“A new study shows that toxicperfluoroalkyls, which are used in
surface protection treatments and coatings to keep grease from leaking
through fast food wrappers, are being ingested by people through their
food and showing up as contaminants in blood.”

I thought the refrigerant FREON was banned because it contained
Fluorine, so how come it’s still being used in Perfluoroalkyl. Is this
hypocrisy or what?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mer..._b_800297.html

Molly Brown wrote:
“A new study shows that toxicperfluoroalkyls, which are used in
surface protection treatments and coatings to keep grease from leaking
through fast food wrappers, are being ingested by people through their
food and showing up as contaminants in blood.”

I thought the refrigerant FREON was banned because it contained
Fluorine, so how come it’s still being used in Perfluoroalkyl. Is this
hypocrisy or what?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mer..._b_800297.html

one should probably investigate what the differences are before asking this
inane question. freon is chlorofluorocarbon. that isn't even remotely like
perfluroalkyl, even though it has fluorine in it. there are many items with
fluorine in it that are not comparable to freon.

On Dec 29, 2:23*pm, "chaniarts" wrote:
Molly Brown wrote:
“A new study shows that toxicperfluoroalkyls, which are used in
surface protection treatments and coatings to keep grease from leaking
through fast food wrappers, are being ingested by people through their
food and showing up as contaminants in blood.”

I thought the refrigerant FREON was banned because it contained
Fluorine, so how come it’s still being used in Perfluoroalkyl. Is this
hypocrisy or what?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mer..._b_800297.html

one should probably investigate what the differences are before asking this
inane question. freon is chlorofluorocarbon. that isn't even remotely like
perfluroalkyl, even though it has fluorine in it. there are many items with
fluorine in it that are not comparable to freon.

I was hoping that someone like you might educate us on those
“differences”.

Molly Brown wrote:
On Dec 29, 2:23 pm, "chaniarts" wrote:
Molly Brown wrote:
“A new study shows that toxicperfluoroalkyls, which are used in
surface protection treatments and coatings to keep grease from
leaking through fast food wrappers, are being ingested by people
through their food and showing up as contaminants in blood.”

I thought the refrigerant FREON was banned because it contained
Fluorine, so how come it’s still being used in Perfluoroalkyl. Is
this hypocrisy or what?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mer..._b_800297.html

one should probably investigate what the differences are before
asking this inane question. freon is chlorofluorocarbon. that isn't
even remotely like perfluroalkyl, even though it has fluorine in it.
there are many items with fluorine in it that are not comparable to
freon.

I was hoping that someone like you might educate us on those
“differences”.

the interweb broken where you are today?

http://tinyurl.com/267dfbp
http://tinyurl.com/3yrwspr

On 12/29/2010 5:17 PM, Molly Brown wrote:



“A new study shows that toxicperfluoroalkyls, which are used in
surface protection treatments and coatings to keep grease from leaking
through fast food wrappers, are being ingested by people through their
food and showing up as contaminants in blood.”

I thought the refrigerant FREON was banned because it contained
Fluorine, so how come it’s still being used in Perfluoroalkyl. Is this
hypocrisy or what?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mer..._b_800297.html


The Freons that were banned by the EPA were chlorofluorocarbons reputed
to break down stratospheric ozone. These materials are pure
fluorocarbons regulated by the FDA.

The author of the Huffington Post article appears to be somewhat of an
environmental activist quack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola

Don't have the time to research all his statements but I understand
advocacy vs science and would discount this article as advocacy.

You must understand that toxicity is dose related. For example, you can
drink 5% acetic acid (vinegar) but a swig of 100% would put you in the
hospital.

Your homework is to find the chemicals he mentioned:

http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodIngredie.../ucm115333.htm

On Dec 29, 4:23*pm, "chaniarts" wrote:
Molly Brown wrote:
“A new study shows that toxicperfluoroalkyls, which are used in
surface protection treatments and coatings to keep grease from leaking
through fast food wrappers, are being ingested by people through their
food and showing up as contaminants in blood.”

I thought the refrigerant FREON was banned because it contained
Fluorine, so how come it’s still being used in Perfluoroalkyl. Is this
hypocrisy or what?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mer..._b_800297.html

Huffington Post is a well known site for half truths, demagoguery,
Democratic spin and propaganda. It is funded by billionaire George
Soros, a regular visitor to the White House. The reporting in the H.P.
is about on a par with a super market tabloid, and appeals to the
terminally ignorant.
Their constant search for boogeymen is laughable, but dangerous. Sound
science on any topic they publish always takes second place to
overblown scare tactics.
We have had fluorine in our drinking water for decades, for example,
so getting your speedos in a wad is absurd.

Joe

Molly Brown wrote:

I was hoping that someone like you might educate us on those
“differences”.

Ask and you shall receive:

Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there
are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar,
milk... ice cream. Ice cream, Mandrake, children's ice cream!

You know when fluoridation first began?

Nineteen hundred and forty-six. 1946, Mandrake. How does that coincide with
your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A
foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the
knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way
your hard-core Commie works.

Well, I, uh... I... I... first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the
physical act of love.

Yes, a uh, a profound sense of fatigue... a feeling of emptiness followed.
Luckily I... I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of
essence.

I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women uh... women sense my
power and they seek the life essence. I, uh... I do not avoid women,
Mandrake.

But I... I do deny them my essence.

On 12/29/2010 6:33 PM, Joe wrote:
On Dec 29, 4:23 pm, wrote:
Molly Brown wrote:
“A new study shows that toxicperfluoroalkyls, which are used in
surface protection treatments and coatings to keep grease from leaking
through fast food wrappers, are being ingested by people through their
food and showing up as contaminants in blood.”

I thought the refrigerant FREON was banned because it contained
Fluorine, so how come it’s still being used in Perfluoroalkyl. Is this
hypocrisy or what?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mer..._b_800297.html

Huffington Post is a well known site for half truths, demagoguery,
Democratic spin and propaganda. It is funded by billionaire George
Soros, a regular visitor to the White House. The reporting in the H.P.
is about on a par with a super market tabloid, and appeals to the
terminally ignorant.

so you're probably recommending we get all our news from Fox?

Their constant search for boogeymen is laughable, but dangerous. Sound
science on any topic they publish always takes second place to
overblown scare tactics.
We have had fluorine in our drinking water for decades, for example,
so getting your speedos in a wad is absurd.

You're an idiot.

Joe

Correction. The concern was chlorine, in the refrigerants.

Correction. Freon is a brand name of a specific brand of
refrigerants. Other brands include Isotron, and Genetron.

Correction. Refrigerants are known by numbers. In the USA,
refrigerants 11 and 12 was no longer manufactured or
imported, as of 1993, or 1994, can't remember. I think R500
and R502 were also ended, then. Other ones were phased out
later.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Molly Brown" wrote in message
...



