It may be time for much greater changes than simply transforming health care. We may be looking at a political and social climate that requires a sea-change in our entire society.
The New York Times, one of the last several bastions of democratic free speech, honesty and truth has capitulated to the endless badgering of the Right Wing. They felt that it was important to enlist the help of William Kristol, who gave us the Iraq War as his solution to international diplomacy and now they give us Ross Douthat and of course, David Brooks, with his annoying flea-bites at the progressive agenda.
More importantly, however, they have gone from a truth-seeking newspaper to a more typical, early 21st Century, “he said, she said, he said” facsimile of the New York Times. For example, normally reliable Robert Pear criticized the President’s comment that the American Medical Association had signed on with the President’s plan. Pear and Peter Baker felt it important to mention that several state societies, we don’t know which–could have been Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina–are not on board. Notwithstanding the fact that getting the AMA on board is monumental, they did not mention that the nearly 300,000 members of AAFP, the family practice doctors, and all the osteopaths in the country are on board. As is the Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic. And the American Nurses Association. And on and on. But Pear and Baker apparently appeased their critics, people like Eric Kantor, the little weasel who is trying to wring as much campaign money as he possibly can from America’s Health Insurance Plans before this bonanza has passed. Kantor wants to get his hands on more of that acknowledged $1.5 million per day being spent by the health insurance lobby to defeat access to health care for all Americans.
The Baker Pear said that the American Hospital Association is not supporting it. They told us that. We weren’t sure. And let’s hope that they let us know that North Korea won’t be sending flowers to Michelle on her birthday. We are not sure about many of the hospital chain CEOs apparently. But we know that one, Rick Scott, who ran a hospital chain that cheated the government out of so much money that his firm paid a $1.7 billion, with a B, fine (probably to stay out of jail) is again in the business of trying to cheat the public out of something. He is running television commercials and 30-minute advertorials trying to defeat the public’s access to health care and apparently, therefore, to his current scam, a chain of clinics. Yes, Mr. Pear and Mr. Baker, we were all breathlessly awaiting the endorsement of the American Hospital Association. (How long, I wonder, will we Liberals be endorsing a newspaper that really doesn’t give us accurate context? Hmmm…)
Pear and Baker “report” that “Hospitals say…” that this group of Medical experts that will guide more efficient procedures may induce cuts that would reduce coverage in rural areas and a some university medical facilities. Oh yes, “Hospitals say…” do they. Good reporting, boys. We understand. You hope that people have not actually read the bill which as a gesture to Senator Grassely and others–and because it is right to do so–will increase emphasis on availability of medical services to rural areas, in combination with greater access to on-line participation of worldwide consultation with specialists. Good thinking by the Baker-Pear boys. Maybe they were actually trying to protect us from the bad guys, in case they had not yet read the other part about the involvement of best practices (ah, probably from people like those on the advisory group) that would reward those university medical centers with good practices and force those with wasteful practices to change. It was nice “he said, she said” reporting though.
Thank God Mr. Pear and Mr. Baker were able, through skillful and deft manipulation of their subject, to wring from the press spokesperson from America’s Health Insurance Plans lobbying group, between handing out thousand dollar bills to Congressional aides, the “hard fact” that of every dollar a health insurance company takes in it only makes a penny. Something like that. Well, let’s see….Aetna’s bottom line might have looked a little better in 2007 had they not incurred one big hit. It cost them $23,045,834.00 for just one man, the CEO Ronald Williams. Now, to be fair, Ronald Williams, for some reason, is…this is a surprise…against a public option in health care. But of course, how would Mr. Pear and Mr. Baker have known that unless they could have done the math: 2 + 2 = 4!
Perhaps the profits at Cigna, too, might have improved in 2007 if they had not spent $25,839,777.00 on CEO H. Edward Hanway. Or, say, Coventry, Dale B. Wolf: $14,869,823; United Health Group, Stephen J. Hemsley: $13,164,529; Humana, Michael McCallister: $10,312,557; Wellpoint, Angela Braly: $9,094,271.
But what about 2008, or are these big numbers too confusing? In 2008, Mr. Williams of Aetna made $24,300,112.00. So, let’s see, over 2 years Mr. Williams earned $47,345,946.00.
Now, to be fair, 2008, as you can see from Mr. Williams pay was not as lucrative as 2007. Mr. Hanway’s pay fell by about thirteen million, but his company tanked. He tanked too, but only to about $12 million. Ms Braly’s income went up, but only by approximately $800,000. Anyway, good work by Mr. Pear and Mr. Baker giving us those devastating profit numbers of only about 1% for the health insurance industry that they read so carefully from the press release by AHIP.
