order more test because it ends up netting them larger fees in their own paychecks.

Here is a link to an independent study:

http://www.nber.org/s/search?q=malpractice&client=...

First, we find that increases in malpractice payments made on behalf of physicians do not seem to be the driving force behind increases in premiums. Second, increases in malpractice costs (both premiums overall and the subcomponent factors) do not seem to affect the overall size of the physician workforce, although they may deter marginal entry, increase marginal exit, and reduce the rural physician workforce. Third, there is little evidence of increased use of many treatments in response to malpractice liability at the state level, although there may be some increase in screening procedures such as mammography.

Try Again


RE: What YOU don't get
By Steve1981 on 10/5/2009 9:18:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Try Again


Why?

As you noted:

quote:
Estimates vary vastly.


I have no doubts that other studies would find different results. But to say that no links have been found between defensive medicine and health care costs is an outright lie.

On the same page:

quote:
Consumer impact: Redundant tests can pump up premiums for the insured. "Consumers' premiums could be 10% lower if doctors stopped this practice," Woodward said.

From a medical standpoint, excessive tests can also be harmful to patients if errors or complications occur, said Dr. Manish Sethi, a member of the MMS' board of trustees and co-author of a 2008 study that investigates and quantifies defensive practices in Massachusetts.

The MMS surveyed more than 830 physicians across eight specialty areas in the state and found 83% reported practicing defensive medicine at an estimated cost of $1.4 billion per year.


10% in consumer premiums might not be much on an individual basis I suppose, but system wide, its huge (probably about 210 billion, if we say that the revenues of the health care system come from insurance premiums, which is largely true).

I mean heck, 1.4 Billion per year in Massachusetts alone is nothing to sneeze at.

quote:
Second, increases in malpractice costs (both premiums overall and the subcomponent factors) do not seem to affect the overall size of the physician workforce, although they may deter marginal entry, increase marginal exit, and reduce the rural physician workforce.


Yeah, those aren't bad things either...


RE: What YOU don't get
By Steve1981 on 10/5/2009 9:20:49 PM , Rating: 2
To add a bit more from the page...

quote:
Woodward disagreed. He ranks defensive medicine as the second-biggest burden on health care costs after the fee-for-service model in which doctors are paid for the quantity, rather than the quality, of services provided.

Woodward estimates that defensive medicine accounts for about 10% of health care costs. Some industry studies have translated that to more than $100 billion in health care costs annually.

"We are driving the standard of care more and more in the defensive direction," he said. "Physicians are practicing maximalist medicine rather than optimalist care.

Woodward defines optimalist care as everyone getting high-quality care, when they need it, in a cost-effective way.

He said the uninsured are getting "minimalist" care while insured Americans are getting maximalist care, or more than what they need from doctors due to fear of liability, the fee-for-service payment model and direct-to-consumer advertising.


RE: What YOU don't get
By Steve1981 on 10/5/2009 9:21:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Defensive medicine occurs when a doctor orders tests or procedures not based on need but concern over liability, explained Dr. Alan Woodward, former president of the Massachusetts Medical Society (MMS) and vice chairman of its committee on professional liability.


Sounds like he'll do as an adequate source for the purposes of this discussion.


RE: What YOU don't get
By room200 on 10/5/2009 11:03:46 PM , Rating: 2
Anecdotal. Point to a reliable, independent study.


RE: What YOU don't get
By Steve1981 on 10/5/2009 11:06:06 PM , Rating: 2
You must have missed...

quote:
From a medical standpoint, excessive tests can also be harmful to patients if errors or complications occur, said Dr. Manish Sethi, a member of the MMS' board of trustees and co-author of a 2008 study that investigates and quantifies defensive practices in Massachusetts.

The MMS surveyed more than 830 physicians across eight specialty areas in the state and found 83% reported practicing defensive medicine at an estimated cost of $1.4 billion per year.


I'd presume that study helped Dr. Woodward form his opinion on the matter.


RE: What YOU don't get
By Steve1981 on 10/5/2009 11:14:33 PM , Rating: 2
Ohh and...

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/293/21/...

quote:
A total of 824 physicians (65%) completed the survey. Nearly all (93%) reported practicing defensive medicine...Conclusion Defensive medicine is highly prevalent among physicians in Pennsylvania who pay the most for liability insurance, with potentially serious implications for cost, access, and both technical and interpersonal quality of care.


