Why Is Yahoo Liberal?

Question

The news article this morning about Americans worrying over more than just Iraq is a very liberal point of view by Yahoo. The poll actually says that more Democrats were polled than Republicans. I am a Democrat, but i sure didnt fair well under a Clinton Administration, and have done much better under a Bush Adm. I do not want a Nationalized Health Care plan. I have freinds in Canada who have Socialized Medicine and they hate it. I do not trust Hilliary, Barak or John to make my decisions about health care for me. Would you leave health care to a vote of the people? For those Americans who cannot afford health care, the taxpayors are already paying for your health care. Everyone who seeks medical attention cannot be refused. Yahoo should give both sides of an issue instead of being one sided all the time.

Answer 1

It's very difficult to find a neutral news source anymore. They all seem to have some bias one way or the other. Yahoo does indeed choose Liberally-biased news stories to post on their portal. Many times I have seen editorials posing as news stories on Yahoo's home page. Even the moderators of Yahoo! Answers are liberal. I have proven this to myself many times by observing the conservative-biased questions deleted at a much higher rate than the liberally-biased questions. What's funny about American politics is that it's like rooting for a football team. To most people, they want 'their team' to win no matter what, regardless of the facts. When in reality, I see the 2 major political parties as just one mega-party that will do anything to maintain power.

As far as Universal Healthcare goes, most people are very polarized on the subject with little desire to listen to the facts. They are either for it or against it. I'd prefer to listen to the facts first, then make up my own mind rather than listening to my 'political party' to tell me how I should vote.

Answer 2

You are correct that anyone seeking medical attention is not turned away. Suppose you have someone who makes too much to qualifiy for government paid medical and not enough to afford their own coverage and that person has a medical problem. He waits until it becomes an emergency because of the medical costs of preventative medicine or treatmet due to early detection. He may not even know until the ambulance brings him to the emergency room. He can't afford any of this, so you believe he should lose his house, his car, everything he owns because he can't afford insurance? Suppose the ambulance company and the medical providers decide to eat the cost, are they? Or, are you through higher premiums to your insurance company because the providers have to charge more to cover the expense of treating those without insurance. One way or another you are going to pay for that fellow's treatment. Studies have proven that it would be lest costly for all concerned if he could have gotten treatment earlier and that the treatment was paid for at the lower (not emergency room) rates. If you have insurance now and we opt for one of the plans, Hillary's is best, being offered by the Democrats (the GOP has no plan) your insurance premium may actually go down just a little. Your employer and mine would be required to put money into a pool just as they do now for medicare and medicaid, in some states a state plan too, but instead of going to the current plans they would be put toward paying premiums for those who cannot afford them. Thsese would be people whose employers are not now offering coverage, who have low income jobs or are unemployed or retired. If what is being proposed is indeed Socialized medicine I would join you in opposition to it. However the plans offered by the Democerats is not Socialized medicine at all. Doctors not insurance companies or government employees would decide what your treatment would be. There would be regulations, but there are now, the new regulations would envolve pricing of services and medication. The power of the government could leverage price breaks for you and me in medication and law suits against medical providers would have a cap on the amount someone could sue a doctor for. Insurance companies would participate and they would be allowed to make a profit, not the super exhorbinate profits they do now, but a modest profit or opt to be non-profit. People hear the right wing rhetoric and scare tactics on this issue and that does as intended by the right make it so only the wealthy can afford health care and everyone else suffers.

Why is it necessary to have Yahoo be neutral on this issue? Would Fox network be neurtral? Probably not. As a private corporation they can take whatever stand they want on any issue they want. Their leadership determines the company stand. If anyone is upset by their decision they do not have to do business with Yahoo. Use Google, Netscape, MSN or one of the other browsers.

Answer 3

You claim to be a Democrat, but favor Bush policies over Clinton's and oppose Democrat policies? Hmmm.

Although Independents account for a large number of voters, there are more Democrats than Republicans, so their larger number in a poll is not evidence of a Liberal bias in the news.


The Harris Poll. Based on nationwide surveys of adults, conducted over the course of each calendar year.
"Regardless of how you may vote, what do you usually consider yourself: a Republican, a Democrat, an independent, or some other party?"