So engrossed were Mr. Pear and Mr. Baker in their reading of the AHIP news releases, searching, searching for the truth, that they may have missed this little item from Health Care Finance News, a trade journal of neither the prestige nor potential for advertising revenue from health insurance companies as the New York Times:
“The total 2009 medical bill for a typical American family of four is $16,771, compared with the 2008 figure of $15,609. The $1,162 increase is the highest measured by the MMI since the 2006 increase of $1,168, when cost trends were at 9.6 percent.
The MMI found that employers are expected to pay $9,9947, or 5.4 percent more than in 2008, while employees are expected to contribute $4,004 toward their health costs, an increase of 14.7 percent, and pay $2,820 in out-of-pocket expenses, an increase of 5.4 percent.”
You know, the more we see of the Times these days, the more it seems they need to adopt the motto of my one-time employer: “All the News That Fits.” Fold, spindle, mutilate…just jam it in there somehow.
First of all, the NYT isn’t fit to line my birdcage.
Far from being a “bastion of democratic free speech, honesty and truth,” they’ve been a champion of Obama since he emerged as a viable candidate. They even admitted (after the fact) to suppressing stories that made him look bad right before the election because they didn’t want to hurt his chances of winning.
Even if you’re the most fervent Obama supporter, step back for a moment and consider the ethical implications of a supposedly neutral publication quietly backing a presidential candidate. If one is to criticize FOX for allegedly backing Bush, then one must be equally critical of liberal outlets that back Obama. The NYT has about as much credibility these days as the NYP.
Second, I think you should fact-check a few of your statements. For example, the Mayo Clinic is NOT on board. On their blog, they praised the “positive provisions…including insurance for all and payment reform demonstration projects – the proposed legislation misses the opportunity to help create higher-quality, more affordable health care for patients. In fact, it will do the opposite.”
Not only that, but now over half the country DOES NOT WANT this health care bill, at least in its current form. Look at the polls. The president’s speech last night actually had the effect of diminishing support for this initiative. The more people learn about it, the less they want it.
So really, who cares what the NYT is saying about health care reform? They’ve lost all credibility anyhow. And get off your damn high horse; the majority doesn’t want this bill to pass as it is, so quit your whining.
Several points. Newspapers back candidates all the time. It is standard procedure. Second, Fox is a propaganda organization, not a news organization. It is run by the former head of the Republican Party, and an unrepentant Right Wing propagandist. The head of Mayo Clinic last night on Charlie Rose, Dr. Cortes (sp) apparently hadn’t heard the news from you that they were not supporting a health care plan. They most certainly are supporting all the objectives the President wants in a plan. In the most recent poll we’ve seen, 76% of the American people say that they want health care reform, in fact one that involves a public option. There is not one, but there are three bills working their way through the House and Senate right now. Despite the health care lobby’s $1.5 million per day efforts, a bill will pass. People will have lower health care costs, health care insurance will be transferable, preconditions will not prevent applicants from getting reasonably priced healthcare or cause people to lose healthcare…and prescription drug costs will be much lower. The AMA stranglehold on medical education will be over. We will have more family physicians. Those things will happen for certain.–Editors
If a newspaper is going to back a candidate, it can not also claim to be politically neutral. That something is “standard practice” does not make it okay, and killing stories that are potentially damaging to a favored candidate is not responsible reporting – especially when said stories suggest the candidate has engaged in criminal behavior.
For example, if Fox (or any other network) tried to bury a story about some illegal activity in which Bush had engaged because they didn’t want to hurt his approval ratings, would you support that? Or would you call them a “propaganda organization?”
That said, if you’re going to go trash Fox for being biased, then you must also criticize outlets like the NYT, Huffington Post, ABC, MSNBC, etc, that have attempted to bury politically sensitive stories about Obama. You can’t have one rule for liberals and a different rule for conservatives.
I did not make up the story about the Mayo Clinic’s disapproval of the Obama plan; that came directly from their website. Here is a link: http://bit.ly/91f4w
Dr. Cortes may not personally disapprove of the current plan, but the Mayo Clinic personnel in charge of reviewing US health care policy sure think it’s a bad idea. Perhaps Dr. Cortes has not yet had a chance to review the specifics of this plan with his people? Maybe it would change his mind if he did.
To clarify your 76% statistic for anyone who may be reading: wanting health care reform is not the same as wanting a public option. This stat simply says that 76% of the population thinks SOMETHING should be done; a minority feel that something should be a public option, but others, like myself, feel what is necessary is deregulation, legislative reform and possibly tort reform.
For example, why not let people buy policies across state lines and let states compete in terms of the mandates which they’ll require for policies sold by insurers in their states? So someone from California could buy a policy in Idaho at half the cost because it doesn’t have mandatory coverage for in vitro fertilization and hair plugs. That would make coverage more affordable, maintain a free market, and prevent huge tax increases.
