I don't blame them for being upset with the news station, especially because they (the O'Donnell camp) paid everything in advanced. Just don't jump to the conclusion that this was sabotage or some nefarious plot. There are a gagillion things that can go wrong with airing a program and until the station has had time to review people need to keep a calm head. Maybe it was. Maybe the A/V guy just hates O'Donnell, but I highly doubt that's what happened.

Also should add- the picture you put up will not load @TRMS

I believe Channel 28 is a local "public access" station run by Comcast.

Tim Qualls, executive producer at Channel 28, said in an interview the ad did not air because O'Donnell's campaign did not bring a tape to the production studio by the agreed upon deadline. She reserved the time on Thursday, for $2,500, and agreed to bring a tape by Friday at 5 p.m., Qualls said.

"I did not receive a tape until Sunday night at one of my employees' houses," Qualls said. "It has nothing to do with us refusing to air it. I just didn't get the tape by my deadline."

He said he is a Republican and had planned to vote for O'Donnell, but the tape situation changed his mind. "She's lost my vote," Qualls said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/01/AR2010110102898.html?sid=ST2010110102963

@Mickey- I'm not claiming that there is some nefarious plot afoot, I am simply saying that I don't blame the O'Donnell campaign for feeling like there is, even if it does turn out that they are the ones who dropped the ball by missing their production deadline.

@Dutchie- I was aware that channel 28 is public access, that's why I used 'Fox affiliate' as my example; many conservatives perceive public access channels as being liberally biased, and whether that is justified or not it remains the prevailing stereotype.

@TheAubs- that comment wasn't so much in regards to you or what you said per say, so much as it was to everyone else (and the O'Donnell campaign). Lots of people have been like (and yes I'm being overly sarcastic here for the sake of point): "omg it didn't air it's a conspiracy the sky is falling! Ahhh!!!" and I was merely trying to point out that, that type of over the top hyperbolism is waayyyyy past the realm of reality (and necessity). I am sympathetic to the O'Donnell campaign's frustrations, but for everyone who went off on "it's the liberal media bias" and all this stuff- calllllllllllmmm down. Here's some jazz and some weed. RELAX! Please people, it's only been 1 day since the rally =)

Here's an excerpt:

The Obama administration cut taxes for middle-class Americans, expects to make a profit on the hundreds of billions of dollars spent to rescue Wall Street banks and has overseen an economy that has grown for the past five quarters.

Most voters don’t believe it.

A Bloomberg National Poll conducted Oct. 24-26 finds that by a two-to-one margin, likely voters in the Nov. 2 midterm elections think taxes have gone up, the economy has shrunk, and the billions lent to banks as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program won’t be recovered.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-29/poll-shows-americans-don-t-know-economy-expanded-with-tax-cuts.html

Never let it be said that Americans let facts get in the way of a good story.

It sounds like they choose to believe the Fox version.

Maybe they were waiting for the check to clear.

If I were them, I would make sure the check cleared before airing ANYTHING from Christine "I'm not a witch -- I'm You" O'Donnell. After all she has had cash-flow problems in the past!

Maybe they think that they can capture the "Insomniac Vote."

Uffdaguy, I looked up the channel (Channel 28) and it is a local cable channel that runs infomercials and local public events, etc. It is not a local network affiliated channel. Seems to be sort of a "one-man show" type of channel. With this background I can see how it could be an honest human error.

Astonishingly enough, you are more forgiving than I am at this. I look at this as I would any business transaction: if I pay my money for a service, and I am promised that this service will be performed at a certain time, then I expect that contract, so to speak, to be fulfilled as agreed upon. If this had been a government operation and this had happened, the right wing would be all over this as an example of the failures of government to function properly. If the right is constantly telling us how much better the private sector is at doing practically anything, shouldn't they prove it?

Turns out it may have been ODonnell's fault, still don't know all facts.

On the other subject, the private sector does do everything better (as a whole) than government. Contrast USPS with UPS.

I'll try this one - the US Mail isn't going to stop providing me service even if the UPS Board of directors decides my area is unprofitable.

USPS is not a government agency. Medicare and Medicaid provide services with far less overhead than private insurance companies. The US military provides superior military service than private mercenary contractors like Blackwater for far less cost.

And yes, it does at this moment appear to be O'Donnell's fault. That will teach me to defend her on even the smallest thing.

I don't know why people rag on the USPS so much. For less than 50 cents some guy drives to your house, picks up a letter, and puts it on a plane and mails it across the country. I've never had bad service with my local postal carrier or UPS or FedEx. I know people who work for all 3 and they work hard. They are all nice people who do a good job. The lines that I've experienced at the post office have been no worse than lines at UPS or FedEx. Same with treatment, same with services. The only difference between all 3 companies is cost- and as a consumer, I like being able to pick and choose.