"A new study shows that toxicperfluoroalkyls, which are used
in
surface protection treatments and coatings to keep grease
from leaking
through fast food wrappers, are being ingested by people
through their
food and showing up as contaminants in blood."

I thought the refrigerant FREON was banned because it
contained
Fluorine, so how come it's still being used in
Perfluoroalkyl. Is this
hypocrisy or what?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mer..._b_800297.html

?
"Frank" wrote

“A new study shows that toxicperfluoroalkyls, which are used in
surface protection treatments and coatings to keep grease from leaking
through fast food wrappers, are being ingested by people through their
food and showing up as contaminants in blood.”

I thought the refrigerant FREON was banned because it contained
Fluorine, so how come it’s still being used in Perfluoroalkyl. Is this
hypocrisy or what?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mer..._b_800297.html


The Freons that were banned by the EPA were chlorofluorocarbons reputed to
break down stratospheric ozone. These materials are pure fluorocarbons
regulated by the FDA.

Hold crap, cheeseburgers are causing global warming!!!! Get rid of those
wrappers and put the burgers in asbestos boxes.

On 12/29/2010 10:58 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Correction. The concern was chlorine, in the refrigerants.

Correction. Freon is a brand name of a specific brand of
refrigerants. Other brands include Isotron, and Genetron.

Correction. Refrigerants are known by numbers. In the USA,
refrigerants 11 and 12 was no longer manufactured or
imported, as of 1993, or 1994, can't remember. I think R500
and R502 were also ended, then. Other ones were phased out
later.

Here's a list:

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/ods/classone.html

On Dec 29, 10:17*pm, Molly Brown wrote:
“A new study shows that toxicperfluoroalkyls, which are used in
surface protection treatments and coatings to keep grease from leaking
through fast food wrappers, are being ingested by people through their
food and showing up as contaminants in blood.”

I thought the refrigerant FREON was banned because it contained
Fluorine, so how come it’s still being used in Perfluoroalkyl. Is this
hypocrisy or what?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mer..._b_800297.html

Many toxic elements are perfectly safe went locked up in compounds.
Take sodium and chlorine, both deadly but you eat and need every day
as salt.

Patrick Karl wrote:
Huffington Post is a well known site for half truths, demagoguery,
Democratic spin and propaganda. It is funded by billionaire George
Soros, a regular visitor to the White House. The reporting in the
H.P. is about on a par with a super market tabloid, and appeals to
the terminally ignorant.

so you're probably recommending we get all our news from Fox?


Uh, yeah...

Fox has the top twelve cable shows. The 11:00 p.m. RERUN of the O'Reilly
Factor has more viewers than the TOP show on MSNBC!

'Course that's mostly for "opinion" and "commentary" shows. Still, unbiased
observers rate the Fox NEWS broadcasts the most "fair and balanced." There's
little evidence of liberal (or conservative) bias in their straight news
programs.

I don't think you'll ever hear a Fox news anchor have to say: "The facts
were wrong, but the narrative was correct."

On 12/30/2010 7:41 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Patrick Karl wrote:
Huffington Post is a well known site for half truths, demagoguery,
Democratic spin and propaganda. It is funded by billionaire George
Soros, a regular visitor to the White House. The reporting in the
H.P. is about on a par with a super market tabloid, and appeals to
the terminally ignorant.

so you're probably recommending we get all our news from Fox?


Uh, yeah...

Fox has the top twelve cable shows. The 11:00 p.m. RERUN of the O'Reilly
Factor has more viewers than the TOP show on MSNBC!

'Course that's mostly for "opinion" and "commentary" shows. Still, unbiased
observers rate the Fox NEWS broadcasts the most "fair and balanced." There's
little evidence of liberal (or conservative) bias in their straight news
programs.

I don't think you'll ever hear a Fox news anchor have to say: "The facts
were wrong, but the narrative was correct."



I've heard Fox news people go after Republicans when they do something
wrong just as vociferously as if they were misbehaving Democrats. :-)

TDD

"Molly Brown" wrote in message
...



“A new study shows that toxicperfluoroalkyls, which are used in
surface protection treatments and coatings to keep grease from leaking
through fast food wrappers, are being ingested by people through their
food and showing up as contaminants in blood.”

I thought the refrigerant FREON was banned because it contained
Fluorine, so how come it’s still being used in Perfluoroalkyl. Is this
hypocrisy or what?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mer..._b_800297.html

=============


Everything is safe if you have the funds to purchase those who determine
safety.

"Joe" wrote in message
...


Huffington Post is a well known site for half truths, demagoguery,
Democratic spin and propaganda. It is funded by billionaire George
Soros, a regular visitor to the White House. The reporting in the H.P.
is about on a par with a super market tabloid, and appeals to the
terminally ignorant.

There is no question HP leans well to the left, and that they have at times
given too much space to "alternative" medicine for example. However a lot
of what they post is taken from legit news sources rather than being cooked
up in their back room, and one can (and should) follow up to see if any spin
has been applied. At least with HP there is usually a distinction between
editorializing vs. news, in contrast to right-wingnut sites like Newsmax or
World Net Daily. As always, it's wise to look for multiple sources and to
be aware of the political slant of each of them--something that probably
doesn't occur to many Fox viewers, who either don't know or don't care that
Fox is the de facto propaganda arm of the Republican Party.

I'd like to see credible evidence HP is funded by Soros. It's possible he
has some money there, but so do a lot of other folks including venture
capitalists who expect to make a profit on their investment, e.g. Alan
Patricof, Ron Fisher, Michael Perlis, Eric Hippeau, Steve Murray--not
exactly a list of prominent socialists. Any claim that Soros is the sugar
daddy who makes HP possible sounds like something one would hear Limbaugh or
Beck spouting, in other words, dubious at best.

Hmmm, don't get to HP often, this makes me curious as to what they're
reporting today. Hey, here's a story about a Republican legislator in
Georgia who has introduced a bill that would require Georgians to pay their
taxes only with gold or silver coinage, apparently he's tried this before.
A bit of research shows it's a real story covered by the news media in
Georgia, but mostly mentioned only by political bloggers outside that state,
so it doesn't appear to be radical leftist propaganda. Odd, a search on Fox
News doesn't come up with the story, what a shock.

On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 08:22:01 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/30/2010 7:41 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Patrick Karl wrote:
Huffington Post is a well known site for half truths, demagoguery,
Democratic spin and propaganda. It is funded by billionaire George
Soros, a regular visitor to the White House. The reporting in the
H.P. is about on a par with a super market tabloid, and appeals to
the terminally ignorant.

so you're probably recommending we get all our news from Fox?


Uh, yeah...

Fox has the top twelve cable shows. The 11:00 p.m. RERUN of the O'Reilly
Factor has more viewers than the TOP show on MSNBC!

'Course that's mostly for "opinion" and "commentary" shows. Still, unbiased
observers rate the Fox NEWS broadcasts the most "fair and balanced." There's
little evidence of liberal (or conservative) bias in their straight news
programs.

