In response to the person (no name) who tried to blame an employer for killing a 17 year old girl by refusing to cover a liver transplant...My sister is an HR person. She has a bachelor degree in Human Resources and several years experience. When complaining to her about my own experience with Humana--my cholesterol tests were being denied as interchangebly medically unnecessary and experimental, she advised me that my HR department should have selected the test for coverage. What? She explained that she picks out what is covered under her company's health plan offered to their employees. She decides. My sister's medical degree, well, she doesn't have one. My sister's experience in the medical field, a doctor's office, any medical institution at all? None. It's shameful to put people in situations where they have to choose based on cost to cover medical services-it's an impossible choice. And yet this choice is being made everyday by insurance companies. A public option would hurt only the CEO paychecks, and stockholder portfolios. But the up side, people could have liver transplants covered, oh, and cholesterol tests too. Mr. Potter, please find a way to get President Obama's attention. Thank you so much for shining the light-I'll be standing right behind you in line to sign up for a public option.
I think you may be confusing two different kinds of fake news (of the many kinds out there). The FCC fines were for television stations that aired [[video news releases]], without disclosing to viewers the sponsor that paid to produce the video. This situation falls under the FCC's sponsorship identification rules, which [:node/6504|I've described previously].
With Pentagon-related fake news -- like the [:pentagonpundits|Pentagon pundits] -- the issue is more a breach of the law banning taxpayer funds going towards domestic "propaganda or publicity" campaigns. In this case, if the law were to be enforced, it may not involve a fine at all, but a change in actions, policies and/or oversight -- which would be the most important thing to do, in my opinion.
thanks for the link to sourcewatch.org to look up who's behind the names of these organizations like the League of American Voters. I also looked for PRWatch.org and Sourcewatch.org to see who is behind those nefarious groups as well, but found nothing. ;-) Keep up the good work
I think you may be confusing two different kinds of fake news (of the many kinds out there). The FCC fines were for television stations that aired [[video news releases]], without disclosing to viewers the sponsor that paid to produce the video. This situation falls under the FCC's sponsorship identification rules, which [:node/6504|I've described previously].
With Pentagon-related fake news -- like the [:pentagonpundits|Pentagon pundits] -- the issue is more a breach of the law banning taxpayer funds going towards domestic "propaganda or publicity" campaigns. In this case, if the law were to be enforced, it may not involve a fine at all, but a change in actions, policies and/or oversight -- which would be the most important thing to do, in my opinion.
Pages