John Stossell: Last year, the FTC found that the Post Office received implicit subsidies of $34 to $117 million -- and that's not counting the monopoly, its biggest benefit.

Medicare and Medicaid have similar advantages, if you look at an apples to apples comparison, you'll find they are not very efficient with tons of abuse.

What are your "apples to apples comparisons" with Medicare and Medicaid?

And of course, there is no waste and abuse in the private sector, right? No CEO offices redecorated for millions of dollars, no expensive getaways for executives? Let's be honest here: the private sector, especially the large multinationals, are concerned mostly about profits, because those bring big executive salaries, bonuses, and perks. Of course, even if the company is run into the ground by these same execs, they STILL get all those things, which is demonstrated by last year's Wall Street bonuses breaking all previous records, despite the fact that the companies had to be bailed out by the taxpayer.

The private sector is not the paragon or savior that the right holds it up to be. While there are plenty of small and medium sized businesses that ARE good corporate citizens and exemplary employers, by far it seems that once they get to multinational status, they seem to feel they have the right to demand special treatment. They behave atrociously, then expect to be bailed out because they are "too big to fail". This is especially true in the financial sector, which produces absolutely nothing, creates no wealth, simply shifts it from one place to another, taking a cut as it does so.

I also would quibble over the statement that Medicare is "not very efficient." How exactly and what exactly are you basing that statement on? There is waste, fraud, and abuse in many if not all government programs, don't get me wrong. I hate waste, fraud, and abuse. But to act like it destroys the validity of a program, or to act like it's all the government does is dishonest and quite frankly ludicrous. Some things need to be changed, I will certainly grant you that much, but don't pretend like the world would be better off without those programs.

Theoretically, efficiency in something like medicare would be to measure how much of the money put into the system is actually used to pay for medical treatment. In that case, insurance companies come off very badly every time. As proof, I offer up the fact that insurance companies are fighting back against a provision of the healthcare reform law that forces them to put at least 80% of premiums back into actually paying benefits. They say they can't survive on such small margins. I can understand how difficult that may be. After all, how can you expect to pay mega salaries and obscene bonuses to upper management when you're being required to put your income into the very place it is intended to used in the first place, paying for subscribers medical bills?

Repubs and the Tea Party keep telling us that individuals and government need to learn to live within their means, and make cuts to things like salaries and the minimum wage. Apparently the rich and the corporations don't need to do that. After all, if they overextend themselves and get into financial trouble, they always have the taxpayer to bail them out.

To the 80% on health care thing- remember that we are the only industrialized nation in the world who allows insurance companies to profit. Remember that insurance companies are the middle men. They are not the doctors, hospitals, etc. They do not fund the doctors, hospitals, etc. All they do is provide insurance for you to go to the hospital/doctor if you get sick. We're the only industrialized nation in the world that looks at that equation and says "hey you, middle man, take money off the top!"

Of course, that wasn't always the case. If I recall correctly, insurance companies by law had to be not-for-profit up until Nixon came into office and got it changed. Not surprisingly, health care costs began to climb at that time. While repubs claim that it's all the fault of malpractice suits, the brutal truth is that they add only about 1% to medical costs according to those who have studied the situation. And now repubs say they want to repeal the healthcare bill that just delivered another 30 million customers to their door? Apparently, the insurance industry will settle for nothing less than total victory, which means repealing anything that requires them to cover people with pre-existing conditions, end the practice of recission, and forces them to spend at least 80% of premiums on subscribers medical treatment.

I understand that since they will no longer be able to cherry pick the pool to get only the healthiest subsribers, they may have to pay more out, to which I say...cut the salaries and bonuses that add up to billions each year across the industry. That will allow you to fulfill your obligations under the law and still function quite profitably. If it's good enough to tell the middle class to man up and accept job losses and salary cuts, it should be good enough for our rich masters too. If they refuse to do so, who covers the cost of those that they don't want to insure? It's the taxpayer again. Of course, repubs also want to cut social programs like medicare and medicaid, so we can't afford to take care of those folks that way either. Alan Grayson was right: in the repub view, if you're sick, just hurry up and die.

Insurers also claim their costs will rise if they have to cover those "undesirables". Then again, they tell us that subscriber rates are so high because they add more to the premiums to cover the costs of the uninsured. So, in reality, they have already factored in the cost of insuring those folks. Raising rates and blaming it on the healthcare reform bill is an out and out lie to the American consumer.