I don't think you'll ever hear a Fox news anchor have to say: "The facts
were wrong, but the narrative was correct."



I've heard Fox news people go after Republicans when they do something
wrong just as vociferously as if they were misbehaving Democrats. :-)

O'Reilly does it regularly. Even Hannity goes after the weenie Republicans.
;-)

On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 05:26:03 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:

On Dec 29, 10:17*pm, Molly Brown wrote:
“A new study shows that toxicperfluoroalkyls, which are used in
surface protection treatments and coatings to keep grease from leaking
through fast food wrappers, are being ingested by people through their
food and showing up as contaminants in blood.”

I thought the refrigerant FREON was banned because it contained
Fluorine, so how come it’s still being used in Perfluoroalkyl. Is this
hypocrisy or what?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mer..._b_800297.html

Many toxic elements are perfectly safe went locked up in compounds.
Take sodium and chlorine, both deadly but you eat and need every day
as salt.

Um, harry, chorine and sodium are not "locked" up in (table) salt. Just add
water.

HeyBub wrote:
Patrick Karl wrote:

so you're probably recommending we get all our news from Fox?


Uh, yeah...

Fox has the top twelve cable shows. The 11:00 p.m. RERUN of the O'Reilly
Factor has more viewers than the TOP show on MSNBC!

Not nearly as many as believe in astrology.


'Course that's mostly for "opinion" and "commentary" shows. Still, unbiased
observers rate the Fox NEWS broadcasts the most "fair and balanced." There's
little evidence of liberal (or conservative) bias in their straight news
programs.

A poll by the RNC?

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201012150004
About a year ago a memo required that reports on climate change had to
"IMMEDIATELY [point] out that such theories are based upon data that
critics have called into question."
There is, of course, broad consensus from multiple scientific fields
that climate is changing.
The memo came out after a "straight" news program reported that
2000-2009 was "expected to turn out to be the warmest decade on record"
and other information detrimental to climate deniers.

For your amusement:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/post-carbon/2010/12/2010_hottest_climate_year_on_r.html
NASA says "2010 ranks as the hottest climate year on record"

One problem with Fox is that the opinion/commentary shows make absurd
comments which are then considered news and reported on the "straight" news.

A very recent poll from the U of MD
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/671.php?nid=&id=&pnt=671&lb=
found that Fox viewers were more misinformed on a number of major
questions, such as being much more likely to agree with the false
opinion that:
- most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring
- most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses

A poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press about a
year ago
http://people-press.org/report/537/
found that almost half of regular Fox viewers thought "health care
legislation will create death panels", an absurd propaganda piece.

Roger Ailes, the president of Fox News, was very influential in the
media campaigns for Nixon, Reagan, Bush 1.

News Corp, owner of Fox News (and the Wall Street Journal), gave
$1,000,000 to the Republican Governors Association


I don't think you'll ever hear a Fox news anchor have to say: "The facts
were wrong, but the narrative was correct."

I agree you are unlikely to ever hear it.

What about Shirley Sherrod, who got fired. Fox had broadcast a video
that was edited so she seemed to say the opposite of what she said.
- Was this reported on "straight" Fox news?
- Did Fox ask Sherrod about the tape?
- Did Fox have the "facts wrong"? The video was a lie.
- Did Fox "straight" news apologize?
- Did Fox "commentators" apologize?

--
bud--

bud-- wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

'Course that's mostly for "opinion" and "commentary" shows. Still,
unbiased observers rate the Fox NEWS broadcasts the most "fair and
balanced." There's little evidence of liberal (or conservative) bias
in their straight news programs.

A poll by the RNC?

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201012150004
About a year ago a memo required that reports on climate change had to
"IMMEDIATELY [point] out that such theories are based upon data that
critics have called into question."
There is, of course, broad consensus from multiple scientific fields
that climate is changing.
The memo came out after a "straight" news program reported that
2000-2009 was "expected to turn out to be the warmest decade on
record" and other information detrimental to climate deniers.

For your amusement:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/post-carbon/2010/12/2010_hottest_climate_year_on_r.html
NASA says "2010 ranks as the hottest climate year on record"

One problem with Fox is that the opinion/commentary shows make absurd
comments which are then considered news and reported on the
"straight" news.
A very recent poll from the U of MD
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/671.php?nid=&id=&pnt=671&lb=
found that Fox viewers were more misinformed on a number of major
questions, such as being much more likely to agree with the false
opinion that:
- most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring
- most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses

Thanks for the links. I won't bore you with links to alternative views.
Suffice it to say: "You show me yours and I can show you mine."


A poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press about a
year ago
http://people-press.org/report/537/
found that almost half of regular Fox viewers thought "health care
legislation will create death panels", an absurd propaganda piece.

## And guess what? They were correct.

(Wall Street Journal, December 29th)
"On [last] Sunday, Robert Pear reported in the New York Times that Medicare
will now pay for voluntary end-of-life counseling as part of seniors' annual
physicals. A similar provision was originally included in ObamaCare, but
Democrats stripped it out amid the death panel furor. Now Medicare will
enact the same policy through regulation."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

(San Jose Mercury News, December 27-28th)
"Welcome back, death panels. Really.
"New Medicare regulations taking effect Saturday will pay doctors who advise
patients on end-of-life care, including options for advance directives on
how they want to be treated. This is all the health care reform proposal
ever intended."
http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stori...nclick_check=1



Roger Ailes, the president of Fox News, was very influential in the
media campaigns for Nixon, Reagan, Bush 1.

News Corp, owner of Fox News (and the Wall Street Journal), gave
$1,000,000 to the Republican Governors Association


Uh, yeah. This may be proof of intent but has no bearing on the quality of
the results.


I don't think you'll ever hear a Fox news anchor have to say: "The
facts were wrong, but the narrative was correct."

I agree you are unlikely to ever hear it.

What about Shirley Sherrod, who got fired. Fox had broadcast a video
that was edited so she seemed to say the opposite of what she said.
- Was this reported on "straight" Fox news?

I can find no mention of the Sherrod tape being shown on a Fox news program.
The controversy was reported (everywhere) as it developed, but showing the
tape? I don't think so.

- Did Fox ask Sherrod about the tape?
- Did Fox have the "facts wrong"? The video was a lie.

Res ipsa Loquitur.

- Did Fox "straight" news apologize?

I don't think so, mainly because the video was never shown on a straight
news program.

- Did Fox "commentators" apologize?

In the case of the Sherrod tape, O'Reilly and others apologized for showing
it. In their defense they showed the ENTIRE TAPE as it was given to them -
they did not edit it in any way.

Or so they say. (CNN et al showed the SAME recording as FOX.)