There are many ways to reduce health care costs, and universal health care is not necessarily the best choice for America.
Finally, I have yet to see a conclusive study or set of studies that support any of the claims you make about this proposed system. Would you please link them so I can educate myself? Thanks.
Hello,
Thank you! I would now go on this blog every day!
Thank you
Whether anyone likes or does not like the standard practice of newspapers coming out for a specific candidate, it happens all the time, everywhere by most newspapers. There is a constant comment about “killing stories” about Obama, but we don’t know which stories or if there are stories or what kinds of stories (that he is not a citizen? Are we in UFO territory in this discussion?) I guess the question is: what stories were buried and where is the evidence. That is, of course, not simply made-up stories but real, factual information.
Yes, Fox does bury stories because you can see them on all the other media, and yes, they are purely and simply a propganda arm of the Republican Party. Very few people would deny that who watch them for ten minutes. Good examples, would be their continuing coverage of an Iraq-Al Queada connection long after it had been disproved, their silence on wiretapping of American citizens, and others, many, many others. They are a bunch of Right Wing hacks.
After the President met with the head of Mayo, their attitude changed, because as he said, the idea of the MedPAC people being given authority would put best practices on the table. I am still not clear why it is of no value to have the endorsement of the AMA, the national nurses association, the roughly 20,000 physicians in PNHP, the roughly 300,000 members of the family physicians and the osteopaths, and yet–even if you were up-to-date on Mayo, you only select them? The President went to the Cleveland Clinic to show support for their practices which are similar to Mayo. So, if you are really being objective, rather than simply trying to defeat a system that people do want, no matter what you and the health insurance industry say, then you have to see that the President and these two progressive organizations are on the same page.
I am not sure that “others like myself” constitutes and change in the statistics. A comment on tort reform tells me that you do not really know the economics of this situation. Tort reform is a red herring, now mostly discarded except by people like Charles Krauthammer who continually believes that he can write anything he wants and people are too lazy to look up the references. The fact is that tort reform would involve less that 1%–and that is being generous–of medical costs. In Texas where there has been a ballyhoo about a bunch of conservatives who achieved tort reform, the costs had already gone down, and had never really increased to a point of being a problem. You seem to want references so, to get up to speed, try the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation study “Understanding Medical Malpractice Insurance: A Primer.” Go from that to probably even better authority the annual reports of the association of state insurance commissioners. This is not complicated. It is heavily demogogued but in a court of law it would be dismissed.
Finally, no one seriously talks about the costs of hair plugs and in vitro fertilization as being factors in health care reform. Whoever told you that may be the same person who thinks that there are “buried” stories about the President or the one who thinks that Fox is a real news organization.
This is the specific story I was talking about: http://bit.ly/3O01Qh If you use Google, you can find many more instances. I don’t recall questioning anyone’s citizenship status or the existence of UFOs. I made that statement about the Times based on “real, factual information.”
As for the “standard procedure,” I reiterate that just because everyone’s doing it does NOT make it okay. Enron made a standard procedure of estimating future gains and including them on a current balance sheet. Home loan officers made predatory lending “standard procedure.” Look how all that turned out.
No one here is denying that Fox acts as a Republican propaganda arm. What is at issue is that the Democrats have their propaganda arms as well – the NYT included. You don’t seem to grasp the concept that if Fox is to be held in contempt for its biases, so too must the Democratic propaganda outlets like the Times. I reiterate, you can’t have one rule for liberals and a different rule for conservatives.
You may have noticed I used the qualifier “possibly” in reference to tort reform. That alone should have indicated to you that I do not think it’s a serious concern at this time. And I think you also failed (or didn’t want) to understand what I said about letting people buy policies across state lines. Hair plugs and in vitro fertilization were not the crux of the argument, they were an example. If you want to attack that idea, you need to address how letting states “compete in terms of the mandates which they’ll require for policies sold by insurers in their states” will NOT reduce health insurance costs.
Furthermore, ad hominem attacks on my supposed level of intelligence or education, or other sundry attempts to discredit my character are not valid counterpoints to any of what I said. Please respond with logic and not personal attacks; it is unbecoming of a progressive.
Finally, I do not see any links supporting any of the things you have said. I provided links to the Mayo Blog, a credible account of the NYT burying a politically sensitive story about Obama to support his election, and I am posting a link to a recent Rasmussen poll showing declining support for the bill http://bit.ly/BPbWZ (53% are AT LEAST somewhat OPPOSED to the bill; that’s a majority of Americans who don’t want it).
Please post a link to *objective* evidence that there is overwhelming support for this bill among the American people, and *objective* evidence that people with private coverage today will get the same quality treatment at a lower cost under this plan.