Not quantified specifically, but with 93% of physicians reporting that they practice defensive medicine, I'm having a hard time believing that it has no impact on costs. Apparently the AMA believes it to have serious implications as well...


RE: What YOU don't get
By room200 on 10/6/2009 9:09:42 AM , Rating: 2
Look at the states where liability has been capped at low amounts. Those states show no decrease in the cost of healthcare (and premiums are just as high or higher than other states), and those states' doctors continue to order the same number of tests, on average, as doctors in other states where there is no cap on the cost of legal liability.


RE: What YOU don't get
By Steve1981 on 10/6/2009 9:45:09 AM , Rating: 2
And? Remember this statement?

quote:
There has been no link whatsoever showing a link between the cost of healtcare and doctors practicing "defensive medicine"


You stated that no link has been shown between the cost of health care and the cost of defensive medicine. I believe that I have shown this specific point to be false. If you can agree, perhaps we can move forward.

What you're actually trying to say is that there is not necessarily a link between defensive medicine and malpractice caps, but perhaps you went a little overboard in your first post?

I wouldn't entirely disagree with this assertion, for the simple fact that doctors aren't interested in being sued, period.

http://www.aafp.org/fpr/20020600/2.html

quote:
The study found, he said, that 90 percent of the doctors suffered significant mental effects from the lawsuits. After the cases ended, half of them stopped offering certain services; another 50 percent dropped certain types of patients. However, the most disturbing effect was that 10 percent of the doctors contemplated suicide.


The effects of a malpractice suit, be it for 1 million or 10 million is enough to have doctors practice defensively. Frankly, I find the suicide contemplation figure disturbing.

So what could help? From the CNN article...

quote:
The American Medical Association, the group representing doctors, last month mentioned "health courts" as one option.

"Let's have special courts for patients just like bankruptcy court or patents courts and judges have medical training," said Woodward. "In the current system, medical cases are heard by judges who may not be trained in health care. Jurors have no background in health care and jury awards are huge."


I've certainly heard worse ideas. If I were a doctor being sued for malpractice, I'd certainly take a good deal of comfort in knowing my case was being handled by actual peers instead of having my fate rest in the hands of Joe the Plumber.

There is also this

quote:
Sethi offered other ideas such as a national standard of care, enforced by the Department of Health and Human Services, mandating specific clinical practice guidelines for doctors.


I'd be a little less enthusiastic about this depending on how rigidly a doctor would have to follow the standards; I don't want them to become unthinking robots that follow some protocol. But so long as it is more of a guideline than a strict rule set, I wouldn't complain about it.

Ultimately though, it will take a change in doctor's attitudes. I would suspect regardless of whatever reforms people come up with, it won't be an overnight process.


RE: What YOU don't get
By Steve1981 on 10/5/2009 11:18:34 PM , Rating: 2
Also, despite your write off of my original link based on Dr. Chin's statement, the PricewaterhouseCoopers' Health Research Institute's report still weighs in at 210 billion per year.


Did you just...
By Reclaimer77 on 10/5/2009 8:29:35 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
while failing to note that prominent conservative Colin Powell was also an investor and strong supporter


Yup, you just called Powell a Conservative ??? Perhaps you aren't up on current event's. He's a Republican who makes extremely liberal comments every chance he get's. He's also in support of Obama.

This is NOT a Conservative Mick.




RE: Did you just...
By Hiawa23 on 10/5/2009 8:41:45 AM , Rating: 1
He's also in support of Obama.

As most African Americans do. Not sure why this is such a revelation that someone of Powell's cred would support Obama. Is he supposed to just blindly support Republican? This whole politcal process just turns me completely off as it doesn't matter who is in power, the average or lower class gets shafted. Just the way is is, the way it has been, & the way it's going to be.


RE: Did you just...
By Reclaimer77 on 10/5/2009 8:48:48 AM , Rating: 3
So wait, because of the color of one's skin, that should decide what side of the fence you are on in political debates?

Barring the stupidity of your logic, I'll say again, calling Powell a Conservative is not only a flat out lie, but a show of ignorance on the matter.


RE: Did you just...
By room200 on 10/5/2009 9:01:21 AM , Rating: 1
So wait, because of the color of one's skin, that should decide what side of the fence you are on in political debates?