O'Reilly (sort of) broke the original story (and apologized the next night).
CNN, however, aired the same clip the same night as O'Reilly (Anderson
Cooper 360). The next morning all three cable news networks reported the
story. Sherrod, herself, was on the CNN show, American Morning.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/one-m...sherrod-story/

In my view, the more important story was not whether Shirley Sherrod was a
flaming racist; the real story was how the Obama administration went postal
and over-reacted by firing Ms. Sherrod. Then there was the arrest of the
black Harvard professor by a white policeman, the banning of oil drilling in
the Gulf, terminal twitching over Israeli settlements, etc.

DGDevin wrote:
"Joe" wrote in message
...


Huffington Post is a well known site for half truths, demagoguery,
Democratic spin and propaganda. It is funded by billionaire George
Soros, a regular visitor to the White House. The reporting in the
H.P. is about on a par with a super market tabloid, and appeals to
the terminally ignorant.

There is no question HP leans well to the left, and that they have at
times given too much space to "alternative" medicine for example. However
a lot of what they post is taken from legit news sources
rather than being cooked up in their back room, and one can (and
should) follow up to see if any spin has been applied. At least with
HP there is usually a distinction between editorializing vs. news, in
contrast to right-wingnut sites like Newsmax or World Net Daily. As
always, it's wise to look for multiple sources and to be aware of the
political slant of each of them--something that probably doesn't
occur to many Fox viewers, who either don't know or don't care that
Fox is the de facto propaganda arm of the Republican Party.
I'd like to see credible evidence HP is funded by Soros.

It's irrelevant whether Soros is the puppet-master behind Huffington. In my
view, castigating Huffington because of its funding or NewsMax or Fox or
anybody else has nothing to do with the truthfulness of their reporting.

The things - the reports - should stand on their own.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Many toxic elements are perfectly safe went locked up in compounds.
Take sodium and chlorine, both deadly but you eat and need every day
as salt.

Um, harry, chorine and sodium are not "locked" up in (table) salt.
Just add water.

Right. You'll get Sodium di-hydrogen mono-chlorinated oxide.

When I was in my inorganic chemistry classes, we did study
table salt, if briefly during part of a class. Those nasties
are definitely not "locked up" and you're right about just
add water.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Many toxic elements are perfectly safe went locked up in
compounds.
Take sodium and chlorine, both deadly but you eat and
need every day
as salt.

Um, harry, chorine and sodium are not "locked" up in
(table) salt.
Just add water.

Right. You'll get Sodium di-hydrogen mono-chlorinated oxide.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Molly Brown" wrote in message
...



"A new study shows that toxicperfluoroalkyls, which are used in
surface protection treatments and coatings to keep grease from leaking
through fast food wrappers, are being ingested by people through their
food and showing up as contaminants in blood."

I thought the refrigerant FREON was banned because it contained
Fluorine, so how come it's still being used in Perfluoroalkyl. Is this
hypocrisy or what?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mer..._b_800297.html


Psst! Flourine is used in making Teflon. Keep it to yourself.

Aside: You remember the "Noble Gasses"? Those are gasses that do not combine
with any other element (Helium, Neon, Argon, etc.).

One scientist didn't believe that. He pumped Xenon and Fluorine into an
evacuated vessel, heated the sucker up to a goodly degree for a while, then
opened the can.

A yellowish-powder was all that was left. Analysis showed the powder to be
Xenon hexafloride.

Total cost for the experiment had to be less than a hundred bucks!

The Periodic Chart has been revised. Check yours.

On Dec 30, 6:58*pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 05:26:03 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:
On Dec 29, 10:17 pm, Molly Brown wrote:
A new study shows that toxicperfluoroalkyls, which are used in
surface protection treatments and coatings to keep grease from leaking
through fast food wrappers, are being ingested by people through their
food and showing up as contaminants in blood.

I thought the refrigerant FREON was banned because it contained
Fluorine, so how come it s still being used in Perfluoroalkyl. Is this
hypocrisy or what?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mer..._b_800297.html

Many toxic elements are perfectly safe went locked up in compounds.
Take sodium and chlorine, both deadly but you eat and need every day
as salt.

Um, harry, chorine and sodium are not "locked" up in (table) salt. *Just add
water.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Still not poisonous, hence still locked up.

On Dec 29, 9:55*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Molly Brown wrote:

I was hoping that someone like you might educate us on those
differences .

Ask and you shall receive:

Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there
are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar,
milk... ice cream. Ice cream, Mandrake, children's ice cream!

You know when fluoridation first began?

Nineteen hundred and forty-six. 1946, Mandrake. How does that coincide with
your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A
foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the
knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way
your hard-core Commie works.

Well, I, uh... I... I... first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the
physical act of love.

Yes, a uh, a profound sense of fatigue... a feeling of emptiness followed..
Luckily I... I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of
essence.

I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women uh... women sense my
power and they seek the life essence. I, uh... I do not avoid women,
Mandrake.

But I... I do deny them my essence.

LOL... The above, for those who may be wondering, was uttered by the
air force
commander that went nuts and started WWIII in the classic movie Dr.
Strangelove.

On Dec 30, 4:56*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
bud-- wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

'Course that's mostly for "opinion" and "commentary" shows. Still,
unbiased observers rate the Fox NEWS broadcasts the most "fair and
balanced." There's little evidence of liberal (or conservative) bias
in their straight news programs.

A poll by the RNC?

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201012150004
About a year ago a memo required that reports on climate change had to
"IMMEDIATELY [point] out that such theories are based upon data that
critics have called into question."
There is, of course, broad consensus from multiple scientific fields
that climate is changing.
The memo came out after a "straight" news program reported that
2000-2009 was "expected to turn out to be the warmest decade on
record" and other information detrimental to climate deniers.

For your amusement:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/post-carbon/2010/12/2010_hottest_cli....
NASA says "2010 ranks as the hottest climate year on record"

One problem with Fox is that the opinion/commentary shows make absurd
comments which are then considered news and reported on the
"straight" news.
A very recent poll from the U of MD
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadar....
found that Fox viewers were more misinformed on a number of major
questions, such as *being much more likely to agree with the false
opinion that:
- most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring
- most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses

Thanks for the links. I won't bore you with links to alternative views.
Suffice it to say: "You show me yours and I can show you mine."



A poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press about a
year ago
http://people-press.org/report/537/
found that almost half of regular Fox viewers thought "health care
legislation will create death panels", an absurd propaganda piece.

## And guess what? They were correct.

(Wall Street Journal, December 29th)
"On [last] Sunday, Robert Pear reported in the New York Times that Medicare
will now pay for voluntary end-of-life counseling as part of seniors' annual
physicals. A similar provision was originally included in ObamaCare, but
Democrats stripped it out amid the death panel furor. Now Medicare will
enact the same policy through regulation."http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020373100457604570280391...