Year Rep% Dem% Ind%
2006 27 36 24
2005 30 36 22
2004 31 34 24

Answer 4

I'm not sure whether Yahoo is liberal or not. Your own personal economic situation, while important to you, does not necessarily reflect the national situation. Many middle class Americans, including friends of mine, have been affected by the zig zags of the American economy, where the rich get much richer, those on the lower rungs of the American economy see the sort of jobs they used to occupy shipped overseas, while the middle class are pressed between them.
You sound like someone with good health coverage, and it is understandable that you don't want to give up the benefits and freedom it provides. While I am in the same situation as you, I know that there are millions of other people who have no health coverage and that many older Americans who sometimes have to decide between buying prescription and purchasing food.

Answer 5

Freedom of health coverage should not be pointing only as "liberal", this is a concept that prevail only in the US, since health care is present in every single advanced countries except the United States and South Africa. I am pro-life, pro free business and for lots of things that would not categorize me as Liberal if I lived in the US.

I am Canadian and my socialized health care is perfectly fine, just as much as our socialized cops, socialized roads, socialized firemen, socialized parks and socialized post service. Of course we pay more tax, but never our system looks who they can ditch out to save a few bucks. I don't thrust my prime minister either to decide what's good for my health, If any politicians were to put a committee to decide whether my health cost would be acceptable or not on the basis of cost, they would lose their election big time. Our government here distribute a portion of the taxes to assure us an excellent health system, they have nothing else to do then distribute the money. Lazy people not wanting to work might get free healthcare, but most of them use it very little, since they are TOO LAZY to respect a date and a time and move their azz to go see a doctor unless really necessary. The stats also don't lie, check out the life expectancy, it show we live 3 more years on average in Canada then you. Are you learning anything at your schools, that teach you that socio-capitalism has NOTHING to do with COMMUNISM ??? In Canada, WE, the PEOPLE, still stand. If my government don't WORK FOR ME, I and my fellow citizens will show them the exit. Our leaders are not getting corrupted by lobbyists of pharmaceutic manufacturers, and we don't pay TWICE the price on medicine, like it is actually happening in the USA.

Answer 6

"Everyone who seeks medical attention cannot be refused."

This is an over-simplification. Privately funded hospitals (where the better doctors tend to be) can turn you away because you have no medical insurance. State-funded facilities are overcrowded and provide substandard care, and you're right - taxpayers get to pay for it, but only if the person is on welfare. For someone who IS employed, but by an employer which does not offer insurance to its employees, the cost is often eaten by the medical providers, which sends the costs of medical procedures for the rest of us through the roof.

That's why health insurance costs so much and that's why medical procedures and doctor visits are so expensive. (I'm not talking about your co-pay, here, I'm talking about what it actually COSTS when you go to see your doctor.)

There is no perfect universal healthcare system, but I would imagine that those in government who are in favor of implementing one are aware of the issues faced in other countries which have universal health insurance. And you disregard the fact that America has the best doctors on the planet, and the MOST doctors on the planet. The problems that occur in other countries are less likely to happen here.

Answer 7

In the past couple weeks I have had several questions censored by Yahoo. These were legitimate questions, no cursing, no name calling, nothing! Since I have identified myself several times as a conservative Republican I can only conclude that Yahoo is chocked full of liberals who cannot stand a conservative viewpoint and must censor them.
Yahoo is fast becoming a joke!
Is Yahoo liberal? Damn straight they are!

I hope you get to read this before the fascists at Yahoo censor it. In fact I hope you can award best answer to someone before they censor your question entirely.

Answer 8

It sounds like you are asking, "why are they biased in their reporting of the news?"

They should give both sides of an issue, but often a reporter won't, either because of lack of time, lack of research, or possibly an editorial order or change that requires them to take a certain view. Also many times nowadays, articles that seem like news are actually just commentary rather than a real news article.

Answer 9

Liberals refuse to accept anyone who disagrees. They still think that LBJ's welfare state never destroyed poor neighborhoods, and believe we need to increase these programs that pay unwed mothers to have as many children as possible. Take a look at NY State. The programs increase exponentially per child as long as the father is not in the household. Big surprise that we have a 25% poverty rate, some of the lowest test scores in the country, and Elliott Spitzer's plan to increase social services. The guy is a millionaire, and he has no clue why the highest taxes in the country are driving away jobs.

Answer 10

I'm against "socialized" anything. One of the things that made this country great was the opportunities available to everyone. I worked my way through school, started my own business, and have done well - with no governmant help. Now, I'm supposed to pay for those that sat on barstools or got stoned all day? I pay for my own health insurance - is that fair? I say it is. When you start handing out lives, people get lazy and expect it. Bad way to go IMHO.