This isn't a new phenomenon. It was used extensively to keep segregation alive, to promote redlining, etc. So why are we acting as if this is a new thing that African Americans started?


RE: Did you just...
By surfer on 10/5/2009 9:57:14 AM , Rating: 3
And guess who were the biggest supporters of segegration in this country...the very same people in power today. It was the liberal left that kept and pushed for segegration. It is unfortunate that minorities of all types don't realize that they are pawns in the liberals games of power.

They create groups of victims and then act like their rescuers all the while enslaving the people to their ideology.

I saw this comparison recently...
If conservatives don’t like guns, they don’t buy one.
If a liberal doesn’t like guns, then no one should have one.

If conservatives are vegetarian, they don’t eat meat.
If liberals are, they want to ban all meat products for everyone.

If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about
how to defeat his enemy.
A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly enjoys his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, they loudly demand legislated respect.

If a black man or Hispanic is conservative, they see
themselves as independently successful.
Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of
government protection.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to
better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he
switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
A liberal wants all churches to be silenced.

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes
about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that his neighbors pay for his.


RE: Did you just...
By FITCamaro on 10/5/09, Rating: -1
RE: Did you just...
By Suomynona on 10/5/2009 10:59:04 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
It was the liberal left that kept and pushed for segegration.

What are you smoking? You can blame Dixiecrats for segregation, but it's beyond retarded to blame liberals. If liberals supported segregation, why did George Wallace run against the liberal Hubert Humphrey and win half of the South?

Not all Democrats are liberal, just like not all Republicans are conservative. The Democrats who supported segregation were as conservative as they come, and many of them switched to the Republican party after the '60s.


RE: Did you just...
By FITCamaro on 10/5/2009 12:31:48 PM , Rating: 1
What are you talking about? Even idiots today like Al Sharpton basically support segregation. They preach that blacks need special programs to help them get jobs and into schools? How is that not basically segregation? It's saying there's a difference between them and anyone else going for the same thing.

The Democrat party has said for 50 years it's going to help the poor. Yet the poor who were poor are still poor and people who weren't poor have been taxed into being poor. Even today it does more to maintain that minorities are different and need help to make it in the world. All because us evil whites are keeping them down.


RE: Did you just...
By HinderedHindsight on 10/5/2009 11:05:37 AM , Rating: 1
Wow, if only we could all live our lives by the words of wisdom a conservative forwards in their propagandist email. Let me point out a few things your incredibly accurate conservative view may have missed.

There are many liberals with guns.

There are many liberals who don't care what anyone eats.

There are many liberals who supported war when it wasn't being bungled by a conservative (and sometimes, even after said bungling occurred).

And I love the point about liberal homosexuality, it's not as if straight conservatives don't loudly demand that homosexuality be outlawed (go to most Baptist churches for verification)... wonderful hypocrisy. The reason why the conservative homosexual stays quiet is so he doesn't get lynched in his conservative state.

I know a whole family of conservatives who, while they claim to be climbing into a better situation, but use people around them to get there (effectively being taken care of).

And again, regarding show hosts, the Christians on the right aren't afraid to demand that liberal talk show hosts be shut down, even if they're middle of the road.

And if a conservative happens to be a believer, he/she wants prayer to be mandated in schools, meanwhile outrageously complaining that schools are prohibiting students from prayer, even on their own (I've seen plenty of forwards from conservatives in my own family claiming this).

And if a conservative decides he needs healthcare, but can't find a way to afford it, they get the care they need anyway, then go bankrupt after failing to pay their medical expenses, resulting in the higher price of health insurance we're seeing today (I personally know more than one conservative who has done this).

See, I can play the unsubstantiated generalization game too!


RE: Did you just...
By jRaskell on 10/5/2009 3:04:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
See, I can play the unsubstantiated generalization game too!


Ya, but you didn't play it NEARLY as well as surfer.


RE: Did you just...
By room200 on 10/5/2009 9:03:45 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, he played it better. Surfer simply cut and pated from a website. At least he made up his own. 8^P


RE: Did you just...
By JasonMick (blog) on 10/5/2009 11:24:21 AM , Rating: 1
So by your logic gun owners should be granted freedoms and church should be granted the right to practice their beliefs, yet you want to deny homosexuals equal rights (like insurance, hospital visits, etc.) and the ability to live as they see fit?