(San Jose Mercury News, December 27-28th)
"Welcome back, death panels. Really.
"New Medicare regulations taking effect Saturday will pay doctors who advise
patients on end-of-life care, including options for advance directives on
how they want to be treated. This is all the health care reform proposal
ever intended."http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_16953576?nclick_check=1



Roger Ailes, the president of Fox News, was very influential in the
media campaigns for Nixon, Reagan, Bush 1.

News Corp, owner of Fox News (and the Wall Street Journal), gave
$1,000,000 to the Republican Governors Association

Uh, yeah. This may be proof of intent but has no bearing on the quality of
the results.



I don't think you'll ever hear a Fox news anchor have to say: "The
facts were wrong, but the narrative was correct."

I agree you are unlikely to ever hear it.

What about Shirley Sherrod, who got fired. Fox had broadcast a video
that was edited so she seemed to say the opposite of what she said.
- Was this reported on "straight" Fox news?

I can find no mention of the Sherrod tape being shown on a Fox news program.
The controversy was reported (everywhere) as it developed, but showing the
tape? I don't think so.

- Did Fox ask Sherrod about the tape?
- Did Fox have the "facts wrong"? The video was a lie.

Res ipsa Loquitur.

- Did Fox "straight" news apologize?

I don't think so, mainly because the video was never shown on a straight
news program.

- Did Fox "commentators" apologize?

In the case of the Sherrod tape, O'Reilly and others apologized for showing
it. In their defense they showed the ENTIRE TAPE as it was given to them -
they did not edit it in any way.

Or so they say. (CNN et al showed the SAME recording as FOX.)

O'Reilly (sort of) broke the original story (and apologized the next night).
CNN, however, aired the same clip the same night as O'Reilly (Anderson
Cooper 360). The next morning all three cable news networks reported the
story. Sherrod, herself, was on the CNN show, American Morning.http://www..mediaite.com/online/one-...-news-covered-...

In my view, the more important story was not whether Shirley Sherrod was a
flaming racist; the real story was how the Obama administration went postal
and over-reacted by firing Ms. Sherrod. Then there was the arrest of the
black Harvard professor by a white policeman, the banning of oil drilling in
the Gulf, terminal twitching over Israeli settlements, etc.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think we can all agree that the Washington Post is not mouth piece
out to defend Fox News.
Here's what Howard Kurtz, a staff writer at the Washington Pos,t had
to say on the Sherrod incident
and the sequence of events:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...072201265.html
"But for all the chatter -- some of it from Sherrod herself -- that
she was done in by Fox News, the network didn't touch the story until
her forced resignation was made public Monday evening, with the
exception of brief comments by O'Reilly. After a news meeting Monday
afternoon, an e-mail directive was sent to the news staff in which Fox
Senior Vice President Michael Clemente said: "Let's take our time and
get the facts straight on this story. Can we get confirmation and
comments from Sherrod before going on-air. Let's make sure we do this
right."

Sherrod may be the only official ever dismissed because of the fear
that Fox host Glenn Beck might go after her. As Agriculture Secretary
Tom Vilsack tried to pressure her into resigning, Sherrod says Deputy
Undersecretary Cheryl Cook called her Monday to say "do it, because
you're going to be on 'Glenn Beck' tonight." And for all the focus on
Fox, much of the mainstream media ran with a fragmentary story that
painted an obscure 62-year-old Georgian as an unrepentant racist. "


If anyone was to blame in this whole thing, it was the White House and
the administration, who threw Sherrod under the bus without as so much
as even
taking a few hours to know the facts. Sort of like Attorney General
Holder, making an ass of himself testifying before Congress about
Arizona's new law to check citizenship status, when he finally had to
admit that while shooting off his mouth about it, he had never even
read the simple law consisting of a few pages.

Also, Sherrod is not entirely innocent here either. In her video, she
clealy admitted that she treated a farmer differently because he was
white. Yes, it happened a long time ago and she apparently has
changed her ways and was using it as an example. But it was still
malfeasance by a USDA public official and pretty stupid to go around
talking about it. Had the roles been reversed, I assure you guys
like Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton would not be so forgiving to paint
the offending person as now being some kind of hero that was wronged
by the media.

On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 22:51:52 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:

On Dec 30, 6:58*pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 05:26:03 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:
On Dec 29, 10:17 pm, Molly Brown wrote:
A new study shows that toxicperfluoroalkyls, which are used in
surface protection treatments and coatings to keep grease from leaking
through fast food wrappers, are being ingested by people through their
food and showing up as contaminants in blood.

I thought the refrigerant FREON was banned because it contained
Fluorine, so how come it s still being used in Perfluoroalkyl. Is this
hypocrisy or what?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mer..._b_800297.html

Many toxic elements are perfectly safe went locked up in compounds.
Take sodium and chlorine, both deadly but you eat and need every day
as salt.

Um, harry, chorine and sodium are not "locked" up in (table) salt. *Just add
water.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Still not poisonous, hence still locked up.

....another goalpost gone missing.

On Dec 31, 1:55*pm, wrote:
On Dec 29, 9:55*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:





Molly Brown wrote:

I was hoping that someone like you might educate us on those
differences .

Ask and you shall receive:

Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there
are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar,
milk... ice cream. Ice cream, Mandrake, children's ice cream!

You know when fluoridation first began?

Nineteen hundred and forty-six. 1946, Mandrake. How does that coincide with
your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A
foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the
knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way
your hard-core Commie works.

Well, I, uh... I... I... first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the
physical act of love.

Yes, a uh, a profound sense of fatigue... a feeling of emptiness followed.
Luckily I... I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of
essence.

I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women uh... women sense my
power and they seek the life essence. I, uh... I do not avoid women,
Mandrake.

But I... I do deny them my essence.

LOL... * The above, for those who may be wondering, was uttered by the
air force
commander that went nuts and started WWIII in the classic movie Dr.
Strangelove.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hollywood again...................FICTION.

On Fri, 31 Dec 2010 07:27:01 -0800 (PST), harry wrote:

On Dec 31, 1:55*pm, wrote:
On Dec 29, 9:55*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:





Molly Brown wrote:

I was hoping that someone like you might educate us on those
differences .

Ask and you shall receive:

Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there
are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar,
milk... ice cream. Ice cream, Mandrake, children's ice cream!

You know when fluoridation first began?

Nineteen hundred and forty-six. 1946, Mandrake. How does that coincide with
your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A
foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the
knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way
your hard-core Commie works.

Well, I, uh... I... I... first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the
physical act of love.

Yes, a uh, a profound sense of fatigue... a feeling of emptiness followed.
Luckily I... I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of
essence.

I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women uh... women sense my
power and they seek the life essence. I, uh... I do not avoid women,
Mandrake.

But I... I do deny them my essence.

LOL... * The above, for those who may be wondering, was uttered by the
air force
commander that went nuts and started WWIII in the classic movie Dr.
Strangelove.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hollywood again...................FICTION.

No ****, harry? No one else suspected that "the classic movie Dr.
Strangelove" was Hollywood fiction. what a maroon!