Actually Republicans don't want to repeal everything in the health care bill. They want the mandate to stay in place (yes despite the law suits Republicans love the mandate since it was their idea). What they want to happen is have every other requirement be dropped. So the whole "you have to pay this much per dollar" etc stuff they want removed. That way people are forced to buy insurance, forced to pay higher premiums, and if the insurance company wants to drop them once they get sick that is a net profit to the company. I would argue one thing though- the cost of health care has steadily risen with our population. It always will. The more people you have, the higher the costs to care for those people. With that said, obesity and obesity related illnesses are the biggest tax on the healthcare system. No one wants to address it, but if you don't cure obesity you won't see a dramatic drop in GDP costs even if we had a public option (although yes that would help significantly). Nixon had a role in this dance, don't get me wrong, but he's not the only person up for blame.

I agree, there is plenty of blame to go around. Our unhealthy lifestyles lead to obesity and its attendant health issues, from heart disease to diabetes and more. Yes, the costs will go up as the population increases, but that doesn't tell the true story. What we need to look at is health care cost per capita. A well-run system should see that number remain steady, or rising at a slow, sustainable rate. In our country, our costs per person are some of the highest in the world, but the results in terms of lifespan and overall health rank us below Cuba.

Honestly I think the problem is that we focus so much on health insurance. If it were up to me I would do away with insurance all together (regarding health care anyways). People should be able to see their doctor once a year, their dentist twice a year, and their eye physician once a year (as is recommended) without it costing them money. I dunno how you would do that in a capitalist society, honestly I don't, but it just seems to me the whole "health insurance" debate completely avoids health care per say. We aren't talking about the quality of hospitals. We aren't talking about stuff like nursing care or home care. We're talking about middle men and in general I hate middle men, although I'll admit that's my own bias. But you are correct- there are many, many things we can do to reign in health care costs. This health bill was a start, but it wasn't a cure all (nor do I think you could get a cure all given our current politics, ungh).

For the apples to apples comparison you have to look at the differences between private insurances and medicaid, like the clientele they serve and the types of overhead they incur. Google Robert A. Book medicare administrative costs for an in depth analysis.

Will do Rob and will let you know; until then please, unless I didn't let you know before let me make it clear: THANK YOU FOR ARTICULATING THE REPUBLICAN POINT OF VIEW SO WELL; THANK YOU FOR ARTICULATING THE CONSERVATIVE POINT OF VIEW SO WELL

Ah, the Heritage Foundation. I understand now. Thanks, RobDon.

If I say "I love you mightbe" do you promise not to send me an angry e-mail? I mean it as a friend, really I do.....no sarcasm....just know you may not be so inclined (change your mind RE: sarcasm please?)

Mickey, when have I ever sent you an angry email? Past performance is an indicator of future performance (at least that is what I say when I am interviewing potential future employees).

Help me here, lady?

Some people have so I just wanted to clarify...some people that I've said that to have sent me an angry e-mail; I just wanted to clarify. I know where I stand with Uffy, Don, Dutch, and Laura, so just wanted to know where I stood with you- did not mean to be offensive (in fact was asking so that I could avoid being as such)

No worries, lady - no worries. Love is a many-splendoured thing.

K good- some people have literally told me it makes them feel uncomfortable and mad when I do that...so I just wanted to clarify...anyways it doesn't matter anymore (thank you for clarifying) I just wanted to know....I just checked my e-mail and saw that in there and was like "whelp better ask." That's all... if I ever do piss you off please understand that I hate passive aggressivism- just tell me when I f'up. Don't cloud it. That's all I ask. Anywho, this is the last personal message I plan on sending (soooooorrry!!!!)

mightbealiberal, read the content and then see if you agree or disagree. If you send me to a left leaning site I will do my best to understand their view and then articulate what I disagree with instead of just dismissing it altogether.

And Mickey, I enjoy the discussion and really like it when I am challenged to rethink my thoughts and beliefs. I try to point out when someone with whom I generally disagree makes a good point. Although, like many it hard at times to play down ones emotions and occasionally I probably respond too quick without thinking.

Thank you for the conversation as well.

I also thank you for doing a fine job of articulating the conservative viewpoint, and doing it in a useful and challenging manner. It's what I think many want, and so rarely get.