That seems pretty screwed up.

I can appreciate the arguments behind true conservatism -- freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, freedom of religion, removal of punitive punishment of petty drug possession, etc.

But those claiming to be "conservatives" while seeking to deny people equal rights and establish a state-supported religion are nothing more than religious extremists masquerading as social conservatives.

I hope you don't fall into this category, but I fear, from your statements that you may.


RE: Did you just...
By Reclaimer77 on 10/5/2009 11:40:47 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I can appreciate the arguments behind true conservatism -- freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, freedom of religion, removal of punitive punishment of petty drug possession, etc.


Uh... yeah. You left a few big ones out like lower taxes, smaller government, states rights, actually following the constitution.. little things like that.

But since you actually called Powell a Conservative on this piece of "journalism", I wouldn't expect you to know what Conservatives stand for.

Seriously Mick, you take the cake on this one. Was there news here or just a blatant trolling opportunity for your liberal buddies here ? At least have the guts to move this to the blog section where it belongs.


RE: Did you just...
By room200 on 10/5/2009 11:35:51 AM , Rating: 2
And guess who were the biggest supporters of segegration in this country...the very same people in power today.

Such as?

It was the liberal left that kept and pushed for segegration. It is unfortunate that minorities of all types don't realize that they are pawns in the liberals games of power.

It's even more unfortunate that "conservatives" believe that if they deny history long enough they can change it.


RE: Did you just...
By room200 on 10/5/2009 11:52:55 AM , Rating: 1
If conservatives don’t like guns, they don’t buy one.
If a liberal doesn’t like guns, then no one should have one.


Conservatives like to use guns to overcome the feeling of inadequacy or just shoot anyone who disagrees.

If conservatives are vegetarian, they don’t eat meat.
If liberals are, they want to ban all meat products for everyone.

And a conservative wants to ban the USDA and abandon safety standards.

If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about
how to defeat his enemy.
A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.


Conservatives like to think that everyone outside the US borders IS a threat.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly enjoys his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, they loudly demand legislated respect.


A conservative tries to push all gays into the closet and tell them how they're going to hell, or they just drag them behind their trucks.

If a black man or Hispanic is conservative, they see
themselves as independently successful.
Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of
government protection.


Yes, because there are no successful "iberals".

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to
better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.


No, they just like to pretend that whatever success they have is all their own and nobody ever helped them.

The "onservative"already knows that
If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he
switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.


Not true, they just try to shout them down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
A liberal wants all churches to be silenced.


A conservative would like to try to force his/her religion on EVERYONE as the only "true" religion.

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes
about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that his neighbors pay for his.


A conservative supports the idea that health is a commodity to be bought/sold/traded.


RE: Did you just...
By mikefarinha on 10/5/2009 11:38:36 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
This isn't a new phenomenon. It was used extensively to keep segregation alive, to promote redlining, etc. So why are we acting as if this is a new thing that African Americans started?


Did you just argue that segregation was/is justified?


RE: Did you just...
By mars2k on 10/5/2009 7:13:53 PM , Rating: 2
If a liberal reads this and laughs.
You are just emotionally disturbed.

thank God most people don't walk around in that sort of delusional fog


RE: Did you just...
By HinderedHindsight on 10/5/2009 9:01:38 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Barring the stupidity of your logic, I'll say again, calling Powell a Conservative is not only a flat out lie, but a show of ignorance on the matter.


Just because he has more common sense than your average Republican, it doesn't make him liberal.

And the reason why Powell supports Obama may not be color of the skin, but what Obama's presidency means with regards to America's history with racism. Who knows, Powell may just not have liked his conservative opponent for making such dumb decisions on the campaign trail.

Whatever the reason, its none of our damn business; and considering he's served under two conservative administrations (which is probably more than you've served under, I'm willing to bet) I don't think you might be the right authority to judge whether or not it is a lie.


RE: Did you just...
By Reclaimer77 on 10/5/2009 11:26:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Whatever the reason, its none of our damn business; and considering he's served under two conservative administrations (which is probably more than you've served under, I'm willing to bet) I don't think you might be the right authority to judge whether or not it is a lie.


If you think Bush was a conservative administration, then no wonder you care confused about Powell.

Bush increased the size of the federal government by 30'ish percent. He rammed home the first bailouts despite Americans being against it. And for christs sake, he was for amnesty for illegals !!!