HeyBub wrote:
bud-- wrote:

A poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press about a
year ago
http://people-press.org/report/537/
found that almost half of regular Fox viewers thought "health care
legislation will create death panels", an absurd propaganda piece.

## And guess what? They were correct.

(Wall Street Journal, December 29th)
"On [last] Sunday, Robert Pear reported in the New York Times that Medicare
will now pay for voluntary end-of-life counseling as part of seniors' annual
physicals. A similar provision was originally included in ObamaCare, but
Democrats stripped it out amid the death panel furor. Now Medicare will
enact the same policy through regulation."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

(San Jose Mercury News, December 27-28th)
"Welcome back, death panels. Really.
"New Medicare regulations taking effect Saturday will pay doctors who advise
patients on end-of-life care, including options for advance directives on
how they want to be treated. This is all the health care reform proposal
ever intended."
http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stori...nclick_check=1


"They were correct"???
The Palin, et al, propaganda was that a "panel" would deny care to the
elderly.
- Where is the panel?
- Where is the denial? There is only counseling? Patients get the care
they decide they want. They can change their minds. Are republicans
against choice? (Or do they just lie about what is in legislation to try
to defeat it?)

What was/is proposed is only a "death panel" to an idiot like Sarah
Palin or someone who is dishonest (Fox?).

A NBC/Wall Street Journal poll about a year ago had 75% of Fox viewers
believing the health care reform would "Stop Care To The Elderly". Why
did such a high percentage of Fox viewers believe this insane lie?

--
bud--

On Fri, 31 Dec 2010 10:23:39 -0600, bud-- wrote:

HeyBub wrote:
bud-- wrote:

A poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press about a
year ago
http://people-press.org/report/537/
found that almost half of regular Fox viewers thought "health care
legislation will create death panels", an absurd propaganda piece.

## And guess what? They were correct.

(Wall Street Journal, December 29th)
"On [last] Sunday, Robert Pear reported in the New York Times that Medicare
will now pay for voluntary end-of-life counseling as part of seniors' annual
physicals. A similar provision was originally included in ObamaCare, but
Democrats stripped it out amid the death panel furor. Now Medicare will
enact the same policy through regulation."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

(San Jose Mercury News, December 27-28th)
"Welcome back, death panels. Really.
"New Medicare regulations taking effect Saturday will pay doctors who advise
patients on end-of-life care, including options for advance directives on
how they want to be treated. This is all the health care reform proposal
ever intended."
http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stori...nclick_check=1


"They were correct"???
The Palin, et al, propaganda was that a "panel" would deny care to the
elderly.
- Where is the panel?
- Where is the denial? There is only counseling? Patients get the care
they decide they want. They can change their minds. Are republicans
against choice? (Or do they just lie about what is in legislation to try
to defeat it?)

Umm, Obummercare doesn't start paying for anything until 2014.

What was/is proposed is only a "death panel" to an idiot like Sarah
Palin or someone who is dishonest (Fox?).

Oh, it's already started, but nothing happens overnight.
http://townhall.com/columnists/CalTh...she_told_us_so

A NBC/Wall Street Journal poll about a year ago had 75% of Fox viewers
believing the health care reform would "Stop Care To The Elderly". Why
did such a high percentage of Fox viewers believe this insane lie?

It'll surely put a large dent in it. We'll be bankrupt.

On Dec 31, 8:23*am, bud-- wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
bud-- wrote:

A poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press about a
year ago
http://people-press.org/report/537/
found that almost half of regular Fox viewers thought "health care
legislation will create death panels", an absurd propaganda piece.

## And guess what? They were correct.

(Wall Street Journal, December 29th)
"On [last] Sunday, Robert Pear reported in the New York Times that Medicare
will now pay for voluntary end-of-life counseling as part of seniors' annual
physicals. A similar provision was originally included in ObamaCare, but
Democrats stripped it out amid the death panel furor. Now Medicare will
enact the same policy through regulation."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57604570280391...

(San Jose Mercury News, December 27-28th)
"Welcome back, death panels. Really.
"New Medicare regulations taking effect Saturday will pay doctors who advise
patients on end-of-life care, including options for advance directives on
how they want to be treated. This is all the health care reform proposal
ever intended."
http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stori...nclick_check=1

"They were correct"???
The Palin, et al, propaganda was that a "panel" would deny care to the
elderly.
- Where is the panel?
- Where is the denial? There is only counseling? Patients get the care
they decide they want. They can change their minds. Are republicans
against choice? (Or do they just lie about what is in legislation to try
to defeat it?)

What was/is proposed is only a "death panel" to an idiot like Sarah
Palin or someone who is dishonest (Fox?).

A NBC/Wall Street Journal poll about a year ago had 75% of Fox viewers
believing the health care reform would "Stop Care To The Elderly". Why
did such a high percentage of Fox viewers believe this insane lie?

--
Fox viewers are a self-selected group, imperfectly acquainted with the
idea, much less the technique, of critical thinking. You must have
seen the recent study that showed these viewers to be the most
misinformed of any group. They hungrily cling to any myth that
validates their own tiny, frightened self-image.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

It's irrelevant whether Soros is the puppet-master behind Huffington. In
my view, castigating Huffington because of its funding or NewsMax or Fox
or anybody else has nothing to do with the truthfulness of their
reporting.

"Follow the money" is always a wise policy. If your doctor prescribes an
expensive medication instead of a far more affordable generic drug, wouldn't
it be useful to know the expensive drug's maker has underwritten his
participation at medical conferences? If a contractor wants to use a
certain brand of hardware, wouldn't it be useful to know he gets a kickback
from the mfg.? And if a certain news source is consistently sympathetic to
one political stance and/or party, would it not be nice to know who pays
their bills and what their agenda is? So I would be interested to learn
that George Soros really was the money behind Huffington Post, just as I
like to know that Richard Scaife (among others) bankrolled Newsmax.

The things - the reports - should stand on their own.

Should, but sometimes they don't. Fox got caught using old video to make it
appear that a Tea Party rally in D.C. was far better attended than it really
was, are we supposed to believe that was a casual accident? I have no doubt
that NY Times coverage of the Duke lacrosse team rape case was influenced by
the paper's politics, so why should I not judge Fox by the same standard
given the blatant bias shown in their news coverage and editorializing?
Since when is ignorance a good policy?

On Dec 31 2010, 11:23*am, bud-- wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
bud-- wrote:

A poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press about a
year ago
http://people-press.org/report/537/
found that almost half of regular Fox viewers thought "health care
legislation will create death panels", an absurd propaganda piece.

## And guess what? They were correct.

(Wall Street Journal, December 29th)
"On [last] Sunday, Robert Pear reported in the New York Times that Medicare
will now pay for voluntary end-of-life counseling as part of seniors' annual
physicals. A similar provision was originally included in ObamaCare, but
Democrats stripped it out amid the death panel furor. Now Medicare will
enact the same policy through regulation."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57604570280391...