Now, as to medicare et al vs. private insurance. Insurance companies up until now have been able to cherry pick their subscribers by denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, no matter how petty or meaningless they are, and cancelling policies when subscribers had the gall to actually use their insurance. Doing so, they were able to keep their costs relatively low. The rest of the population had to depend on employer-provided health insurance, medicare or medicaid if they were elderly or poor, or just go without. What were the consequences of this? Businesses pay more to insure their employees, raising the cost of doing business. Medicare and medicaid got those that were most likely to need medical care, usually some of the most extensive and expensive care, like the elderly. The result was that medicare and medicaid see higher costs to pay for treatment per patient than private insurance. Those who couldn't get insurance at any price either got no care at all, or ended up in the emergency room, the most expensive option of all. Because they were too poor to pay for treatment, the cost has to be absorbed by the hospital, which in turn jacks up its prices for those who have insurance.

The net result of this whole crappy system? Government programs like medicare and medicaid cost increasingly more money as our population ages, and repubs complain about it, but are unwilling to deal with it except to say they need to cut those programs. Businesses get saddled with higher operating costs because the cost of the uninsured gets passed along to the insurance companies, which in turn pass the cost on to business. Everyone loses under the current system, yet repubs seem quite content to keep that system and perpetuate it. If they want to cut or eliminate medicare and medicaid, prepare for healthcare costs to skyrocket for everyone, as more people will have no healthcare coverage at all, which in turn increases private insurance premiums, driving more people off the rolls of the insured. It becomes a vicious cycle. This is a zero sum game as long as you believe that every person deserves medical care, as either the government or private industry ends up picking up the costs. If repubs get a tingly feeling by cutting medicare and medicaid, they will get a painful shock as the insurance industry sends rates through the stratosphere in response. The only alternative is to simply tell the American people that unlike citizens of every other developed country, they don't deserve medical care and to just get over it. Only by denying care of any sort to millions of people, turning them away from hospitals, clinics and doctors offices can they cut government programs like medicare and medicaid, without causing private insurance rates, and hence, business costs to balloon out of control.

Physicians for a National Health Program found Medicare administrative costs to be measurably lower than private insurers.

Andrew Gelman found some interesting stuff when testing the assumptions in the Book (Heriage Foundation) report.

Ezra Klein also found Medicare's administrative costs to be lower than private insurers.

An earlier analysis in 2006 also found Medicare's administrative costs to be lower than private insurers.

Uffdaguy...don't know if you're still following here. I see many of your points and understand the shortcomings of the current system. And I definitely do not think we as a country/society should go about denying health care to any individual. I just wish we would explore more ways of reducing health care cost (not just insurance) and how to assist people (those who can) in caring for themselves.

Yes, I'm still following. I too want to see more ways of reducing the cost of healthcare, and I'm certain that we could learn quite a bit from nations that rank far above us in quality of care and below us on cost per citizen. We don't need to reinvent the wheel, just look at some other wheels on the market, and see if there are some good ideas in those wheels that we can use. The NIH effect, (Not Invented Here), is killing us. It reminds me of the Viking inhabitants of Greenland when the climate began to change. Their prime sources of food began to disappear or become inaccessible because of the ever-worse weather, so they began to starve to death. Yet they coexisted with the Eskimos, who were thriving. The Eskimos survived because they took advantage of the food sources around them. The Vikings refused to eat things such as seals. The result was that the Eskimos are still there, and the Vikings exist only as bones in abandoned cemeteries. I don't want to see us go the way of the Vikings just because a system wasn't invented here.

Go, Eskimos! (I'll omit Palin for now.)

The only reason I think we refuse to look outside the US for ideas on healthcare is that insurance companies don't like that prospect. There are probably a number of doctors and lawyers who also like aspects of our current system. A few months ago, Ted Koppel had a series that examined healthcare systems in places like Taiwan, the UK, Switzerland, Japan and Cuba. As he eventually pointed out, none of them are perfect, but each also has its good points. In Cuba, for example, despite the fact that their system is funded at a far lower level than ours, Cubans are as healthy as Americans, and rank right with us in terms of effectiveness of healthcare. A big reason for that is that doctors are integrated with their communities and neighborhoods. They know their patients because they are their neighbors, and as a result, they are more accessible, both personally and professionally. In the UK, they have a system where the doctors are government employees, so they don't get paid the massive salaries that US doctors get, although they do much better for themselves than the average UK resident.

Like I said, there are no perfect systems, but there are systems that are better than ours in terms of cost and effectiveness. The idea is to get the most bang for your healthcare dollar, but statistics show we pay more than any other nation per capita, and yet our outcomes are no better than those of Cuba, and are actually the worst of the developed nations. That is a sure sign that what we are doing now simply doesn't work or make sense.

It is too bad your donations have been wasted....