If you think this is something "Conservatives" administrations do, no wonder you are confused.


RE: Did you just...
By Hiawa23 on 10/5/2009 9:16:16 AM , Rating: 2
So wait, because of the color of one's skin, that should decide what side of the fence you are on in political debates?

Barring the stupidity of your logic, I'll say again, calling Powell a Conservative is not only a flat out lie, but a show of ignorance on the matter.


You are right I should not have used race but for many, it does matter on both sides. My comment about Powell was not about him being conservative or not, just his support for the President.


RE: Did you just...
By surfer on 10/5/2009 10:05:28 AM , Rating: 4
Yeah Colin Powell probably got the investment tip to heavily invest in these companies as the price for his endorsement of Obama...

That is how the game works...and Colin Powell is no conservative you are right.

Ironically the bias Jason claims about FNC is just like the bias he has for the green agenda...lol...welcome to the land of ideology trumps all...so America just sit down and shut up...the debate is over...


Fox was right...
By Masospaghetti on 10/5/2009 9:04:59 AM , Rating: 2
In that these cars will not help the average American. Most of us can't afford a $40,000 2nd vehicle -- at least without putting it all on credit, never paying it back, and being bailed out -- for most purposes, you still need a gasoline powered primary vehicle when trips are required.




RE: Fox was right...
By superunknown98 on 10/5/2009 9:15:40 AM , Rating: 4
Mostly true points, but don't forget how automotive technology evolves. Do you think anti-lock brakes, fuel injection, air bags, crumple zones, backup cameras, Etc... all started life in sub compact cars costing 15,000 dollars?

Traditonally technology starts at the high end and trickles down. Sure it may seem odd that good ideas are not used everywhere, but many good ideas are very expensive or do not have a large market yet.


RE: Fox was right...
By MrPeabody on 10/5/2009 9:22:42 AM , Rating: 3
Yes. Also, don't forget how anti-lock brakes, fuel injection, air bags, crumple zones, backup cameras and such would never have had the chance to trickle down without half-billion-dollar government loans.


RE: Fox was right...
By BZDTemp on 10/6/2009 4:09:40 AM , Rating: 2
I am sorry but the stuff you mention mostly originates from the European car industry. With the exception of the air bag that is but that was less interesting in Europe due to wider use of seat belts.

Still it is certain that government motivation be it a stick or a carrot helps change car technology.


RE: Fox was right...
By Reclaimer77 on 10/5/2009 11:43:51 AM , Rating: 2
Those arguments don't apply here. I'll say it AGAIN, this is not new technology being funded here. This is the same technology we already had, wrapped up in a higher performing and highly styled package and MUCH more expensive package.

A proper analogy would be federally funding Ferrari because of it's "new" automotive technology for the masses.

Please tell me what technology Tesla is offering here that will "trickle down" that other electric cars haven't offered ?


Fox News
By KorruptioN on 10/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: Fox News
By RandallMoore on 10/5/09, Rating: -1
RE: Fox News
By Finnkc on 10/5/2009 10:03:36 AM , Rating: 1
which one? the free health care, better tasting beer, or a higher standard of living? Those poor poor Canadians.


RE: Fox News
By troysavary on 10/5/2009 11:15:48 AM , Rating: 2
Canada's free health care is not all it is cracked up to be. We have critical doctor shortages pretty much everywhere. You can die while waiting to be scheduled for life-saving surgery. The fact that the hospitals are all run by people appointed because of their political affiliation means that less than competent people are running many of our hospitals. The largest hospital in the city where I live has a new intensive care unit being built that is way behind schedule, and way over budget, because the contract was given to the company with the best politcal connections. And then much of it had to be redone because they installed doors that were too small for stretchers. I'd take private health care any day if it means that I can get in when i need to.

Here, if I need something as simple as an x-ray, i could wait a couple weeks to get it done, then wait another week for the x-rays to be sent to someone who can interpret them, then wait another week or so for my physician to get the results and tell me what is happening. On the other hand, I can take my dog to the vet, have his x-rays done the same day, no appointment, and have the dianosis the next day. The difference? I pay my vet myself. Hell, maybe I should use the vet for my own healthcare.

I agree with the better beer statement though. American beer is watered down cow piss.