(San Jose Mercury News, December 27-28th)
"Welcome back, death panels. Really.
"New Medicare regulations taking effect Saturday will pay doctors who advise
patients on end-of-life care, including options for advance directives on
how they want to be treated. This is all the health care reform proposal
ever intended."
http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stori...nclick_check=1

"They were correct"???
The Palin, et al, propaganda was that a "panel" would deny care to the
elderly.
- Where is the panel?
- Where is the denial? There is only counseling? Patients get the care
they decide they want. They can change their minds. Are republicans
against choice? (Or do they just lie about what is in legislation to try
to defeat it?)

What was/is proposed is only a "death panel" to an idiot like Sarah
Palin or someone who is dishonest (Fox?).

A NBC/Wall Street Journal poll about a year ago had 75% of Fox viewers
believing the health care reform would "Stop Care To The Elderly". Why
did such a high percentage of Fox viewers believe this insane lie?

--
bud--- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bud, in all honesty, there is a death panel at every insurance
company, be it private or
government. Surely you've heard all the stories over the years of
patients with a terminal
disease being denied access to a new, expensive treatmentthat offers
some chance of
success because the insurer does not believe the treatment is
justified. In other words
they are making a judgement call on the cost/benefit of the treatment
options, some of
which will result in patients dying.

As for Fox viewers believing that the bill passed would "Stop Care to
the Elderly", I can see
why they would answer Yes. The bill was being sold to the public
partly on the basis that it
was going to be funded through huge savings in the current Medicare
program, to the tune of
$400Bil. I think many of
us believe if you reduce funding to Medicare, it will reduce some care
available to the elderly under
the current program. The pollsters obviously chose and worded that
particular question to get
the results they wanted. I believe if they actually do cut funding,
then it will stop some care to the
elderly.

And that brings up one of the stupidist parts of this whole plan. The
govt actually wants us to
believe they are going to partly fund a new program by simply
reducing waste and mismanagement
in a current govt program, ie Medicare. Wouldn't a rational person
simply say, you've been running
that program for 45 years and it's full of waste, fraud and
mismanagent that comes to $400Bil.
Go straighten it out FIRST, then when we see the
results, we can consider letting you expand into a bigger program?

On Dec 31 2010, 12:31*pm, Higgs Boson wrote:
On Dec 31, 8:23*am, bud-- wrote:



HeyBub wrote:
bud-- wrote:

A poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press about a
year ago
http://people-press.org/report/537/
found that almost half of regular Fox viewers thought "health care
legislation will create death panels", an absurd propaganda piece.

## And guess what? They were correct.

(Wall Street Journal, December 29th)
"On [last] Sunday, Robert Pear reported in the New York Times that Medicare
will now pay for voluntary end-of-life counseling as part of seniors' annual
physicals. A similar provision was originally included in ObamaCare, but
Democrats stripped it out amid the death panel furor. Now Medicare will
enact the same policy through regulation."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57604570280391....

(San Jose Mercury News, December 27-28th)
"Welcome back, death panels. Really.
"New Medicare regulations taking effect Saturday will pay doctors who advise
patients on end-of-life care, including options for advance directives on
how they want to be treated. This is all the health care reform proposal
ever intended."
http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stori...nclick_check=1

"They were correct"???
The Palin, et al, propaganda was that a "panel" would deny care to the
elderly.
- Where is the panel?
- Where is the denial? There is only counseling? Patients get the care
they decide they want. They can change their minds. Are republicans
against choice? (Or do they just lie about what is in legislation to try
to defeat it?)

What was/is proposed is only a "death panel" to an idiot like Sarah
Palin or someone who is dishonest (Fox?).

A NBC/Wall Street Journal poll about a year ago had 75% of Fox viewers
believing the health care reform would "Stop Care To The Elderly". Why
did such a high percentage of Fox viewers believe this insane lie?

--

Fox viewers are a self-selected group, imperfectly acquainted with the
idea, much less the technique, of critical thinking. *You must have
seen the recent study that showed these viewers to be the most
misinformed of any group. * They hungrily cling to any myth that
validates their own tiny, frightened self-image.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And you must have seen the results of the last election that showed
most of mainstream
America thinks a lot more like Fox than Obama and the libs.

On Sat, 1 Jan 2011 06:16:50 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Dec 31 2010, 11:23*am, bud-- wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
bud-- wrote:

A poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press about a
year ago
http://people-press.org/report/537/
found that almost half of regular Fox viewers thought "health care
legislation will create death panels", an absurd propaganda piece.

## And guess what? They were correct.

(Wall Street Journal, December 29th)
"On [last] Sunday, Robert Pear reported in the New York Times that Medicare
will now pay for voluntary end-of-life counseling as part of seniors' annual
physicals. A similar provision was originally included in ObamaCare, but
Democrats stripped it out amid the death panel furor. Now Medicare will
enact the same policy through regulation."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57604570280391...

(San Jose Mercury News, December 27-28th)
"Welcome back, death panels. Really.
"New Medicare regulations taking effect Saturday will pay doctors who advise
patients on end-of-life care, including options for advance directives on
how they want to be treated. This is all the health care reform proposal
ever intended."
http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stori...nclick_check=1

"They were correct"???
The Palin, et al, propaganda was that a "panel" would deny care to the
elderly.
- Where is the panel?
- Where is the denial? There is only counseling? Patients get the care
they decide they want. They can change their minds. Are republicans
against choice? (Or do they just lie about what is in legislation to try
to defeat it?)

What was/is proposed is only a "death panel" to an idiot like Sarah
Palin or someone who is dishonest (Fox?).

A NBC/Wall Street Journal poll about a year ago had 75% of Fox viewers
believing the health care reform would "Stop Care To The Elderly". Why
did such a high percentage of Fox viewers believe this insane lie?

--
bud--- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bud, in all honesty, there is a death panel at every insurance
company, be it private or
government. Surely you've heard all the stories over the years of
patients with a terminal
disease being denied access to a new, expensive treatmentthat offers
some chance of
success because the insurer does not believe the treatment is
justified. In other words
they are making a judgement call on the cost/benefit of the treatment
options, some of
which will result in patients dying.

No, they are making judgments on the efficacy of treatments, not the viability
of individuals. "Experimental" means something.

As for Fox viewers believing that the bill passed would "Stop Care to
the Elderly", I can see
why they would answer Yes. The bill was being sold to the public
partly on the basis that it
was going to be funded through huge savings in the current Medicare
program, to the tune of
$400Bil. I think many of
us believe if you reduce funding to Medicare, it will reduce some care
available to the elderly under
the current program. The pollsters obviously chose and worded that
particular question to get
the results they wanted. I believe if they actually do cut funding,
then it will stop some care to the
elderly.

And that brings up one of the stupidist parts of this whole plan. The
govt actually wants us to
believe they are going to partly fund a new program by simply
reducing waste and mismanagement
in a current govt program, ie Medicare. Wouldn't a rational person
simply say, you've been running
that program for 45 years and it's full of waste, fraud and
mismanagent that comes to $400Bil.
Go straighten it out FIRST, then when we see the
results, we can consider letting you expand into a bigger program?

wrote:
On Dec 31 2010, 11:23 am, bud-- wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
bud-- wrote:
A poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press about a
year ago
http://people-press.org/report/537/
found that almost half of regular Fox viewers thought "health care
legislation will create death panels", an absurd propaganda piece.
## And guess what? They were correct.
(Wall Street Journal, December 29th)
"On [last] Sunday, Robert Pear reported in the New York Times that Medicare
will now pay for voluntary end-of-life counseling as part of seniors' annual
physicals. A similar provision was originally included in ObamaCare, but
Democrats stripped it out amid the death panel furor. Now Medicare will
enact the same policy through regulation."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57604570280391...
(San Jose Mercury News, December 27-28th)
"Welcome back, death panels. Really.
"New Medicare regulations taking effect Saturday will pay doctors who advise
patients on end-of-life care, including options for advance directives on
how they want to be treated. This is all the health care reform proposal
ever intended."
http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stori...nclick_check=1
"They were correct"???
The Palin, et al, propaganda was that a "panel" would deny care to the
elderly.
- Where is the panel?
- Where is the denial? There is only counseling? Patients get the care
they decide they want. They can change their minds. Are republicans
against choice? (Or do they just lie about what is in legislation to try
to defeat it?)

What was/is proposed is only a "death panel" to an idiot like Sarah
Palin or someone who is dishonest (Fox?).

A NBC/Wall Street Journal poll about a year ago had 75% of Fox viewers
believing the health care reform would "Stop Care To The Elderly". Why
did such a high percentage of Fox viewers believe this insane lie?

--
bud--- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bud, in all honesty, there is a death panel at every insurance
company, be it private or
government. Surely you've heard all the stories over the years of
patients with a terminal
disease being denied access to a new, expensive treatmentthat offers
some chance of
success because the insurer does not believe the treatment is
justified. In other words
they are making a judgement call on the cost/benefit of the treatment
options, some of
which will result in patients dying.

Of course. Also losing insurance if have big claims and caps on lifetime
payout.

It is one of the stupidities of the Palin, et al, death panel nonsense.
So is Palin too stupid to understand, or just dishonest?

Progress was held up for 3 months while 3 democrats and 3 republicans
supposedly tried to negotiate a bill. Toward the end one of the
republicans, Charles Grassley, talked about "death panels".


As for Fox viewers believing that the bill passed would "Stop Care to
the Elderly", I can see
why they would answer Yes. The bill was being sold to the public
partly on the basis that it
was going to be funded through huge savings in the current Medicare
program, to the tune of
$400Bil. I think many of
us believe if you reduce funding to Medicare, it will reduce some care
available to the elderly under
the current program. The pollsters obviously chose and worded that
particular question to get
the results they wanted. I believe if they actually do cut funding,
then it will stop some care to the
elderly.

Not likely there were problems with poll questions. There were problems
of people believing lies. The percentage of Fox viewers that believed
this was well over double the percentage of MSNBC and CNN viewers. (The
percentage of Fox viewers that believed there were death panels was
almost double the percentage for network news.)

The $400B figure is over 10 years. About 1/3 of that would be from
elimination of subsidies to private insurance companies for Medicare
Advantage (Medicare part C). This is a insurance company subsidy used by
maybe 20% of Medicare recipients. I have not seen a clear explanation of
the rest of it. Fraud is a major Medicare problem. One of the ways
health costs, in general, can be reduces is by looking at 'best
practices', which is in the bill. It is highly unlikely there would be
major cuts to health care that is provided under Medicare. That simply
does not work politically. Reducing medical costs, in general, needs a
lot more work.

This is, of course, not taking place in a vacuum. How much would
Medicare be reduced if republicans got what they wanted? The only
concrete proposal I remember was from Paul Ryan which the CBO scored at
$650B/10yr cuts to Medicare (with Medicare becoming a voucher system).
That is, of course, a lot larger than the $400B that the republicans and
Fox were hyping.

One of the Medicare changes is elimination of the "donut hole", a major
problem for some people.


And that brings up one of the stupidist parts of this whole plan. The
govt actually wants us to
believe they are going to partly fund a new program by simply
reducing waste and mismanagement
in a current govt program, ie Medicare. Wouldn't a rational person
simply say, you've been running
that program for 45 years and it's full of waste, fraud and
mismanagent that comes to $400Bil.
Go straighten it out FIRST, then when we see the
results, we can consider letting you expand into a bigger program?

There are, in fact, a number of funding mechanisms. Medicare cuts are
only one of them.

The CBO estimates the deficit will be reduced by over $100 billion in
the first 10 years and over $1 trillion in the second decade. Other
'independent' economists I have seen also say the deficit will be reduced.

The health care system we can't afford is the one we had.

--
bud--

wrote:
On Dec 31 2010, 12:31 pm, Higgs Boson wrote:

Fox viewers are a self-selected group, imperfectly acquainted with the
idea, much less the technique, of critical thinking. You must have
seen the recent study that showed these viewers to be the most
misinformed of any group. They hungrily cling to any myth that
validates their own tiny, frightened self-image.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And you must have seen the results of the last election that showed
most of mainstream
America thinks a lot more like Fox than Obama and the libs.

The smart republicans know the election was not an endorsement of
republican ideas.

It was a cry for change in the economic disaster that is still too much
in force which had not sufficiently abated under democratic government.

I really don't think, for example, that voters would be happy to remove
regulations on the financial system that would allow a repeat of what
just happened - likely in a different form.

--
bud--

On Sat, 01 Jan 2011 12:48:58 -0600, bud-- wrote:

wrote:
On Dec 31 2010, 12:31 pm, Higgs Boson wrote:

Fox viewers are a self-selected group, imperfectly acquainted with the
idea, much less the technique, of critical thinking. You must have
seen the recent study that showed these viewers to be the most
misinformed of any group. They hungrily cling to any myth that
validates their own tiny, frightened self-image.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And you must have seen the results of the last election that showed
most of mainstream
America thinks a lot more like Fox than Obama and the libs.

The smart republicans know the election was not an endorsement of
republican ideas.

Certainly not! It *WAS* a rejection of Obama, and Obamacare, in particular.

It was a cry for change in the economic disaster that is still too much
in force which had not sufficiently abated under democratic government.

Huh? "Sufficiently abated"? It stunningly accelerated, under absolute
Democratic control!

I really don't think, for example, that voters would be happy to remove
regulations on the financial system that would allow a repeat of what
just happened - likely in a different form.

The "financial controls" implemented by the Democrats will do *NOTHING* to
avert the next (or current, for that matter) crisis. That wasn't the point.