RE: Fox News
By Oregonian2 on 10/5/2009 2:39:23 PM , Rating: 2
Here in the US, I get CT scans at the drop of a hat. Even had a PET scan week before last that was scheduled a day or two ahead of time. Being paid by COBRA "purchased" health insurance. True, it's because I really need these things, but point being that they happen almost instantaneously once a doctor decides I need it.

Yes, PET scan involves being injected with stuff that puts out anti-matter that explodes utterly spewing out gamma radiation. Good I don't contain any diLithium Crystals.


RE: Fox News
By RandallMoore on 10/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: Fox News
By FITCamaro on 10/5/2009 12:39:09 PM , Rating: 2
The few troops they have aren't bad.

I'll make Canadian jokes all day but their troops who have been in Afghanistan have fought bravely. I have a hard time knocking anyone who goes over there and fights.

And personally I think pretty much all beer tastes like piss.


RE: Fox News
By Reclaimer77 on 10/5/2009 12:45:35 PM , Rating: 1
Canada doesn't have to fund a significant military because they are allied and so close to the United States. If they had our military budget, the problems with their healthcare system would be that much more apparent.

Even without a large defense budget, their taxrate vs. income ratio is shockingly alarming. But have no fear, thanks to Obama we're catching up !!!


By hybridr6 on 10/5/2009 12:38:30 PM , Rating: 4
The only news media network worth a damn is BBC. Every single one of the American broadcasts is biased towards the left or right. I can't say how many times I've seen CNN and Fox report a story inaccurately and not issue a statement making the correction. Check out BBC for actual reporting you might learn something. :D




Fisker Lies
By Bill Gatsby on 10/5/2009 9:23:58 AM , Rating: 3
I am a supplier for Fisker and they had a opertunity to build that car in the united states, with a company called EDAG in Auburn Hills Michigan, they chose to build it in Findland for costs reasons only. Also they have been promising customers the vehicle by cetain dates and never can seem to keep them, always postponing.




Why is anyone defending Fox?
By kerpwnt on 10/5/2009 1:58:26 PM , Rating: 3
Don't forget how Fox News helped set precedent for unbalanced, unfair, and inaccurate "news" reporting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre
Regarding Fisker/Tesla, Fox News either knowingly reported a false claim, or built a statement on mistaken information.

Attempting to improve people's perception of Fox News by discrediting other news organizations, neither validates Fox News nor their viewers. I may be wrong, but I think that type of argument is a false dilemma.

If nobody catches these people in their mistakes, how can we expect them to get any better?




Both leave stuff out
By jrcaptain on 10/5/2009 3:09:19 PM , Rating: 2
Listened to the FN bit. They may have left a few things out, but so does MM. In MM own page the say that only 68% is going to manufacturing in US, so that does mean that the other is going to Finland. Fox got some right, and I do remember them saying that in one segment.

I think the main point Fox was trying to make is that this is a private sector business and should not be getting tax payer money. I for one want the stimulus stopped so we don't end up in debt for the next 200 yrs.




By tommy2q on 10/5/2009 8:09:28 PM , Rating: 1
if tesla is an american company, so are honda and toyota. if powell is a conservative, so is obama. let us stop corruption instead of justifying it. what flavors are the people on this site drinking?




Left wing nutjobs
By troysavary on 10/5/09, Rating: -1
RE: Left wing nutjobs
By Reclaimer77 on 10/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: Left wing nutjobs
By room200 on 10/5/2009 1:54:22 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, we all know that Bush was a decent, law-abinding, honest, moral, smart, errrr president.


Since when...
By spwrozek on 10/5/09, Rating: -1
RE: Since when...
By knutjb on 10/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: Since when...
By andrinoaa on 10/5/2009 5:02:20 PM , Rating: 3
Fox network is in it for the money only. Their news is tailored to get the max exposure ensurining that it has to be tainted. How much is actual "reporting" and how much is "infotainment"? You guys have no idea about balanced reporting. Fox news? An oxymoron!
As for the fools who say the government shouldn't be investing in new technology ie loans, why not shutdown all government schools. It surely is also an investment in the future. Why not get out of medicine as well, because thats only an investment in the well being of society in general.
Why not shut the military machine too, let Haliburton take over because thay are far better at delivering DR Strangelove! Have I twisted the knife in hard enough? lol


"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki